Florida Shooters Network

Many of you knew what someone has recently called the “old Tom;” some of you do not. Those of you who do are often left wondering how someone who was once far right-extreme is now supporting a candidate such as Mitt Romney. As such, this essay will not discuss my former years of extremism but instead will try to set to rest, despite past explanations, my support for Mitt Romney for President of the United States. I firmly believe that Mitt Romney’s statements on domestic policy, national security, and the economy can and should be trusted. But far more importantly, I believe Mitt is genuine. Different from his accusers, I personally believe he is an honest and trustworthy man.

When it comes to Mitt Romney’s domestic policies, I do believe when he says that he is very pro-immigration. I am willing to bet that everyone reading this is just the same. My great grand-father came from Spain and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1937; Romney’s father was born in Mexico. I contend many of you can trace your ancestor’s naturalization to this country as well. Illegal immigration however, is a direct slap to faces of those who have come before us and struggled to become legal U.S. citizens as well as to those who are here now properly “waiting in line.” Never at any time has Mitt Romney supported amnesty for those here illegally and he does not now. He strongly advocates the eVerify system that actually is working in many companies currently; including my wife’s. Most importantly, he has called for a stronger border with Mexico to contribute to the security of this nation that the Obama Administration is steadily eroding.

National Security is always a principle that we as Americans have held dear. The men and women that serve our country around this world are what truly define the word hero. Veterans in our own families honor us with their example. And the veterans reading this essay deserve nothing short of our utmost respect; I honor each of you. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that our military must be the strongest in the world; so strong that no one will be willing to test it. “This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world” (October 7, 2011, Mitt Romney’s Speech at The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina). He has not forwarded the neo-conservative agenda put forth by his predecessors or some his current competitors; this alone attracts me to his foreign agenda. Additionally, it is his belief (and mine) that a weak economy is America’s largest national security threat today.

It is true that the Obama Administration inherited a rapidly declining economy from the previous presidency. It is also true however, that Obama inherited a triple-A rating in which his failed policies have lost. This administration’s policies have deepened the recession and with 25 million American’s out of work, what is this president focusing on: his reelection campaign. Mitt Romney has worked for 25-years in the private sector; he knows how the economy works. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics which were in financial trouble and later successfully governed a state despite the 85% democratic legislature working against him. For 4-years, Massachusetts balanced their budget each consecutive year while he was governor, taxes were lowered, and he left that state with a $2 billion rainy day fund. For me, economy is number one right now and I believe that Mitt Romney has the experience and the know-how to get the economy moving again. "President Obama wants to fundamentally transform America," Romney says. "I stand ready to lead us down a different path. This president has enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll eliminate them. He lost our triple-A credit rating; I’ll restore it. He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it." I believe Mitt Romney; to me he is very trustworthy.

Listening to Chris Christie a few months ago, I heard him describe the meeting he and his wife Mary Pat had with Mitt and Ann on their back porch one afternoon. “He spent as much time talking to my children — I have four of them, between 8 and 18 — than he spent talking to me and Mary Pat,” Christie said. “You can’t fake that. Politicians can be taught to fake a lot of things. You can’t fake that. This is someone who I’ve come to know has an extraordinary heart. He loves his wife, he loves his children and he has absolutely no hesitation in showing that affection openly.” I too have witnessed this when Mitt came to Conway, South Carolina a few weeks ago.

I was standing up front at the rally and 2 young girls (the same age as my 2 oldest daughters; 10 and 8) were standing behind me. I offered them to stand in front of me so they could be up front; their father was very grateful. After Mitt and John McCain finished speaking, Governor Nikki Haley was offering closing remarks. During this, I watched Ann nudge Mitt standing next to her and pointed at the 2 girls standing in front of me while whispering in his ear; he responded with a nod. What I witnessed afterwards was remarkable. At the conclusion of the rally, Mitt grabbed a black marker, ignored the questions from the media and others calling him and went straight to the young girls in front of me. He shook their hands, autographed their signs, and even had his picture taken with them before he even thought of turning his attention to anyone else. What I saw that day solidified within me, as a father, that this man is real. I stand with Governor Christie’s summation of Mitt Romney: “You can’t fake that.”

