Posted on 02/06/2007 12:08:48 PM PST by 300magnum
Yes, and....? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Are you saying that the residents of NYC rights are not recognized by the US Constitution? That there are people outside NYC who have rights, but people inside NYC's political boundaries who don't, simply because the "majority" of people inside those political boundaries claim to not want said rights?
I really don't care if someone is a mayor, governor, member of Congress or anything else -- if the people they represent are Americans, then those people have individual liberties as recognized (but not limited to) the Bill of Rights and if a mayor, governor, etc takes an oath to uphold the US Constitution, well then, I don't really give a fat rat's rear end what the "majority" wants. The point of our system of government is that individual rights are "inalienable" -- meaning that even if you want to dispose and disclaim them, you can't, absent an amendment to the Constitution.
The Rudy Express is going to wash up on a sandbar as soon as his record on a host of issues becomes more public. Right now, the public isn't paying attention to this early candidate BS.
Was Rudy an effective NY Mayor? Maybe. He certainly was better than David Dinkens, and the other goofball left-wing tinkerbells that ran against him. If Rudy is the best the GOP can muster for 2008, they might as well close up shop, because they won't win the presidency for another generation.
What we have here is someone with a rock-star reputation for his handling of 9/11. That's it, nothing more.
"GWB would have signed the assault weapons ban, but Kerry would have pushed for it. This issue is impacted from the bottom up, it's important to focus on our representatives ..."
Exactly. Mega-dittoes.
I would love to be proven wrong on both counts.
#151 was enlightening. He does believe in gun control....less in some areas than others. He's presenting it as a "states rights" issue.
As if freedom of the press were a state's rights issue. New Mexico doesn't need the same level of free speech as does Michigan because Michigan has "more rich people who can overcome the voice of the individual." (Just an example I dreamed up.)
I agree with you that positions can evolve. My question is, given that fact, what can be done to determine if it is a true evolution or a politically expedient one.
That's it? That's the sum-total of what conservatism stands for today? A rather anemic shadow of itself, I would say.
In Rudy's case I don't see an evolution on this one. He embraces his former positions. You're correct that while reasonable, hate that word, regulation may be a state issue, the federal role is protecting the broad constitutional right of the individual to bear arms. As mayor, if he can get away with handgun bans and the like, I'd oppose him, but recognize that what he does in NY might not effect me. But now he's bringing that mindset to the national stage. Abusive firearms regulation is not the right of the states, even if the have large urban populations.
I think I recall you're from Illinois. Have you seen the Cook County assault weapons ban? They ban the Mini-14 by name, the Ranch Rifle is fine. Laws are written by morons.
Your being silly again.
I think it's a combination of the personal, emotional attachment many developed after 9/11, the pro-abortion wing of the party trying to assert itself and a lot of people who fundamentally agree with the 2nd Amendment but have don't any real personal stake in it (or so they think, because they don't own firearms).
I think among the pro-aborts, you might find some closet Hillary supporters. Otherwise, I just don't think people are thinking this through.
Fortunately, there's still time.
Never mind, I should have looked for your state flag first. Have to admit, it's funny.
I think it's Blackwater, Inc. that proves that individuals do have their own armies.
I don't think it makes sense to allow a state to trump a constitutional right. Therefore, I must have explained myself poorly. New York should NOT be able to impose gun laws that restrict 2d amendment rights.
I think Rudy is wrong on that issue, as well as on the extent of permissable state regulation. Bar gun ownership for all felons or only violent felons, I see that as a legitimate state issue, though the Feds have usurped it already. What kind of firearm I can own, that should be a federal issue, in the context of my right as a law abiding citizen to own pretty much anything I want.
----
In anticipation of a "do you want everyone to own machine guns" response, machine guns are legal, you just pay the license fee, and I can buy a cannon if I want. The issue here is banning arms, the plain vanilla variety, on largely cosmetic grounds in violation of the second amendment.
If armies that support our army are armies, individuals do. It's getting a bit far afield in this context, Rudy would ban handguns, but considering the Constitution was written in the age of letters of marquis, I think the founders would be rather liberal in their interpretation of what citizens could own.
This statement alone proves that Rudy is grossly ignorant of the Constitution.
You're not familiar with the "reasonable and sensible" clause? It's in code on the back of one of the pages, right under the right to privacy. With a Supreme Court decoder ring, you can't miss it.
In other words, blacks.
Newt would obliterate Hillary in a general election.
Watch this woman closely. She's the worst campaigner you're ever going to see. Yes, worse than John Kerry. She's a totalitarian sound-bite machine and she has a voice like a car alarm. I don't care how much money she has, I don't care if ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN play Pachabel's "Canon" every time she speaks. Without a third party candidate, she cannot and will not win.
And having no pro-life, pro-2A candidate in a national race leaves the third-party spoiler door off the hinge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.