Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
If I am not mistaken, Giuliani was talking about the husband, not the Stalinist.
This is not principally about ideology, in any case. It's about character and competence.
Were you awake while the clintons, for reasons of self-aggrandizement, corruption and cowardice, willfully ignored terrorism for eight long years?
And does their rape of Juanita Broaddrick concern you, even a little bit?
And does the content of the Barrett Report cause you to fear for our freedom in a clinton sequel?
Get help.
Don't give me that crap. The Clinton's crimes against America are not an argument for Giuliani. They're an argument against.
Character? Surely you jest. He publically cheated on several wives and has associated himself with criminals.
He is against partial birth abortion as long as the exception for the life of the mother is included, which is the morally correct position, IMO. (If you disagree, which I suspect you do, I can direct you to my post arguing the point (not that i think it will change your mind).)
it is obvious you will never accept Rudy. Of course, that is your right.
So my question to you is this: It's 2008, Rudy vs hillary. What do you do?
That's easy. Vote for a prolifer. In other words, neither. And I'll work as hard against Giuliani as I do against any other Democrat.
Wake up. The nomination of Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney ends the Reagan coalition. Kaput.
That describes just about every professional pol extant. ;) (The solution to our woes is not finding the (non-existent) "perfect candidate' in 08. It is purging DC of the professional pol over, say, the next decade.)
The Clinton's crimes against America are not an argument for Giuliani.
Yes, they most certainly are.
Our's is a 2-party system. You vote for an R or a D, All other apparent options are just that: Apparent. They are illusions. You delude yourself if you think that if you vote 3rd party or stay home you are not placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton.
So no matter what you do in that election, you are deciding between those two admittedly imperfect candidates.
Time to grow up; we no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance for conservatives to become petulant and punt. We will not survive another clinton presidency. (We may yet not survive the first one.)
thank you, muleskinner :)
Fine. Vote for a Democrat with an R by his name. I won't.
Maybe you can make some nice graphics to help the Giuliani campaign. Pretty please?
On what basis of fact, not what he's saying at the moment, are you asserting this?
Grow up.
Rebut what the girl states without the sophomoric barbs.
That takes guts. Kudos and welcome to the fray! ;^)
'Congress shall not infringe on the right to bear arms.' What are 'arms' anyway??
Well, there's the Founders' intended meaning, and there's the current meaning offered by the Supremes (or, more accurately, the older interpretation that is promoted by default, since they rarely will hear gun cases). The definition I agreee with is "those weapons carried by the common footsoldiers of the time." The point of the 2nd is that the population must be allowed to take on their government's military, if it had to. With a 100-to-1 numerical advantage (along with the advantages of anonymity and not being massed in any single location), we'll be a clear winner if we have the same weaponry as the opposing infantry.
Does this mean that we can, say, warehouse handheld missiles, or nuclear weapons? It seems to me that technology, alone, requires constant review and proscription, i.e., regulation, when necessary. And technology is but one example.
I must respectfully disagree. Since the military's tech improves every year, ours must, too. Some think that the "soldier-carried weapon" definition should include the limitation that the weapons be non-random as possible, which elimiinates even suit-case nukes from potential inclusion into the argument. (A rifle can only shoot one person at a time, but a grenade or nuke is a danger to innocent bystanders, and cannot be controlled by the user once the "trigger" is pulled.) I'm not sure that I'd agree, since shotguns are slightly more random with their spread pattern... but shotguns have been crucial for military actions and for home defense for a very long time.
As for Giuliani's statement , no gotcha there, in my view. His statement is plain, a given and even, I daresay, pro-Second Amendment.
His statement shows a better handling of the population's current (and misguided) understanding of the Second Amendment... but it isn't as "pro-" as it should be. One intriguing notion he brings to my mind: since the needs of urban areas are so different from suburban and rural areas, maybe it would be appropriate to have difference laws based on population density, rather than geography. (Of course, this has absolutely zero Constitutional basis, but it seems like a more pointed solution to the current problems.)
Gun regulation, like all regulation, must be consistent with the Constitution and all of its amendments, i.e., laws must be constitutional.
True, but the Second Amendment talks about the regulation of the militia, not of arms.
People are now twisting the plain meaning of Giuliani's statement to serve their political ends.
Does this surprise anyone here? Are there any politics junkies who don't do this, even on FR?
Thank you. :)
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).
Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.
This assertion is simply, flatly untrue.
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time). Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today.
So is this one.
You are both trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire arguments are invalid.
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.--Mia T
... You are... trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire argument... [is] invalid.--tarheelswamprat
The point of my original argument is that 'regulation' is not necessarily the enemy of the 2nd amendment, that 'regulation' can in fact save the 2nd amendment as well as kill it.
I formulated the Founders'-underlying-intent premise originally as a hypothetical. That said, I believe the premise is, in fact, true. Show me why it is not.
P.S. I think you mean 'unsound,' (not 'invalid').
No, it doesn't, it says nothing about regulating militias.
It says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, [that's the reason] the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [people, infringed, that's the meat]
Rudy supporters seem to suggest Rudy disagrees. He hasn't said that, but that's OK. I he thinks the 2nd amendment isn't a personal right, he's in opposition to people from Dershowitz and Tribe on the far lefte to the Justice Department, that would be GWB's justice., in the middle and most of the right.
You might note the original wording of the amendment
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms
Note no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms was dropped. If you review the Congressional Record, you'll find it wasn't dropped for concerns about religion, rather because it would allow the government, by designation of a religion as opposed to bearing arms, could deprive the individual of this inherent right
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
Certainly the founders recognized the importance of the militia, but ther recognized the fundamental building block of the militia, the individual, and protected his rights.
That right's can be restricted, that's the real arguement. In my mind shall not be infringed is the test.
I don't think keeping arms out of the hands of felons infringes the right of the people. Rudy agrees.
I think keeping ugly arms, the assault weapon ban, does infringe, as does banning handguns.
Rudy would of course disagree with me. As he noted last week the test isn't infringement, a federal issue the President and Justice Department deals with, rather it's a local issue, cities and states can ban at their will.
In my view Rudy flunks this one.
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).
Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.--Mia T
... You are... trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire argument... [is] invalid.--tarheelswamprat
The point of my original argument is that 'regulation' is not necessarily the enemy of the 2nd amendment, that 'regulation' can in fact save the 2nd amendment as well as kill it.
I formulated the Founders'-underlying-intent premise originally as a hypothetical. That said, I believe the premise is, in fact, true. Show me why it is not.
P.S. I think you mean 'unsound,' (not 'invalid'). --Mia T
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.--the Congressional Record, as posted by SJackson
The Congressional Record appears to support my premise.
meant to include you. Sorry.
Presuming you mean that rights granted to the individual under the 2nd amendment can be regulated, of course, all our rights, speech, assembly, can be regulated. That thing in the OK Corral was about wearing guns in town. A not uncommon restriction and to my knowledge never litigated in those days.
Rudy passes the issue off to the states, as in I did what I did in an urban enviornment, and it's not a Federal problem. Appealing to some. But unlike abortion, there is a clear Constitutional issue involved here. Shall not be infringed. Rudy feels that state regulation based on the size, or visual profile of firearms is not a restriction. Even when applied retroactively, as it that rifle looks nasty, think I'll pick it up. In my view that fails the infringement test.
For what it's worth, the quote is from Elbridge Gerry, later VP under Madison, who attended the Constitutional Convention, and voted against it. Didn't prevent him from serving in the House.
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.