world

NRA endorses Romney

56 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

This endorsement should not be belittled. It probably cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

What a total shock! I would never have guessed the National Rifle Association would endorse a Republican. Wat's next? Maybe Romney will say it was totally unexpected and he's too surprised to utter any words.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Gasp.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

'A president who mocks our values, belittles our faith...' Owning assault weapons mocks and belittles the teachings of Jesus, idiot.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

NRA is responsible for 15,000 hand gun deaths a year in the USA. Since the Romboid now claims to care about all Americans now, not just the rich, maybe he should reject this endorsement.

Nah, not going to happen.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I guess the NRA waited for the results of the first debate. "Yeah, he went on the attack. We're all for going on the attack."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

the biggest gun rights lobby

--> gun industry lobby

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Man the NRA is sick sick joke! While I dont own any guns now I grew up with a few rifles at home, used them, no big deal.

But the NRA leaders are clearly mindless lunatics! And to my knowledge Obama has hardly if ever even uttered a word about more gun control(while its PATENTLY obvious its direly needed in the US!)

The NRA a shining example of what happens when lunacy takes over from reasonable thoughts ideas...........WTF!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

No big surprise here...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurc, fact check," NRA is responsible for 15,000 hand gun deaths a year in the USA."

FALSE: MURDERERS are responsible for gun deaths, a fraction are accidental.

BTW, automobile accidents are responsible for over 30,000 deaths per year( down from peaking over 50,000 per year). According to CDC, Death rate extrapolations for USA for Flu: 63,729 per year.

So, you're more likely to die from influenza or car crash.

Outlaw cars!!!!

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

For the anti-gun zealots, here's another number. " For comparison, there were 29,846 accidental deaths by poisoning in 2007, again according to the CDC."

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@Herve a car or the flu isn't used to kill someone. Car could be but then it wouldnt be accidental death and a number much lower.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

papagulio, The person who dies of influenza or in a car wreck doesn't seek to die(usually), either. The point is the rates are blown out of proportion by the media.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Owning assault weapons mocks and belittles the teachings of Jesus, idiot.

I can't find anywhere where Jesus had anything to say about assault weapons? When David slew Goliath, would the sling be considered an assault weapon?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I lost all respect for the NRA when they blatantly lied about crime figures in Australia after the "gun buy-back" that happened after the Port Arthur Massacre. They ran adds in the U.S. that were pretty much opposite of all the facts on record. If Mitt Romney wants the backing of an organisation that blatantly lies, then good on him. The only question that I have is what does this say about Romney? Of course, with the weird media system in the U.S. where just about everything is biased in some way, the truth seems to have little influence on people's thoughts...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When David slew Goliath, would the sling be considered an assault weapon?

Not unless he used a rapid-fire sling.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Now about Romney, you can interpret this little clipping from boston.com howerer you like, but why is it people like this always promoting guns and the military?

Though an early supporter of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records. They included college deferments and a 31-month stretch as a "minister of religion" in France, a classification for Mormon missionaries that the church at the time feared was being overused. The country was cutting troop levels by the time he became eligible for the draft, and his lottery number was not called.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@techall I was just pointing out that the man who said love your neighbour, do not repay evil with evil, turn the other cheek, love your enemies and if someone asks for your cloak, do not withhold your shirt probably wouldn't join the NRA if he was around nowadays. I doubt he'd have $250m either, it is easier for a camel....

2 ( +2 / -0 )

NRA Political Victory Fund? WOW! Imagine that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another good reason to vote Obama.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Jimizo: "Owning assualt weapons mocks and belittles the teachings of Jesus, idiot"

Um, didn't Jesus live way before assualt weapons were invented?

mitoguitarman: "Another good reason to vote Obama"

There is no good reason to vote for Obama.

Here's a thought - if not for NRA-type people, the United States of America might still be a British colony.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

This is not any surprise. Nothing to see here folks...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"NRA endorses Romney" NRA + Romney = ????? God help America !!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

"God help America!!"

Yeah, Obama is likely to be re-elected, lol.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Thats a pretty heavy endorsement in the US and while it's not unexpected it's timing is a little interesting. While it's true that the debates don't do much to sway elections by themselves it's important to note that momentum is one of the most important factors for any would be president. Romney's already caught the bad end of it thanks to a slew of gaffs, now it looks like he's trying to build off of his success at the first presidential debate to snowball into November.