I firmly believe Mitt Romney when he speaks about our different domestic policies, when he discusses our national security, and I believe he can get our economy moving again. I have personally witnessed his character first-hand at a rally and to me, Mitt is trustworthy. In saying these things, I have not discounted the other candidates; I strongly believe that any one of them would do a far better job than our current president. But I believe that Mitt is the most qualified provided the current state of our nation. In 2007, President Obama addressed a crowd in Davenport, Iowa: “This is our moment; this is our time. Our moment is now.” Well he had his moment, he had his time, and he failed. Now it’s our time and I am supporting Mitt Romney to make Obama a one term president.

Edit: Spelling and grammar

Now I echo Pam's challenge to each of you to start a thread describing why YOU voted for the candidate you did. And I want to hear WHY you voted for someone; not why you voted against another or what you don't like about someone else.

Keep in mind, people probably hit FSN daily just by looking up people's opinions on a candidate. So be aware, not only FSN members are reading this. Really try to SELL your candidate; you'll surely effect votes in future primary/caucus states for your candidate.

Very eloquent and thoughtful, Tom. Thanks.

I understand those are your reasons for supporting Romney, and I encourage others who support a specific candidate to give their reason for doing so, but I've got to ask (since I remember the "Old Tom"):

How well do you feel Romney will support 2nd Amendment rights as POTUS?

I'm not a one issue voter - the points you discussed are also important to me. But, being this is a shooter's forum, and your essay is conspicuously devoid of all mention of this issue, it IS "the elephant in the room."

Odessaman wrote:How well do you feel Romney will support 2nd Amendment rights as POTUS?

I'm not a one issue voter - the points you discussed are also important to me. But, being this is a shooter's forum, and your essay is conspicuously devoid of all mention of this issue, it IS "the elephant in the room."

A very fair question. When it comes to the Second Amendment, I do believe a Romney Presidency will do to the Second Amendment exactly what the past 2 presidents (Bush and Obama) have done to it: NOTHING. Any attacks or victories for the Second Amendment have come largely from the Judicial and Legislative Branches. The Executive Branch has remained largely aloof in regards to the Second Amendment despite the many opportunities they've had to attack it; especially during our current administration (i.e., Gabby Giffords, assault weapon attacks on officers in NY, Pennsylvania, and Washington, as well as the 2 white supremacist boys arrested for a plot to assassinate Obama).

I'll remind you, the Open Carry rally a mile from the White House several years ago (on the Virginia side) was made possible thanks to this current President. He knew a conservative fox in congress snuck in a "public park 2A provision" into his jobs killing bill, and despite this fact, he still signed it. Thanks to that signature, we can now carry our firearms into public parks; and that was Obama of all people!

Do I believe a bill attacking our 2A rights would come to the desk of a President Romney from Congress? With a Democratic majority in both houses, it is very feasible. Do I believe a President Romney would sign it? No way. Now you can cite the MA AWB as an example that he would and has. My retort to that is one needs to fully study that MA Bill/Law before even using it as an argument. Pull out newspaper quotes all you want; you need to study the complete history of the bill/law dating back to 1998 (many years before Romney became governor). You do that and you will change your tune (unless you're really invested into your ideological argument).

More important than any of this however, I do not believe any presidency from here on out will have much victory in attacking our physical firearms in and of themselves. The combination of Heller and McDonald have removed the concept of confiscation off the table; unless of course some future congress attempts to legislatively veto those two landmark cases. It is possible, but highly unlikely. In my opinion, if we see future attacks on our 2A rights, they will come in the form of high taxation on ammunition, permitting requirements, registrations, etc. Be rest assured however, there will always be a lawyer and politician who has done their 2A homework back to the 1600s that quickly will fire a legal shot that the other side can't ignore. Much like AG Rick Scott did the MINUTE Obama signed Obamacare into law. The petition was filed an hour following, and now after a few years of legal dances over the past 2 years, SCOTUS is finally scheduled to hear it this spring!!!

