As a Massachusetts resident, I’m inclined to let everyone know that my Sig 556 Swat has a pinned compensator and deactivated stock thanks to the most likely GOP candidate. Unless Ron Paul pulls out a miracle (in which case I’ll move to NH early to vote for him) I’m voting Libertarian again.
Romney as president would be bad for gun ownership in general. I hope that Paul somehow gets to be the Republican candidate because if not, he’s going to run Libertarian, which splits those that would vote against BHO in two, and that does more damage than good. We need one good strong opponent for Barry, or we’ll be seeing him in the Oval Office for another 4, probably with a renewed disdain for the laws in the Constitution.. and Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul isn’t going to win the nomination, because the big money interests don’t want him to.
Ron Paul? I’d prefer to vote for someone who wasn’t around for the birth of our nation — or the birth of our galaxy. The guy’s older than Jupiter.
I’m sorry, but it matters. Ron Paul is just too damn old to be President.
How old are you, again, Ralph?
Well, it would matter, if he had a chance, but Zombie Lincoln has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination.
Blinky Pete, you got Romney’s number. But the thing is, Mitt is an unprincipled opportunist who will go the way the wind blows, and right now the wind is at our back. Obama is a true believer who will deal with guns “under the radar” if that’s what it takes. I’d rather have the snake that I can control in the Oval Office.
If he wins I’d be mighty cautious if and when the wind blows in the other direction come 2014… with a democratically controlled House and Senate there’s no telling what rights Mitt would trade away to get what he wants done.
Agree. Mitt is not real trustworthy either.
I’m not sure Obama is a true believer in much of anything. He’s certainly completely disappointed those of us on the left at every opportunity – this guy makes Eisenhower look like Mao. But, taking your view as a hypothetical, 2A people might still be better off with Obama than Romney (and let’s put aside any pretense that the Republican establishment will allow anyone else to be nominated). Any vaguely anti-gun thing Obama does or even mentions will be met with total hysteria, which will motivate those vapid creatures who inhabit Congress to act. Romney will cause a large segment of the vaguely pro-gun proletariat to switch back to ESPN. Hell, the guy is a walking tranquilizer.
Shouldn’t looking after gun owners’ rights, no matter who is president, be their number one priority? Just sayin’.
This.
Looking after gun owner’s rights is made much more difficult with Obama as POTUS.
Thank you! I am so sick of the alarmist, speculative political BS the NRA pushes now.
The emails the NRA sends me seem like they are just forwarded rumor emails they got in their inbox yesterday, like what my grandfather does. I autospamfilter all NRA emails now. They are pandering to the far right while alienating their politically moderate base. WTF.
I don’t see any Republican or independent candidate having the numbers to unseat Obama. Not unless the Republicans want to run a sane person for the GOP nomination. The current crop of mentally deficient republicans makes me want to update my travel Visa and start looking for work in other countries.
Yeah, that’s the ticket, man. You should try Yemen.
I love how you come here to spill your rabble but moderate the logic out of your own silly one sided blog. FYI – the murder rate in Switzerland has dipped and remained stagnant at below 1 per 100,000, among the lowest in the world. You can wax pedantic all you want about the horrors of gun violence, and I agree that every murder is one too many, but laws against guns isn’t going to stop murder any more than laws against condoms is going to stop rape.
I have thought Switzerland, but my industry has far more opportunities available in Norway. But the murder rate is similar, the healthcare is cheap and your allowed to own some firearms. Given the opportunity it beats California hands down.
Norway has some strange regulations as well… expect to go through a rigorous proof period before acquiring any firearms.
From the man who, when the going got rough, got going.
?
To Rome, I think.
Reducing the size of the Federal Government by at least 50% would be mine… toss the ATF in the 50% we’re mothballing and you’ve got your wish 🙂
Mothballing is the wrong term — it implies that we might want to bring it back at some point.
Making Obama a one-term president is one wild pipe dream.
Don’t be so fatuous Mikeb302000. General election polls mean nothing before Labor Day. And a lot can happen between then and now.
And to be perfectly honest, the only poll that counts happens on Nov. 6.
It really depends on two things: 1) how much the economy still blows in November and 2) how much of a ‘tard the Republican challenger is going to be. The answer to #1 looks to be “a lot” and we’re waiting to see on #2. If it’s anything other than “complete ‘tard”, the Republicans have a decent shot.
What? With the economy in the crapper throughout his tenure it’s a historical anomaly that he isn’t already buried in the polls. The 2012 election by all rights ought to be the Republicans’ to lose, it’s just that so far they seem hell-bent on doing just that.
Just give ’em time. They got rid of that nutcase from my state the other day.
Yeah, Barry dreams of being president another 4/
“Making Obama a one-term president is one wild pipe dream.”
And so is reducing the deficit under the current spend happy administration.
If you’re right, then we’re screwed.
If you’re wrong, then we’ll expect a retraction to that statement the day after election day.
Because the MikeBot is so quick to admit when he’s wrong…
Pipe dream?
pipe dream
noun
any fantastic notion, hope, or story
Yep. It sure would be fantastic for BHO to be a one-termer. But I’ll bet a donut that you meant we’re all just dreaming and that there is no chance the imcumbent President can lose the general election.
Hmm… Let’s look at facts instead of conjecture.
In the 43 Presidents who preceded BHO, 20 were elected to a second term.
Not all served a complete 1st term. Truman, Teddy Roosevelt and Coolidge assumed the office from predecessor. Each was elected for a second term but Truman and TR lost their bid for a possible third term while Coolidge did not run.
Not all served a complete 2nd term. Nixon, McKinley, and Lincoln did not complete their second terms; but this is not congruent to anything.
So, 20 incumbent presidents were elected for another term (this includes Cleveland who lost as the actual imcumbent). Another 12 were elgible and either lost the general election, did not attain their party’s nomination or in chose not to run. Throw in Coolidge, Trumand and TR and that’s 20 versus 15. The math on that is that the incumbent has a 57% chance to win to a 43% chance of being replaced.
That’s not pipe dreams. That’s realistic numbers.
Crap. I left out Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Fillmore and Ford. That changes the numbers to 20 -20.
A 50-50 chance historically.
Viewing it from a cold analytical standpoint, Romney has a shot. This is going to wind like the the 2004 elections where no one really voted for either candidate, they just voted against the other guy. It’s likely going to come down to how the country is doing as a whole two months before the election.
Any interest group that weds itself to one political party does itself a disfavor. Blacks to Democrats, or NRA to GOP. It’s like offering a car for sale in the paper for “$1,000 or best offer.”
+1
I haven’t seen a good republican candidate yet. I did like Ron Paul until I read some of the wacky bullshit in his newsletters from the 90’s, now I think he is crazy.
Saner than Bachmann. Not a RINO like Romney. MUCH better on gun rights than Gingrich.
Whoever gets the Republican nomination needs to take full advantage of the plethora of disgraceful acts the DOJ and the administration in general have perpetrated on the American people. There’s a virtual goldmine there.
I don’t think Obama is going to carry as many States as he did the last time. Republicans may have a chance. Republicans may take more House and Sentate Seats.
This.
In the 2008, my commonwealth swung Obama’s way; In 2010, it swung FAR in the opposite direction. In MY area, not a single democrat won an election in the November 2010 election.
Out here in the Mid West, I just do not think he is going to carry well. He really did not carry by a very large margin in a lot of Mid West States the last election. I can see Obama carrying the Left Coasts, but not the middle of the nation.
IF it were up to the big O, being the King of America would be a lifetime position.
This gets to the core of my beef with the NRA. It has become a totally partisan organization. I’m not saying they shouldn’t endorse candidates, but to come out at this early stage and say that defeating Obama is their number one priority is just stupid politics. Also, they dump on Dems with excellent voting records on guns (Peter DeFazio, for instance), while giving Rebups an occasional pass. In a game where it’s all about fund raising, a lot of Dems who might be persuaded by the pr0-gun argument figure that they’re going to get hammered by the NRA anyway, so why bother? Likewise, a lot of voters who could be persuaded that guns aren’t all bad are turned off by the hard-right bombast of the NRA.
I liked the organization that developed my summer camp gun safety curriculum, but today’s NRA is all about money and right-wing politics.
The problem with this election is that we don’t want Obama to win, but he could. We don’t really want Romney to win, but he could. We’d love Ron Paul, but it just isn’t going to happen. He’d make a great addition to a Romney cabinet or something though. Bachman, Perry, and Palin were finished before they started due to insufficient IQs, and Gingrich is so crazy not even he knows what he’s talking about. I agree with Ralph except for the ‘unprincipled’ part. I think Romney has principles, I just think like so many LDS (mormons) he confuses our non-violent beliefs with being anti-gun. I’m a non-violent guy myself. I’m against violence. Especially if it’s against me or my family, so I’ll do whatever I have to to stop it.