Romney was hardly a big time gun rights guy when he was governor so I'm not sure why everyone's getting so hot under the collar. The primary elections are a fight for the far left and far right, the general elections are a dash to the center and as much as some posters here don't like it you really don't get more mainstream and centrist than supporting gun rights in the US.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Of course...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

NRA endorses Romney..........................

what took NRA so long ?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Guns and politics...

love how they keep bringing up that 2nd ammendment crap.. it was written in 1791 people!! And as far as I know, the reasons for this ammendment were as:

-deterring tyrannical government; -repelling invasion; -suppressing insurrection; -facilitating a natural right of self-defense; -participating in law enforcement; -enabling the people to organize a militia system.

think the NRA are only looking at the self defense part...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Last night, one innocent teenager girl who was coming out from Loaf&Jug became a victim of drive-by shooting here. Romney is very proud.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

NRA endorses Romney

You don't say.....

“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,” Romney said.

The more I know about Gov Romney, the more I support him. The more I know about GOP candidate Romney, the less I support him.

mocks our values, belittles our faith, and is threatened by our freedom

At some point in the not-too-distant future we are going to look back at statements like this and wonder how they managed to survive so long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't it possible to defend liberty and freedom within a country without weapon?

This old IXX century cowboys' behavior always astonish me. Let's go for a bit more maturity!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The more I know about Gov Romney, the more I support him. The more I know about GOP candidate Romney, the less I support him

SuperLib, I agree with you. I wonder if Romney is suffering with multiple personality disorder. There are three Romneys and these personalities are contradicting each other. .

1) Gov. Romney of MA who was for gun control, pro-choice and state mandate healthcare.

2)GOP Romney is for pro-guns, pro-life and no national mandate healthcare and not for the 47%.

3)Romney on debate for the center, 100% Americans, pro-guns and social vouchers.

Today, Romney went back to Romney (2) on the road. For the next debate, he will go back to the tarf (3).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The silver lining is that I think he's more of a moderate at heart, but in this day and age there is no way Republicans would vote for a moderate. But if he wins, all bets are off.

In reality the Republicans need to lose in order to change. They will have to learn that all of the crap about God and freedom and freedom-hating needs to be put to rest. Losing to Obama will help change that when they realize their platform is functionally obsolete. They need to see it with their own eyes, especially the demographics. A Romney win would probably create a strong resistance to change, even if it means they will lose the White House again in the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is smart not to talk about gun control much before the election. Hopefully he'll bring in some stricter laws when he is re-elected. He has nothing to lose then. His second term will be the time he can get more done because he won't have to worry about elections anymore. How sad that this so-called "free" country believes it needs all these weapons. Guns=Freedom? What a primitive way of seeing things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLibOct. 06, 2012 - 01:54AM JST

The silver lining is that I think he's more of a moderate at heart, but in this day and age there is no way Republicans would vote for a moderate. But if he wins, all bets are off.

In reality the Republicans need to lose in order to change. They will have to learn that all of the crap about God and freedom and freedom-hating needs to be put to rest. Losing to Obama will help change that when they realize their platform is functionally obsolete. They need to see it with their own eyes, especially the demographics. A Romney win would probably create a strong resistance to change, even if it means they will lose the White House again in the future.

@SuperLib, I finally found someone who are on the same page. I think American voters are slowly waking up to see the truth. With changes in technology, many voters are now well informed to see many lies of candidates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, both sides engage in BS, but the Republicans are holding on to the dated platform of God, guns, abortion, etc. They are losing to an African-American candidate with 8+% unemployment. If they can't beat that then it should wake them up as to how out-of-touch they are with moderates. The light bulb might go off in someone's head that a platform change might be needed and they need to get closer to the center. Future candidates might see that pandering to the evangelicals, the Tea Party, etc. simply will never get you enough votes to win the White House.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't say I'm surprised.

When are these nutters going to realise that guns have one purpose: to kill. Before anyone says "ooh, they're for self defence!" I'll add that yes, they may be... but in order to defend oneself using said firearm the object is clearly to kill the assailant, be they armed with another gun, knife, or black pudding.

Guns don't kill? Yes they do.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh, them again...what are they trying to lobby now? The right to put a gun in the hands of every child 1 and up? xD I'm not keen on open carry unless I know its law enforcement.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Isn't it possible to defend liberty and freedom within a country without weapon?

