Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April 14th, 2012

Romney is appealing to my pro-gun nature by telling me what Obama is going to do to my gun rights if he gets re-elected.

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?

Read Full Post »