In summary: I am not concerned what a Romney Administration will do to the Second Amendment. The most a President Romney will do to the Second Amendment is maintain the status quo, he won't touch it (for or against). I can't necessarily say the same for a SECOND TERM OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

Question Tom.

What are your feeling on what type of Supreme Court Justice a President Romney would appoint? As this is one of the most important deciding factors of where my vote will go in the general election.

We currently have 4 Justices over the age of 70.

Scalia- 75 and tends to be very conservative
Ginsburg- 78 and tends to be very liberal
Breyer- 73 and tends to be liberal
Kennedy- 75 who tends to be a middle of the road.

Now, I could live with Ginsburg and Breyer being replaced by either Obama or Romney. It wont change the makeup of the court if they get replaced with Liberal Judges. It would be nice to see them replaced with conservative judges though.

But Scalia is one of the most conservative justices, and Kennedy swings the court typically.

Do you personally have faith in a President Romney putting a very conservative justice up for nomination? Obviously you can not say for sure...but I ask for your personal feeling? Do you think if he had a democratic congress that he would fight for a conservative(with every nomination) or do you think he would offer up a more liberal judge to appease the congress?

jaybird wrote:Question Tom.
What are your feeling on what type of Supreme Court Justice a President Romney would appoint? As this is one of the most important deciding factors of where my vote will go in the general election.

It's funny you ask this because this question has come up in my Game Theory class. We are discussing how we a court's decision can be predicted via Game Theory before they even make the decision. But that's neither here nor there.

I believe Romney will do just as all of the president's in the past have done w/ SCOTUS appointments. Find the most aligned candidate with him politically and ram the appointment down the Senate's throat. Since 1789, there have been 154 SCOTUS appointments. Of those 154, only 34 were unsuccessful (11 were rejected in the Senate and the rest were withdrawn by the appointing president). If you ask me, that's one hell of a record of a president simply ramming appointments down the throat of the Senate.

Me personally? He was asked this very question by the current Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi during one of Huckabee's Forums. I believe Mitt Romney will nominate a constructionist judge as he said he would in response (with a conservative record mind you). As I already put it, given a loaded liberal congress, he'll just do as the rest have done in the past, "ram 'em down the Senate's throat."

And though I love Justice Scalia, many a gun toting Second Amendment lovers can thank Scalia for his Heller majority opinion which has fostered thousands of gun legislation suits to fail. Localities have cited Scalia specifically to uphold their current anti-Second Amendment laws. Not all of them, but most (thus the reason I believe Heller and McDonald has left many laws on the slippery slope though confiscation has been removed as a bargaining chip).

In reality however, no matter who the President is, the Senate usually overwhelmingly votes for the nominated candidate. You'll note when Clinton nominated Ginsburg, the vote by the Senate for appointment was 96-3. Ouch. The most controversial appointment in recent history was Thomas by Bush I. 52-48 vote. Tell me that's not a close one.

I promise you, if Obama wins a second term, and he gets the rare occasion to appoint another justice, he'll pick one that is ideologically aligned, will nominate them despite the make-up of the Senate, and will put them forward knowing that they'll get voted in whether he has a liberal majority or not. So it's not the Senate we have to worry about; it seems they just stomach whatever is put forward as an option (history has proven this). Our real concern is what kind of president will we have to make these suggestions.

Here, check this out: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf Flip to page 6, you'll enjoy.

Thanks for answering the question Tom.

Although, dont forget Robert Bork.

And as far as Ginsburg, she was nominated by a democrat with a democrat congress. The Republicans had no chance to block her, so why vote against her.

Thomas was with a republican President and a Democrat Congress. And yes, they came very close to blocking his appointment. I think they were hoping that he would resign if they smeared his name enough. But remember, Bush's first appointment was Souter, and we all know which side he leaned.

IDK. But thanks for your insights. I will take them into consideration.

Well Done Tom, Well Done!