Historically speaking? No. In most instances where a governing entity establishes strict limits on personal freedoms the transition is almost always instigated by armed citizens. It's heavily ingrained into the American psych that the Government ought to fear the citizens.

Hopefully he'll bring in some stricter laws when he is re-elected. He has nothing to lose then. His second term will be the time he can get more done because he won't have to worry about elections anymore.

The president rarely 'brings in' anything. And given that a hefty number of 'blue dog' democrats kept their positions by catering to the NRA and other gun rights groups I doubt any kind of federal legislation on firearms would pass either the house or senate. Especially with public support for gun control at all time lows and still on decline.

Guns=Freedom? What a primitive way of seeing things.

If you actually believe in that overly simplistic statement than yes. The reality is that Americans have, for a variety of reasons, not seen any benefit to banning or restricting the firearms currently on the market. A lot of us remember the late 1980's when gun control in the US was at its peak and the streets of major cities were like warzones. For the past 15 years gun control has gotten far more lax and the violent crime rate has declined steadily even with the expiration of the Assault Weapons ban.

Not to mention the fact than many bans have been ruled unconstitutional including the DC handgun ban and several provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mocheake:

What a total shock! I would never have guessed the National Rifle Association would endorse a Republican.

They've also endorsed Harry Reid more than once in the past.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher:

Last night, one innocent teenager girl who was coming out from Loaf&Jug became a victim of drive-by shooting here. Romney is very proud.

In January 2010, 14 teenagers were killed and 12 others were injured when a Mexican drug cartel shot up their birthday party... using weapons sold to them under Obama and Holder's "Fast and Furious program". Obama is very proud, especially since he is directly responsible for the program. And so are you, since you defend and support Obama. Meanwhile, Holder has been stonewalling the investigation for over two years and the media serves up one distraction after another.

Romney and the NRA, however, are not responsible for the unfortunate shooting of the girl in your anecdote. If you bothered to stop generalizing, distorting, and outright lying about people who don't agree with you, you might read up and discover that neither the NRA nor Romney support illegally owned guns, which are what are used in crimes such as drive-by shootings. Like many other topics, Leftists can't differentiate between legally owned guns that are used for defense, and illegally possessed guns that are used in crimes. How typically shallow, and deliberately ignorant of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Open Minded:

Isn't it possible to defend liberty and freedom within a country without weapon?

How, exactly?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib:

The silver lining is that I think he's more of a moderate at heart, but in this day and age there is no way Republicans would vote for a moderate.

Funny, I say the same thing about Democrats. Let's go ask Joe Lieberman. Or John McCain.

Lieberman, you might recall, was kicked out of his party and ran for office as an independent. (A true independent, not a socialist like Bernie Sanders who continues to vote in lockstep with Pelosi and Reid.) McCain, on the other hand, won his party's nomination in 2008.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

serendipitous:

Hopefully he'll bring in some stricter laws when he is re-elected.

How about enforcing the laws we already have? Wouldn't that make more sense than passing stricter laws and watching more innocent people die at the hands of criminals?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

globalwatcher:

With changes in technology, many voters are now well informed to see many lies of candidates.

How did Obama get into Harvard? What were his grades? What was his thesis subject? How did he pay for Harvard?

See? Changes in technology haven't helped you know much about the candidate you so fervently support.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib:

They are losing to an African-American candidate with 8+% unemployment. If they can't beat that then it should wake them up as to how out-of-touch they are with moderates.

I don't see what being African-American has to do with it. Maybe the Republicans should adopt the Democrat's strategy of buying votes with other peoples' money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thunderbird2:

When are these nutters going to realise that guns have one purpose: to kill. Before anyone says "ooh, they're for self defence!" I'll add that yes, they may be... but in order to defend oneself using said firearm the object is clearly to kill the assailant, be they armed with another gun, knife, or black pudding.

You obviously don't know anything about violent crime or how guns are used in self-defense. For example, did you know that the in the overwhelming majority of self-defense cases involving guns, the gun is not fired? Just knowing that they are about to be shot is enough to send the assailant running. (That's also what happened in my case, when an assailant came up behind me and put a strap around my neck, lifting me off of my feet.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

HonestDictator:

Oh, them again...what are they trying to lobby now? The right to put a gun in the hands of every child 1 and up?

