Support for Mitt Romney

I completely understand the sentiments I'm hearing. Ron Paul is probably closest to my personal opinions except his stance on Iraq. Fred Thompson is also a great man. Huckabee sounds realy good too.

Politicians are an interesting breed. Take Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah who was head of the Judiciary committee for a long time, for example. If the press pushes him on gun issues, you might get some answers that see a little weaker than you'd like to hear. I think Orrin doesn't want to appear too right winged. He does this so he can deal with the other side. He has helped me on numerous occasions with gun import related problems and he's done so with no reservations.

Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on the abortion issue. And it's amazing that he got elected governor in a liberal state in the first place. The reason he got elected is that the state was so desperate for leadership and was going broke. Mitt had the background to get it done. He delivered as promised. Now that the Mass. boat is no longer sinking, they really don't need him and I'm not sure he'd win in Mass. again. (This is kind of like Winston Churchill who save England and who was promptly ran out of office after the war. Most voters have a very short memory.)

I am certain that what happens in this election will either make or break America. Whoever takes office will have to make some of the most important decisions since Truman. Our economic stability is teetering on a pin head. We've relied on oil far too long. We're trying to civilize the middle east and deal with radical Islam. We're exporting all our technology to China. Soon nothing will be made here and there will be no middle class if we don't stop it. Finally, we need cheap clean power to begin another American Industrial Revolution. This means we need to go nuclear. We also need less government regulation and less lawyers.

None of the candidates except Romney has the depth to deal with these issues. He could choose to come across as a Ron Paul or Fred Thompson. If he did he wouldn't win the election in November even if he got the nomination. I can assure you he is no George Bush. Bush has made far too many mistakes. I believe that Romney is much more intelligent than Bush.

As to having a stalemate in Congress being good - I say there's a lot of truth to that statement. One of my friends in our state senate once told me that he tried to pass a law in Utah which required that two laws be taken off the books for every new law that was added. I'm all for that.

However, America is in such a mess that a prolonged stalemate in Congress could mean economic doom for America. We have to do something about energy, the War on Freedom, immigration, and over regulation by government to name a few. If we don't get some effective leadership soon, we're going to be in a hell of a mess.


Sincerely,

Alex J. Robinson
Manager
Robinson Armament Co.

Alex,

First: Love the xcr. Just got mine a few weeks ago. Looking forward to the .308 version.

Second: You have a fine customer support org. Called up with a minor problem a week ago and they fixed it quick (even with the holidays).

Third: Politics.....

I'm very troubled about the next election. I think our country is at a crossroads. I agree wholeheartedly about the need for strong leadership, but frankly, don't see the potential in any of the candidates. I've voted for Republicans more often than Democrats over the past 30 years (worked stuffing enveloped in GOP campaigns when I was a kid), but I wouldn't vote for anyone in this pack (Ron Paul is close to my viewpoint, but he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell).

It's not just economics that are at stake. It's our civil liberties (and that includes the right to keep and bear arms). There hasn't been a more corrupt cabal running our country in modern times. Aside from everything else, the GOP has always been the party of competence -- and this bunch has made a mockery of that (of course, the Democrats have a slim majority and look what they've managed to accomplish -- precisely nothing). They're not really conservatives at all: they're interested only in power and self-enrichment. You think that they support gun rights? They don't support any other sort of civil rights. It will be real interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with the DC Gun Ban case. I don't think our comfortably conservative majority is going to vote the way lots of people seem to expect.

Who will take a strong stand and undo the damage that's been done (to our civil liberties, our environment, our economy and our military, to start).

Mitt Romney is the GOP version of Bill Clinton -- he bends whichever way the wind is blowing. And we desperately need someone who is not beholden to religion. Fred Thomson is a liar who has been an apologist for political criminals since the days of watergate. He stands for nothing. Giuliani is the biggest political slimeball in the pack he's made a personal fortune off of 9/11. Research how he's made his money. Listen to what the people who worked for him in New York say. Huckabee has some genuineness to him, but his track record show that he lacks judgment and any trace of ethics.

The Democrats? Skip Obama. Don't trust Hillary. Edwards? at least he seems to stand for something, but I don't trust his stand on gun control. Where does that leave us? In deep s**t.

I'm thinking we should throw all of them (House, Senate and Executive) and start from the ground floor up.

tk

Alex, I agree with many of your points.

The economy needs stimulus and reduction of taxation, government complexity and taxation. The government must stop spending money like it's free and take a long term view of growth rather than just a four year view.

Going nuclear is spot on. France has worked on this and now 80% of their domestic grid is supported by Nuclear power. They aim to be oil free by 2030. This is where the US should be.

Romney is definitely more capable then Bush. I like Bush, he means to do a good job but he is not capable of doing the job well. Right now the candidates on both sides are trying to differentiate from each other. I suspect things will tighten up once the nominations are done and they go party to party. Romney is likely to be more successful and is definitely the best bet and may even benefit from Rudy as his VP. Balance brings rewards. Yes they all have skeletons but both are successful. This country needs leaderhip with ability and capability. Clinton opened the door to China and their boom is costing the US. The dollar is in the toilet.

Either way I hope Romney wins the Republican nomination as we can then see some real issue discussion party against party rather then candidate against candidate as they go for the main vote.

tk,

Wake up dude! If you have a vote you should. Either vote for the candidate you prefer or vote for the one you dislike the least. If you don't vote, then you can't complain as you did nothing to change things. Remember also that most bans don't sunset, if you don't fight you may regret it.

Alex, you honestly support a man who wants to ban the very staple of your buisness? Im a little curious as to how you can support a man who would without a doubt sign into law a new AWB, no matter how much more restictive it is.

Guess you missed this-


"2004

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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.” Governor Mitt Romney

And how exactly do you think your XCR will be categorized?"


And if thats not enough, heres a few more.


"2002

"Mitt Romney supports the strict enforcement of gun laws. He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms." - www.romneyhealey.com/issues/"


and once again in 2004-

"07-01-2004, Romney signs off on permenent assault weapons ban "

http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 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.”

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

“We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime,” said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. “The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.”

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and

Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

“This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women,” said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. “These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation.”

“I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue,” said Representative George Peterson. “Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won't be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today.”

“Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation,” said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. “I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons.”