As a Massachusetts resident, I’m inclined to let everyone know that my Sig 556 Swat has a pinned compensator and deactivated stock thanks to the most likely GOP candidate. Unless Ron Paul pulls out a miracle (in which case I’ll move to NH early to vote for him) I’m voting Libertarian again.
Romney as president would be bad for gun ownership in general. I hope that Paul somehow gets to be the Republican candidate because if not, he’s going to run Libertarian, which splits those that would vote against BHO in two, and that does more damage than good. We need one good strong opponent for Barry, or we’ll be seeing him in the Oval Office for another 4, probably with a renewed disdain for the laws in the Constitution.. and Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul isn’t going to win the nomination, because the big money interests don’t want him to.
Ron Paul? I’d prefer to vote for someone who wasn’t around for the birth of our nation — or the birth of our galaxy. The guy’s older than Jupiter.
I’m sorry, but it matters. Ron Paul is just too damn old to be President.
How old are you, again, Ralph?
Well, it would matter, if he had a chance, but Zombie Lincoln has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination.
Blinky Pete, you got Romney’s number. But the thing is, Mitt is an unprincipled opportunist who will go the way the wind blows, and right now the wind is at our back. Obama is a true believer who will deal with guns “under the radar” if that’s what it takes. I’d rather have the snake that I can control in the Oval Office.
If he wins I’d be mighty cautious if and when the wind blows in the other direction come 2014… with a democratically controlled House and Senate there’s no telling what rights Mitt would trade away to get what he wants done.
Agree. Mitt is not real trustworthy either.
I’m not sure Obama is a true believer in much of anything. He’s certainly completely disappointed those of us on the left at every opportunity – this guy makes Eisenhower look like Mao. But, taking your view as a hypothetical, 2A people might still be better off with Obama than Romney (and let’s put aside any pretense that the Republican establishment will allow anyone else to be nominated). Any vaguely anti-gun thing Obama does or even mentions will be met with total hysteria, which will motivate those vapid creatures who inhabit Congress to act. Romney will cause a large segment of the vaguely pro-gun proletariat to switch back to ESPN. Hell, the guy is a walking tranquilizer.
Shouldn’t looking after gun owners’ rights, no matter who is president, be their number one priority? Just sayin’.
This.
Looking after gun owner’s rights is made much more difficult with Obama as POTUS.
Thank you! I am so sick of the alarmist, speculative political BS the NRA pushes now.
The emails the NRA sends me seem like they are just forwarded rumor emails they got in their inbox yesterday, like what my grandfather does. I autospamfilter all NRA emails now. They are pandering to the far right while alienating their politically moderate base. WTF.
I don’t see any Republican or independent candidate having the numbers to unseat Obama. Not unless the Republicans want to run a sane person for the GOP nomination. The current crop of mentally deficient republicans makes me want to update my travel Visa and start looking for work in other countries.
Yeah, that’s the ticket, man. You should try Yemen.
I love how you come here to spill your rabble but moderate the logic out of your own silly one sided blog. FYI – the murder rate in Switzerland has dipped and remained stagnant at below 1 per 100,000, among the lowest in the world. You can wax pedantic all you want about the horrors of gun violence, and I agree that every murder is one too many, but laws against guns isn’t going to stop murder any more than laws against condoms is going to stop rape.
I have thought Switzerland, but my industry has far more opportunities available in Norway. But the murder rate is similar, the healthcare is cheap and your allowed to own some firearms. Given the opportunity it beats California hands down.
Norway has some strange regulations as well… expect to go through a rigorous proof period before acquiring any firearms.
From the man who, when the going got rough, got going.
?
To Rome, I think.
Reducing the size of the Federal Government by at least 50% would be mine… toss the ATF in the 50% we’re mothballing and you’ve got your wish 🙂
Mothballing is the wrong term — it implies that we might want to bring it back at some point.
Making Obama a one-term president is one wild pipe dream.
Don’t be so fatuous Mikeb302000. General election polls mean nothing before Labor Day. And a lot can happen between then and now.
And to be perfectly honest, the only poll that counts happens on Nov. 6.
It really depends on two things: 1) how much the economy still blows in November and 2) how much of a ‘tard the Republican challenger is going to be. The answer to #1 looks to be “a lot” and we’re waiting to see on #2. If it’s anything other than “complete ‘tard”, the Republicans have a decent shot.
What? With the economy in the crapper throughout his tenure it’s a historical anomaly that he isn’t already buried in the polls. The 2012 election by all rights ought to be the Republicans’ to lose, it’s just that so far they seem hell-bent on doing just that.
Just give ’em time. They got rid of that nutcase from my state the other day.
Yeah, Barry dreams of being president another 4/
“Making Obama a one-term president is one wild pipe dream.”
And so is reducing the deficit under the current spend happy administration.
If you’re right, then we’re screwed.
If you’re wrong, then we’ll expect a retraction to that statement the day after election day.
Because the MikeBot is so quick to admit when he’s wrong…
Pipe dream?
pipe dream
noun
any fantastic notion, hope, or story
Yep. It sure would be fantastic for BHO to be a one-termer. But I’ll bet a donut that you meant we’re all just dreaming and that there is no chance the imcumbent President can lose the general election.
Hmm… Let’s look at facts instead of conjecture.
In the 43 Presidents who preceded BHO, 20 were elected to a second term.
Not all served a complete 1st term. Truman, Teddy Roosevelt and Coolidge assumed the office from predecessor. Each was elected for a second term but Truman and TR lost their bid for a possible third term while Coolidge did not run.
Not all served a complete 2nd term. Nixon, McKinley, and Lincoln did not complete their second terms; but this is not congruent to anything.
So, 20 incumbent presidents were elected for another term (this includes Cleveland who lost as the actual imcumbent). Another 12 were elgible and either lost the general election, did not attain their party’s nomination or in chose not to run. Throw in Coolidge, Trumand and TR and that’s 20 versus 15. The math on that is that the incumbent has a 57% chance to win to a 43% chance of being replaced.
That’s not pipe dreams. That’s realistic numbers.
Crap. I left out Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Fillmore and Ford. That changes the numbers to 20 -20.
A 50-50 chance historically.
Viewing it from a cold analytical standpoint, Romney has a shot. This is going to wind like the the 2004 elections where no one really voted for either candidate, they just voted against the other guy. It’s likely going to come down to how the country is doing as a whole two months before the election.
Any interest group that weds itself to one political party does itself a disfavor. Blacks to Democrats, or NRA to GOP. It’s like offering a car for sale in the paper for “$1,000 or best offer.”
+1
I haven’t seen a good republican candidate yet. I did like Ron Paul until I read some of the wacky bullshit in his newsletters from the 90’s, now I think he is crazy.
Saner than Bachmann. Not a RINO like Romney. MUCH better on gun rights than Gingrich.
Whoever gets the Republican nomination needs to take full advantage of the plethora of disgraceful acts the DOJ and the administration in general have perpetrated on the American people. There’s a virtual goldmine there.
I don’t think Obama is going to carry as many States as he did the last time. Republicans may have a chance. Republicans may take more House and Sentate Seats.
This.
In the 2008, my commonwealth swung Obama’s way; In 2010, it swung FAR in the opposite direction. In MY area, not a single democrat won an election in the November 2010 election.
Out here in the Mid West, I just do not think he is going to carry well. He really did not carry by a very large margin in a lot of Mid West States the last election. I can see Obama carrying the Left Coasts, but not the middle of the nation.
IF it were up to the big O, being the King of America would be a lifetime position.
This gets to the core of my beef with the NRA. It has become a totally partisan organization. I’m not saying they shouldn’t endorse candidates, but to come out at this early stage and say that defeating Obama is their number one priority is just stupid politics. Also, they dump on Dems with excellent voting records on guns (Peter DeFazio, for instance), while giving Rebups an occasional pass. In a game where it’s all about fund raising, a lot of Dems who might be persuaded by the pr0-gun argument figure that they’re going to get hammered by the NRA anyway, so why bother? Likewise, a lot of voters who could be persuaded that guns aren’t all bad are turned off by the hard-right bombast of the NRA.
I liked the organization that developed my summer camp gun safety curriculum, but today’s NRA is all about money and right-wing politics.
The problem with this election is that we don’t want Obama to win, but he could. We don’t really want Romney to win, but he could. We’d love Ron Paul, but it just isn’t going to happen. He’d make a great addition to a Romney cabinet or something though. Bachman, Perry, and Palin were finished before they started due to insufficient IQs, and Gingrich is so crazy not even he knows what he’s talking about. I agree with Ralph except for the ‘unprincipled’ part. I think Romney has principles, I just think like so many LDS (mormons) he confuses our non-violent beliefs with being anti-gun. I’m a non-violent guy myself. I’m against violence. Especially if it’s against me or my family, so I’ll do whatever I have to to stop it.
Comments are closed.