Replies

For those that missed the implied thesis, a represent of the people may decide differently on issues if he is representing different people. For all those who would elect a John McCain or a Chuck Hagel, or a Newt Gingrich: how do you know your candidate would be pro-life if they weren't elected by such an adamantly pro-life electorate?

On the gun issue: From strictly a legislative standpoint, there is a tension between a citizen's right to protect themselves, and that citizen's right to be kept free from crime by the government. In rural areas, self-protection is sometimes the only feasible protection. In New York City, most people are far more concerned that someone ELSE will have a gun, and a shoot-out means danger to others. Giuliani believed that law and order was better maintained if cops alone had guns.

I'm not endorsing that viewpoint, because I have constitutional issues with it. But you'd be damned hard pressed to find anyone from the Republican Party who believed that second-amendment rights trumped safety. If the right to bear arms really does mean the right to form independent militias capable of resisting government intrusion (as I actually believe the founding fathers meant), than that right includes the right to possess weapons of mass destruction.

Don't kid yourself: Rudy Giuiani's position on the constitutionality of gun control is identical to that of George W. Bush, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and almost certainly Duncan Hunter or anyone else (with the possible exception of Ron Paul).

Don't kid yourself: Rudy Giuiani's position on the constitutionality of gun control is identical to that of George W. Bush, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and almost certainly Duncan Hunter or anyone else (with the possible exception of Ron Paul).

Oh, bullcrap. That is the biggest whopper I have seen yet from a Rudy booster. Rudy took guns away from long-time NYC permit holders. None of the other guys did anything like that. He joined with Mary McCarthy after the 1997 Empire State building shooting to support a call for more federal gun control. He sued gun manufacturers - and Hunter voted for legislaton to end such nuisance suits.

If you decide the 2nd Amendment isn't a big deal for you, that's your perogative. I would disagree, but leave it at that.

But don't come around telling a lie of this magntitude and not expect to be called on it. And, having told this whopper, it calls into question the veracity of your vanity post as well.

On the gun issue: From strictly a legislative standpoint, there is a tension between a citizen's right to protect themselves, and that citizen's right to be kept free from crime by the government.

What in the hell is happening on FR that the web's premier 2nd-A political website is being subjected to Brady-Center caliber nonsense? THERE IS NO TENSION. Law-abiding citizens have a right to bear arms for self-defense. Criminals do not, but also don't obey gun-control laws that end up disarming law abiding citizens.

And you have NO RIGHT to be kept free of crime by the government. Try suing the police department if you are robbed and see how far that gets you.

Joe, please banglist this one for target practice.

No, I'm not kidding. Does this sound the same to you?

1) "I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."

He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.

2)It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.

I don't need to tell you who said what

On the gun issue: From strictly a legislative standpoint, there is a tension between a citizen's right to protect themselves, and that citizen's right to be kept free from crime by the government.

Oh, yeah, just as a by the by, where did you pull that out of?

The nether regions?

Please show me in the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution or the charter of Springfield, Illinois, for that matter, where any citizen is granted the right to be kept free from crime by the government.

Next time you need a cop, you just point that out to him, after the crook has broken into your home and stolen your goodies, raped your wife and daughter and killed your goldfish...and you didn't do anything because you don't think the 2d Amendment meant you, as a citizen, didn't have the right to bear arms with which to protect yourself.