Mitt wont fill out GOA survey. GOA Alert

[tsafa]

that's essentially what I think too. this is perfectly clear when, for example, the anti-war democrats were so opposed to war when Bush was in office, but now that their guy is in office, they're not so anti-war anymore.

That is a perfect example. If Romney gets into office, you will see Republicans negotiate the whole Second Amendment away.

[press1280]

I can't vote for Mitt. Not when he supported the Gun Ban.

At least with Obama I can count on the Republicans stopping every piece of legislation they can. With Mitt in office, there is no stopping his anti-gun agenda.

Its important that we send a strong message to Republicans that if they are not strongly Pro-Gun rights, we do not accept them.

The Republicans NEED to nominate a strong pro-gun rights candidate. Mitt is not it.

I don't think Romney is really interested in doing any kind of gun bans. He's simply your chameleon politician, reflecting the office and place he's currently serving.As Mass governor, he's anti-gun. As prez, he's just going with whatever's more popular at that point.
No one can seriously say Obama would be better than Romney. Remember judicial appointments last much longer than anything else the president does.

[IronSight]

I don't think Romney is really interested in doing any kind of gun bans. He's simply your chameleon politician, reflecting the office and place he's currently serving.As Mass governor, he's anti-gun. As prez, he's just going with whatever's more popular at that point.
No one can seriously say Obama would be better than Romney. Remember judicial appointments last much longer than anything else the president does.

Romney's Judicial appointments would receive less scrutiny than Obama's, and studies of supreme court appointments reveal that presidents normally appoint judges that rule in line with their beliefs.

How can we know that his appointments would be good for second-amendment causes when his most significant work on the issue has been anti-gun? If anything it hints that his appointments would be dangerous, just like Obama's. With less scrutiny over his appointments his political expediency could rush through someone worse on the issue than Sotomayor.

[c45man]

Romney's Judicial appointments would receive less scrutiny than Obama's, and studies of supreme court appointments reveal that presidents normally appoint judges that rule in line with their beliefs.

How can we know that his appointments would be good for second-amendment causes when his most significant work on the issue has been anti-gun? If anything it hints that his appointments would be dangerous, just like Obama's. With less scrutiny over his appointments his political expediency could rush through someone worse on the issue than Sotomayor.

In my opinion, Romney supreme court nominees would be scrutinized by a republican controlled senate, and a judicial activist will be less likely appointed by romney than obama. I also believe that no matter who wins the presidency, the democrats will lose control of the senate. There are twice as many democrats that have to defend their senate seats as republicans. The republicans pick up 3 seats and that idiot harry reid will be out as senate majority leader.

Getting back to the supreme court nomination, Romney will not want to get embarrased by his own party by picking an obama style justice that thinks it less important to interpret the constitution than wanting to change the law of the land without going through the proper procedure. There will be enough pro-gun senators to make political life very unconfortable for a republican president that appoints a justice that thinks the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual right.

If obama gets a second term, pray that none of the constructionist justices are unable to continue with their tenure. If that is the case, an activist like obama's other choices will be appointed and be the deciding vote to overturn both Mc Donald and Heller will be in place. If such a scenario comes to fruition and such development doesn't cause civil unrest throughout the country, I don't know what would. In the end, no matter who gets to be president in '12, will be decided by the 70 million gun owners, many of which voted for the arrogant occupier of the white house that we have been stuck with over the last four years.

[IronSight]

In my opinion, Romney supreme court nominees would be scrutinized by a republican controlled senate, and a judicial activist will be less likely appointed by romney than obama. I also believe that no matter who wins the presidency, the democrats will lose control of the senate. There are twice as many democrats that have to defend their senate seats as republicans. The republicans pick up 3 seats and that idiot harry reid will be out as senate majority leader.

Getting back to the supreme court nomination, Romney will not want to get embarrased by his own party by picking an obama style justice that thinks it less important to interpret the constitution than wanting to change the law of the land without going through the proper procedure. There will be enough pro-gun senators to make political life very unconfortable for a republican president that appoints a justice that thinks the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual right.

If obama gets a second term, pray that none of the constructionist justices are unable to continue with their tenure. If that is the case, an activist like obama's other choices will be appointed and be the deciding vote to overturn both Mc Donald and Heller will be in place. If such a scenario comes to fruition and such development doesn't cause civil unrest throughout the country, I don't know what would. In the end, no matter who gets to be president in '12, will be decided by the 70 million gun owners, many of which voted for the arrogant occupier of the white house that we have been stuck with over the last four years.

I'm curious, how do you know what Romney will want to do?

His record is anti-gun, his responses to questions show that despite his flip-flopping he actually believes in gun bans in the name of public safety, despite the lack of any proof of such assertion.

Quotes from him sound exactly like quotes that have come from the likes of the Brady Campaign and CeaseFirePA. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro...ond_Amendment/

It's practically the only issue he's anywhere near consistent on.

Mitt Romney:
...
So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.

Stephanopoulos: This gets to, I think, the core question.

You've had changes on many issues, many different kinds of issues.

Mitt Romney: Well, certainly not that one.

Nothing in his record shows a capacity to appoint so-called 'constructionist judges', his record actually shows a history of doing exactly the opposite.

I think your faith in our republican senators is dangerously misguided. I'll gladly bet any day that they'll give stronger opposition to a democratic anti-gun appointee than they ever will to another republican's.

[c45man]

I stated my opinion iron, although your points are valid. So, it could very well be that 70 million firearms owners may not have a meaningful choice come election day? If even a majority of firearm owners became 2nd amendment voters, neither party would have an anti-gun presidential nominee. This situation that we find ourselves in is only the fault of the firearm owners that put the second amendment on the secondary list of considerations for a candidate.

All the pro-gun forums and orgaizations and talk really won't mean anything if it turns out to be a romney/obama runoff?

By the way, a constructionist on the supreme court is one that intreprets the constitution the way it was written and intended. There is many documents written by the signers that clearly indicate the intention of each one of the bill of rights, including the second amendment. With your meaningfull, but dismal outlook, it will only be a matter of time that heller and mcdonald gets overturned, if not by an obama appointee, a romney selection to the supreme court? Just wondering.

[phillyd2]

So, if he did sign would any really change their mind and vote for him?

[IronSight]

I stated my opinion iron, although your points are valid. So, it could very well be that 70 million firearms owners may not have a meaningful choice come election day? If even a majority of firearm owners became 2nd amendment voters, neither party would have an anti-gun presidential nominee. This situation that we find ourselves in is only the fault of the firearm owners that put the second amendment on the secondary list of considerations for a candidate.

All the pro-gun forums and orgaizations and talk really won't mean anything if it turns out to be a romney/obama runoff?

By the way, a constructionist on the supreme court is one that intreprets the constitution the way it was written and intended. There is many documents written by the signers that clearly indicate the intention of each one of the bill of rights, including the second amendment. With your meaningfull, but dismal outlook, it will only be a matter of time that heller and mcdonald gets overturned, if not by an obama appointee, a romney selection to the supreme court? Just wondering.

Well there's always a danger of those decisions getting overturned whether Romney or Obama gets the next nominee on the court.

I'd personally stick with the guy in office, whose position on this and other issues is clear than a serial flip-flopper who's consistently anti-gun but wants us to think it is okay because he goes hunting every once in a while.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have the gift of foresight so for all I know Romney could appoint one of the best constructionist judges of all time, but I just don't see that happening given his record.