You can provide ecidence of that, right?

I'm not keen on open carry unless I know its law enforcement.

Fine, you wait for the cop to take a break from his speed trap to come to your aid. While you're waiting, you can try getting over your hoplophobia. If you don't die first.

By the way, many of the states with carry laws only allow concealed carry. My state doesn't specify; you can carry open or concealed. But it's very rare to see a non-cop carrying open. I've done it a couple of times, mainly because it was too hot and humid to put on an un-tucked shirt to cover my gun.

Since you stated that you have a problem with citizens carrying openly, do you have a problem with citizens carrying concealed?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Just ask any police officer whether he supports semi-automatic assault rifles in the hands of the general public. The NRA have gone way off the deep end. And its mostly to support the gun industry.

Then ask an NRA member whether he's anti law enforcement. And watch him squirm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, they had to endorse one of them, and they couldn't very well endorse Barack "people get bitter and cling to guns or religion" Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a total shock! I would never have guessed the National Rifle Association would endorse a Republican. Wat's next? Maybe Romney will say it was totally unexpected and he's too surprised to utter any words.

Actually it is a shock considering Romney supported and signed a AWB for the state of he was governor of.

NRA is responsible for 15,000 hand gun deaths a year in the USA. Since the Romboid now claims to care about all Americans now, not just the rich, maybe he should reject this endorsement. Nah, not going to happen.

How is the NRA responsible for them? Plus where did you get your figure that there are 15,000 hand gun deaths a year in the USA? Are you including suicides?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But the NRA leaders are clearly mindless lunatics! And to my knowledge Obama has hardly if ever even uttered a word about more gun control(while its PATENTLY obvious its direly needed in the US!)

Back during his campaign and in Feburary of 2009 he stated he wanted to reintroduce the AWB, the only reason it didn't was because democrats in congress told him not because of politics. The only reason why President Obama hasn't done anything with regards to gun control is because of the political environemnt.

Why does the US direly need more gun control? Gun violence has been decreasing for the past 20 years, in fact it has been cut in half since 1993.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Owning assault weapons mocks and belittles the teachings of Jesus, idiot.

I think you mean to say that using a firearm on another human being mocks and belittles the teachings of Jesus, owning a firearm would not mock or belittle the teachings of Jesus. Also what is an Assault weapon? And why only that category of weapons?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Last night, one innocent teenager girl who was coming out from Loaf&Jug became a victim of drive-by shooting here. Romney is very proud.

Define victim, according to the Pueblo police department she wasn't shot. She was not hit by a single round.

When are these nutters going to realise that guns have one purpose: to kill. Before anyone says "ooh, they're for self defence!" I'll add that yes, they may be... but in order to defend oneself using said firearm the object is clearly to kill the assailant, be they armed with another gun, knife, or black pudding.

And that means what to you? So you're saying that if they realized that guns had only one purpose they would be for more gun regulation? The US already has laws that state it is illegal to even point a firearm at another person unless it is in self defense.

Guns don't kill? Yes they do.

So you're telling me that if I leave a firearm on a table and no one touches it that it will just suddenly start going around killing people?

Just ask any police officer whether he supports semi-automatic assault rifles in the hands of the general public.

You can't have a semi-automatic assault rifle. In order for a gun to be an assault rifle it has to be fully automatic.

A lot of police officers are absolutely fine with the general public owning military style semi-automatics. I suggest you go out there and actually ask them. You'll find a lot of police chiefs that are against civilians owning any type of firearm period. What exactly are you trying to prove?

What makes those rifles so dangerous to you compared to a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why isn't there a National Rifle Association political party? That way Americans could make a simple and clear choice and wouldn't that be convincing? Convincing in the sense of 'have to have a deadly weapon just in case', Just in case the policing forces cannot/will not protect you. In the sense of the weapons industry providing jobs. In the sense of having that bit of deadly power the pioneers had. The sense of never really trusting the government. How can an advanced nation, or should I say a segment of that nation, be so perniciously stuck to the 'right to bear arms' principle, so twistedly interpreted from the constitution?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How can an advanced nation, or should I say a segment of that nation, be so perniciously stuck to the 'right to bear arms' principle, so twistedly interpreted from the constitution?

Because no matter how "advanced" a nation becomes, crime can never truly be stopped, and some of us refuse to be victims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites