Romney gets nailed on the 2nd Amendment VIDEO

[Thomas_Paine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-UQG7k1uX0


Operation Live Free or Die puts Mitt on the spot about Gun Control at an event today in Londonderry NH.


Please spread this video AROUND so that the people of New Hampshire know that Mitt is NOT a friend of Gun Rights. Thanks

[Arek]

Thats funny romney trying to defend his positions lol.

[rooteroa]

I agree as far as background checks go... I dunno, he didn't get nailed that hard and answered the question pretty well.

[Dave Pedersen]

Notice he hid behind the gun lobby's support.

As long as the gun lobby is willing to trash our rights the politicians will have an easy out among the majority who have no regard for the constitution.

hunting and personal protection indeed..

Jefferson needs to be quoted every day of the week.

[Joe3113]

I agree as far as background checks go... I dunno, he didn't get nailed that hard and answered the question pretty well.

The problem with blocking 'insane' people from owning guns is a problem because it completely depends on the definition of 'insane'. In a tyrannical system, if you say something against government policy you may be considered 'insane' and not be allowed to own a gun. This is where the problem lies. Remeber what the foudning fathers said, they would much rather deal with the problems associated with freedom than those associated with tyranny. I agree.



and the pro-gun lobby in the US is simply a fraud. They are behind alot of amnesty legislation.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

I agree as far as background checks go... I dunno, he didn't get nailed that hard and answered the question pretty well.

I agree, thread title is deceptive for purpose of generating traffic...

.

[bomybomy]

In a tyrannical system, if you say something against government policy you may be considered 'insane' and not be allowed to own a gun.

Oh come on....I can't think of any time the establishment would call someone a kook because a threat is posed to their policies..... ;)

[DerekinBama]

I agree that most people will not see any error in Mitt's comments, because they would not know the Constitution or Liberty if it slapped them in the face. That's why our task, whether Dr. Paul gets elected or not, has just begun.

Criminals will do what they want to do. It matters not if they get "denied" for a background check, as they will steal or otherwise procure what they want. Savvy?

To agrue the only real point, how about "shall not be infiringed"? Does that not mean no federal jurisdiction, period?

Some "official" gets to decide who's sane enough to have a gun? Would that be the same "officials" that are printing money like there is no tomorrow (blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8) and flooding the country full of illegal immigrants (1 of the 17 specific delegated powers to the federal government is to protect us from invasion)? Seems to me the "officials" are insane or worse, traitors....

If government gets out of the way, society can take care of criminals better than the for-profit prisons and bankruptcy courts (US went into bankruptcy receivership provsions in 1933, when they outlawed real wealth and alloidial ownership of land).

Constitution or bust...we have no choices other than taking responsibility for ourselves or state-sponsored slavery......

[pcosmar]

I agree as far as background checks go... I dunno, he didn't get nailed that hard and answered the question pretty well.

Really, I am disarmed by these laws,but only because I chose to obey the law.
There are NO background checks on Chain saws, and I own one. Ever see Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
I also own a full set of wrenches, in fact many tools.
How about some "insane" person buying Ammonia and Chlorine bleach. He now has a WMD.
What about Matches and a Gallon of Gas?

Do you see how ridicules this is?

[Gunpartsguy]

I agree as far as background checks go... I dunno, he didn't get nailed that hard and answered the question pretty well.

So since when do criminals go through a background checks? Do you think the crook selling stolen guns out of the back of his station wagon does background checks? Why is it that we had less violent crime before the 68 GCA that required the 4473 form in the first place? You can clear all the good guys and the crooks will still have guns!

You can ban all guns. And the criminals will still have them. Look at WA DC!

There's only one way to deal with violent criminals.......Put them away forever or execute them. If we took care of them properly.....then we wouldn't have to worry about them getting guns in the first place. Can't commit a violent crime against anybody if your in prison or dead! Much less get a gun!

Or better yet, put 230gn HP's twice in the chest and once in the head when they are committing the violent act in the first place.

Plus....If most people were armed. This society would be polite and peaceful. No more unarmed victim zones. Criminals and kooks are looking for victims....not a gun fight.

Ah...the good old days. Pre 1968. You could walk into a hardware store and get a gun, the ammo and what accessories you want. Pay, then walk out with your new possession. When I was a kid I could ride around on my bike with a .22 rifle across the handlebars (Unloaded of course!) and nobody cared. In California!

Too many people have been fooled by the concept that the weapon is evil. Not the person. Bah!

Romney is an empty suit looking to get filled with the power of the presidency. Period. He will say whatever he thinks it will take to get elected by the sheep. No message there except he wants it. Bad!

[watchman]

Oh come on....I can't think of any time the establishment would call someone a kook because a threat is posed to their policies..... ;)

Well, I guess you never read Bushco's so-called "patriot act", huh? I suggest you do so before spouting off.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Well, I guess you never read Bushco's so-called "patriot act", huh? I suggest you do so before spouting off.

He was being facetious

[Swamp Fox]

What Romney is getting "nailed" on is his original position which was:

According to his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney "is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Romney also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms."
On July 1, 2002, Romney signed a permanent ban on assault weapons. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

So Mitt...if there is such a thing as a hunting rifle and an assault weapon, then explain THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0)