Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Impossible, since regulation is infringement. The power to regulate is the power to regulate it out of existence.
"Aren't their regulations for gun ownership like felons can't legally have them?"
There never used to be.
Back in the 'old west' days, once a felon was released from prison his guns were returned to him.
Something about his 'debt being paid to society'.
Now a days, once a felon, always a felon, no matter what.
Should have never left...lol
I will not vote for Rudy.
I oppose gun control. I oppose abortion. These are positions that most would consider conservative, yet these battles will not be fought in the legislature and the executive. They'll be fought in the judiciary. And President Guiliani will nominate judges to the federal bench who will be much, much more likely to support conservative ideals of judicial restraint and strict constructionism than the nominees of, say, President Clinton. Suppose Hillary Clinton were staunchly against both gun control and abortion. Would you vote for her over Guiliani? Because if you would, you're a fool. I wouldn't, because I recognize that the President is not a dictator and it's okay for me to disagree with the President. What matters about a politician is what he does, not what he thinks. And the President is not a legislator, nor is he a judge. He makes executive policy. He approves legislation, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he nominates lifetime appointees to the federal bench. That's a management job, and I want somebody who's going to manage it well. You may disagree with Rudy on some issues, but of the current crop of Presidential candidates, you must admit that he's a damned good manager. He's a leader. That's what America needs.
Right now, in the Republican field I'm leaning towards Guiliani over McCain and Romney, although I'm still praying to see Trey Parker and Matt Stone run on the Libertarian ticket. I could easily be persuaded to support another candidate, but any such arguments would have to be about why the proposed candidate would make a better President and why he or she is likely to win. "He doesn't think exactly the same as you on the issues" is not a valid argument. If Guiliani would pledge to nominate only strict constructionists, my support for him would turn financial.
Okay, Guiliani holds some liberal beliefs. Okay, he met and fell in love with his second wife while still technically married to his first. Okay, he once shared an apartment with... gay men! Icky icky! Try to look beyond these trivialities and evaluate him as a possible President.
What about the right of even year olds, the mentally ill, the severely retarded, and convicted felons to peacefully assemble, or redress the government for greivances, or freely exercise religion?
Wow, I think I'm off the band wagon already. I was looking at the WOT stance and NYC's turnaround under his leadership and starting to come around to the guy. Amazing what a little light shining can illuminate. I'm back to my original thinking that we'd be almost no better off with Giuliani than with whatever democrat wins.
Links go like this:
< a href=" url goes here " > text message < /a >
click on my name to see my FR profile page - I put them up there as I finish them.
didnt the diehards say we needed to plug our nose and vote Repub during the last election
I suspect we'll have the same issue here
Want to see a bunch of pro-gun extremists posting on a thread?
Come and join us to educate us all on why government licensing and restrictions aren't so bad!
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good
when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond this Horizon (1942)
On what do you base how you think about the issues and how they related to the federal government? Me? I use the US Constitution. If the guy said he used the US Constitution to make up his decisions on federal laws, that's cool with me. If he uses some sort of consensus, poll-driven, or emotion-driven approach, then I don't want him to be president. If GWB had bothered to read the US Constitution and use it as his guide, he would have vetoed CFR and many other things.
"FORTUNATELY, Jim, the President of the United States doesn't have the power to unilaterally abrogate the Constitution"
But if a democrat controlled congress passes anti-gun laws, will Rudy the Rino sign or veto them?
A leopard doesn't change its spots.
I will say that I think America could survive Giuliani, but not Hillary.
Rudy, for any flaws he may have, seems to have a genuine love for America. I don't think Hillary does. Or Obama-osama.
"
Like when the population of the country was 10 million?"
So? Why should that be any different now?
And when did the law change?
So that's how we never had an Assault Weapons Ban.
Oops, we did.
When you start with a false premise, it negates the rest of your screed.
It's not such a bad place to be when you're voting for what you believe. Don't let the MSM and RINO establishment tell you who's "electable" and who's not.
Hunter gets an "A+" from the NRA and an "A" from the more stringent GOA.
Irrelevant. The topic is the lawful right of reasonable men, to keep and bear arms.
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.