There are a number of issues with your argument, but I'll keep it simple. The threat to marriage is not that homosexuals marry. The threat is that if they force status as a protected class, they will then be able to start forcing their ideology on others, e.g. forcing churches to ordain homosexual pastors, forcing private institutions to recognize same-sex marriages, etc.

But the Rebublican party could tell him he is not to run as a registered republican. If he wants to run as an independent that's up to him, but he shouldn't do it under the banner of the Republican party.

So, your definition of a "real" conservative is someone who will not work with Democrats and openly make personal attacks against Obama? He focused his campaign on the economy because that should have been Obama's weakness. He wanted to keep the pressure on Obama.

Actually, I just heard Rush say recently that Romney was perhaps the most compassionate and decent man we've ever had run for president.

On this point you are wrong. In 2008, Romney did try reaching out to the social conservatives and they still didn't "get on board" with his candidacy. So this time around he focused on what should have been the biggest issue of the day: the economy. Whenever asked about social issues, he was always solidly conservative, but he didn't let himself or his campaign get off message. They wanted to focus on the economy because that should have been Obama's major weakness. Little did we know that a majority of voters blamed Republicans for Obama's economy.

Romney was clearly pro-family, pro-military and pro-marriage. You may have reservations about his pro-life stance, but his stated positions were also clearly pro-life. What you are saying is he ignored us and didn't make social issues the focus of his campaign. The issue of this campaign was the economy which was also clearly his expertise. That is why he focused on that issue. So, since the "passionate elements" felt ignored they didn't come out to support Romney and wound up with a president who is clearly opposed to all that matters to you. You sure showed those moderates. You showed them how dumb you are. You would rather help someone gain power who will seek to destroy what you hold dear just because you were "ignored".

The outrage is over the sheer incompetence of this administration. The 4 Americans did not have to die. They requested more support and were denied. They requested help during the attack and were denied. Then rather than saying what happened the administration tried to mislead people about some obscure video and made up protest gone awry. That is what is outrageous. We would be just as outraged if such incompetence and poor decisions got our soldiers killed.

Besides, the homicide rate for the UK is around 1.4 per 100000 and for the US it is around 4.5 per 100000. While less, it is certainly not that much less. The homicides are just committed with other weapons.

From the data I have seen, Switzerland has fewer homicides with guns than the UK even though they have much more permissive laws on gun ownership. They also have a lower homicide rate. Does that mean we should become more like Switzerland and issue weapons?

The links you cite don't support the argument that Germany had NO gun control. Taking everything in the wikipedia article at face value, tt says that the the 1928 law relaxed restrictions, but it required various separate permits. Let's see. You have a corrupt dictatorship and are required to obtain various permits to possess a gun. I can only imagine who the government allows to possess firearms: those that openly support the government. It is also interesting that it was explicitly forbidden for Jews to possess firearms. I wouldn't call that NO gun control without even going to the actual details of the German laws.