To anyone else that wants to Start a Thread on their favorite candidate - please do so. We need Threads like this.

Paul peeps - step on up!

Tom Fernandez wrote:National Security is always a principle that we as Americans have held dear. The men and women that serve our country around this world are what truly define the word hero. Veterans in our own families honor us with their example. And the veterans reading this essay deserve nothing short of our utmost respect; I honor each of you. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that our military must be the strongest in the world; so strong that no one will be willing to test it. “This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world” (October 7, 2011, Mitt Romney’s Speech at The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina). He has not forwarded the neo-conservative agenda put forth by his predecessors or some his current competitors; this alone attracts me to his foreign agenda. Additionally, it is his belief (and mine) that a weak economy is America’s largest national security threat today.

This doesn't make any sense at all. What exactly is his plan? I get that you like veterans and freedom but Romney isn't a veteran and has no plan to expand civil liberties or even just reclaim lost ones. If that kind of stuff is what you like you should be voting for Ron Paul, he is both a veteran and a man who has very clear ideas about strengthening American civil liberties.

It is true that the Obama Administration inherited a rapidly declining economy from the previous presidency. It is also true however, that Obama inherited a triple-A rating in which his failed policies have lost. This administration’s policies have deepened the recession and with 25 million American’s out of work, what is this president focusing on: his reelection campaign. Mitt Romney has worked for 25-years in the private sector; he knows how the economy works. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics which were in financial trouble and later successfully governed a state despite the 85% democratic legislature working against him. For 4-years, Massachusetts balanced their budget each consecutive year while he was governor, taxes were lowered, and he left that state with a $2 billion rainy day fund. For me, economy is number one right now and I believe that Mitt Romney has the experience and the know-how to get the economy moving again. "President Obama wants to fundamentally transform America," Romney says. "I stand ready to lead us down a different path. This president has enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll eliminate them. He lost our triple-A credit rating; I’ll restore it. He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it." I believe Mitt Romney; to me he is very trustworthy.

Romney obviously knows something about money and business but there's a difference between looking after his own interests and doing what's best for the country. While Romney personally enjoys an obscenely low 15% tax rate and plans to cut the corporate income tax rate down to 25% from 35% he has no intention of slashing income taxes for ordinary working Americans. It's also very hard to believe he'd repeal Obamacare considering he was pushing the very similar Romneycare just a few years ago.

Listening to Chris Christie a few months ago, I heard him describe the meeting he and his wife Mary Pat had with Mitt and Ann on their back porch one afternoon. “He spent as much time talking to my children — I have four of them, between 8 and 18 — than he spent talking to me and Mary Pat,” Christie said. “You can’t fake that. Politicians can be taught to fake a lot of things. You can’t fake that. This is someone who I’ve come to know has an extraordinary heart. He loves his wife, he loves his children and he has absolutely no hesitation in showing that affection openly.” I too have witnessed this when Mitt came to Conway, South Carolina a few weeks ago.

I was standing up front at the rally and 2 young girls (the same age as my 2 oldest daughters; 10 and 8) were standing behind me. I offered them to stand in front of me so they could be up front; their father was very grateful. After Mitt and John McCain finished speaking, Governor Nikki Haley was offering closing remarks. During this, I watched Ann nudge Mitt standing next to her and pointed at the 2 girls standing in front of me while whispering in his ear; he responded with a nod. What I witnessed afterwards was remarkable. At the conclusion of the rally, Mitt grabbed a black marker, ignored the questions from the media and others calling him and went straight to the young girls in front of me. He shook their hands, autographed their signs, and even had his picture taken with them before he even thought of turning his attention to anyone else. What I saw that day solidified within me, as a father, that this man is real. I stand with Governor Christie’s summation of Mitt Romney: “You can’t fake that.”

It's not exactly like Romney invented baby kissing.

Tom Fernandez wrote:In summary: I am not concerned what a Romney Administration will do to the Second Amendment. The most a President Romney will do to the Second Amendment is maintain the status quo, he won't touch it (for or against). I can't necessarily say the same for a SECOND TERM OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

Thanks, Tom - and I agree Obama would be emboldened by reelection and likely push forward on SOME form of gun control in a second term, knowing that it's "now or never."

