Well, friggin’ DUH. I knew that much, you bonehead.
“If we are going to safeguard our 2nd Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes. I will.” - The latest in a long stream of RINO’s, Mitt Romney
Just what we need – a leader to tell us that ducks like water, that rain is wet, unrefrigerated mayonnaise is bad, and that rabid skunks don’t make good pets.
Tell me something I don’t know, like what YOU will do to ensure that states are controlled by the federal government in only one way when it comes to guns: That the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed at any level. Saying “He won’t, I will” tells me nothing. As a governor who championed health care after being elected in a liberal state, he doesn’t gain unconditional and total acceptance from me without demonstrating a commitment and telling me of a solution that he might have in this area. I’m not fond of gun regulations that only hinder law-abiding citizens and put them at risk if they defend themselves.
Really, though, my disgust is irrelevant. It’s not like I have any choice – because primaries are not done all in one day the first states out of the gate pretty much decide what oversized, patched, mismatched, gaudy-colored hand-me-down candidates I get to choose from. So my choice is now Romney or Obama. That’s not a choice.
Even that was an illusion of choice. It wouldn’t matter who won the nod from the republicans (besides Paul), the vote is not really FOR a candidate, it is AGAINST Obama. Plain and simple, Ron Paul’s approach would be draconian and mess things up by trying do eliminate too much at once.
Let me ask you this… Would THIS happen if everyone had guns with which to defend themselves?