Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
No, the threshhold is 60 percent. And if we can't get 41 United States Senators (or 218 Congressmen) to block a gun-grabbing bill, we're desperately losing. In your scenario, we save bad gun-grabbing bills with between 34 and 40 Senators... fewer than that and we can't stop the bills even with the President on our side, more than that and we can stop them even without him. We need to consider the risk of this scenario happening, the costs (remember, even the Assault Weapon Ban had a finite cost; even without Congress and without the Presidency the good guys managed to put in a sunset, and now it's history), and the other advantages and disadvantages the candidate would offer, both as a candidate and as a President.
Rudy represents perhaps our best chance of stopping Hillary Clinton... and make no mistake, the horrible risks of a second Clinton presidency are very real and very present. If Rudy has a 50-50 chance of beating Hillary but there's, say, a 10 percent chance we'll be faced with 60-67 gun-grabbing Senators, how does that compare to, say, George Allen, who would certainly veto any anti-gun legislation but who would be much likelier to lose?
Gawd, read the Constitution about veto overrides and get back to me.
"That OK Corrall thing wasn't about concealed carry, but simply carry."
You're right. It was an 'open carry' society back then. Something that probably wouldn't hurt now.
"Personally I'm comfortable with restricting the rights of violent felons, rights they've forfeited,"
I believe 'back then' violent felons didn't live to see parole.
"all felons, forever probably goes too far."
Yeah. I made that point earlier that once society has been paid back, then returning to full 'citizenship' should be done without restriction.
You don't.
While I think the term is too broae, it's "regulation".
All our rights are "regulated" in some fashion. Rudy says handgun bans are reasonable and sensible "regulations".
Rudy says long arm bans based on appearance are reasonable and sensible "regulations".
Rudy says "regulation" of a constitational right, and thats the underlying issue, is a matter left to the states.
I think he's wrong on all those points.
Excuse me, you used the examples of Poland and Czechoslovakia, which were both invaded by heavily-armed armies. The United States is at very little risk of that. If you want to talk about internal subversion, I have every confidence in the American people that if the government tries to make well over a hundred million gun owners disappear in the middle of the night, it would not succeed.
Nice to see that "the Godfather" has not drank the kool-aid on Rudy the RINO.
Your problem is that, unlike Rudy, you don't recognize the local veto on Constitutional rights.
oooOOOooo. :) Must have hit a nerve.
They say if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit. :)
You're right. This is all they have, I should be more sympathetic.
I have to disagree. I think he is telling the truth and is appealing to his base (which is not us) with the intention of trouncing Hillery.
Those of you who find Giuliani unacceptable (and the WOT is the primary issue for me so I like Rudy) need to rally around an electable candidate if you don't want to be watching Hillary celebrating in November, 2008.
I would submit that Mitt Romney is the candidate you should consider voting for, even if you have doubts about his past believes. Rallying around a minor candidate with little money raised is an act in futility in this day and age, especially with the primary schedule the way it is.
Well, he's running in the GOP primary first. It's gonna cause damage, I can assure you.
The truth is you can't. You can just prosecute them when they are found in posession. You can not keep them from doing so. Why is this so hard for people to understand. How do we keep people from murder, robbery etc. We don't. We prosecute them when they do so.
Do you honestly believe that those who are against Rudy's position on the 2nd amendment are extreme conservatives???
Laz...you can't "hit" anything, believe me.
It is NOT an act of futility at this stage of the game. It WILL be next year this time.
A bit of history. Howard Dean led John Kerry in NH polls 40-12 on December 3rd, 2003.
Don't lecture us about electability a friggin' year before the first primary votes. Especially when the Dems flocked to Kerry because they thought he was the most electable.
I think some of these people are insane. Literally. And how do you like how they've rewritten history with regard to Reagan and guns?
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
When it was written it was intended to apply only to the federal congress, as a statement of the limitation of powers given by the people to the federal government, and not as a limitation of the powers retained by the states or the people.
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.