Here's my concern with Romney: not that he would support a MA-like ban, but I believe he WOULD support some incremental restrictions. Remember, when he signed the MA legislation he stated something to the effect (referring to "assault weapons") that "these have no legitimate recreational or self defense purpose - they're meant for one purpose - to kill human beings."

I absolutely disagree with anyone who believes that the Second Amendment is somehow limited to "sporting" or "home defense" guns, and that as long as private ownership of SOME type of firearm is allowed, then that's "good enough."

And you guys also have to realize that these are Human Beings we are talking about and not machines.
Yes they can change their mind.
Yes they can change their stance.
Yes they can change their vote.
As they see fit.

Any one of them.

Good or Bad.

Odessaman wrote:Here's my concern with Romney: not that he would support a MA-like ban, but I believe he WOULD support some incremental restrictions. Remember, when he signed the MA legislation he stated something to the effect (referring to "assault weapons") that "these have no legitimate recreational or self defense purpose - they're meant for one purpose - to kill human beings."

I can't vouch for the accuracy of that Romney quote but if you want to understand the truth about "Romney's AWB" read my post here - tomorrow-stand-with-mitt-t98978-40.html#p791281 and more importantly the included link.

mjmensale wrote:I can't vouch for the accuracy of that Romney quote but if you want to understand the truth about "Romney's AWB" read my post here - tomorrow-stand-with-mitt-t98978-40.html#p791281 and more importantly the included link.

Sorry, I got lazy and didn't look for the exact quote. But, I think I got it pretty darn close.
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?st ... ;mid=57710

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

I did read your earlier post, Moe, which is admittedly the first time I've seen that account of it. I guess the only way to see the true net effect is to read the 1998 law and the bill he signed in '04 side by side.

Still, at best, Romney's position on 2A is . . . let's say, flexible. But of course it is - he's a politician.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... romney-mi/

Here's are compilations of his positions (plural) on 2A.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil ... _Amendment

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Ro ... ontrol.htm

Im still trying to wrap my head around this, and got here and had to stop-

I believe Mitt is genuine. Different from his accusers, I personally believe he is an honest and trustworthy man.

Yes he is SO genuine he passed a gun ban in his state, and then suddenly a few years later when he decided to try for POTUS he claims he is pro gun, and a NRA supporter, hes so trustworthy he called everyone in America w/ an EBR a killer. He is so genuine in fact he passed the progenitor of ObamaCare in his state before he was suddenly against Obama care because hes trying to play the conservative card

yup genuine, just like John Kerry...a genuine flip flopper who can be trusted...riiiight

oh and every one who isnt swayed yet, just google Soros, George

Then once you have maintained your lunch, ill remind you Soros just came out and said that Romney 'Is very much like Obama'

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Soro ... /id/425830

NonConformist wrote:Yes he is SO genuine he passed a gun ban in his state, and then suddenly a few years later when he decided to try for POTUS he claims he is pro gun, and a NRA supporter, hes so trustworthy he called everyone in America w/ an EBR a killer.

Yes, he passed a gun ban 5 years before he became governor! Damn, he's sneaky! You really don't know how to read, do you?
tomorrow-stand-with-mitt-t98978-40.html#p791281

NonConformist wrote:oh and every one who isnt swayed yet, just google Soros, George

Then once you have maintained your lunch, ill remind you Soros just came out and said that Romney 'Is very much like Obama'

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Soro ... /id/425830

You'd really believe something Soros said? A guy who'd screw his own mother if he could make money on the deal?

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that understands the evil of big, centralized government.
And it's like the saying, Build it and they will come.
Build big government and the power hungry psychos will, indeed, come.
They will come out of the political woodwork, just like the termites.
And in the end, they will leave nothing standing, either.
Just like Hitler, Stalin, Nero and all the rest.
That's why I vote for Ron Paul.