Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"

FOX News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes

[Peach]

Why don't you show me where I libeled a poster. I'll be around and will check back to see if you can do it. tick tock

[streetpreacher]

Don't worry. He won't. Because he's not going to be the nominee thanks to threads like this.

[cgk]

...

[FreedomCalls]

Each one of those situations (except the quartering -- Third Amendment) you gave has an amendment that has been "incorporated" per the Supreme Court. So no, according to the Supreme Court, Rudy couldn't violate those. The Second Amendment has never been judged to have been "incorporated" by the Supreme Court.

[NittanyLion]

Why don't you show me where I libeled a poster. I'll be around and will check back to see if you can do it. tick tock

Uhhh, you libeled me. Post 725. I'll wait for an apology. Tick tock.

[EternalVigilance]

It was about homosexual rights not Jews.

Yes. And it was a humorous parody of what a certain poster had been doing for hundreds of posts: Trying to assert that conservatives were a bunch of bigoted rubes, simply because they oppose the radical gay agenda and its political proponents. Straight out of the Democrat playbook.

My post also ended with an "/s" for the humorously impaired.

Since then, I've been pointed daily by FReeper friends to posts all over this board by Peach and other of her harpie friends who have been lying about the whole thing (not pinging me either in order to defend myself).

Frankly, I'm sick of it and would like it stopped.

[streetpreacher]

What matters about a politician is what he does, not what he thinks.

Paging George Orwell...

[EternalVigilance]

Hey Peach. If you're going to post that, include the whole post. By not doing so, and not including the Leftwing posts I was replying to, you're lying.

[EternalVigilance]

But keep running to the mods and forum owner to whine. You're going to have a hard time living that one down. And rightfully so.

I suppose I will, if you keep lying about it. That's why it's called libel and character assasination.

[B Knotts]

In fact, I recall that on one of the threads, one of the Giuliani advocates implied that those of us who oppose Giuliani are KKK members.

[EternalVigilance]

It was the same thread, in fact.

[Delphinium]

IT WAS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS, NOT JEWS.

But you don't want the truth because the lie fits your agenda.

And it would have been hilarious. Where is your sense of humor? I am very much in support of Israel and would have laughed my head off. I am laughing about it now and didn't even get the pleasure of seeing it.

Didn't you just call NittanyLion brittle?

[ctdonath2]

Somehow methinks a candidate with a history of unusually aggressive anti-gun activity has a much broader definition of "regulate" than merely saying felons et al can't have guns.

[cgk]

Tsk, you haven't been paying attention. Annie wants Hillary to win so she can sell more books and that is the only reason she is bashing Rudy. end sarcasm tag

[Peach]

Oh, that's always the last resort of a person caught making a disgusting suggestion.

[tpaine]

Does this phrase from the Bill or Rights: "Congress shall make no law ..." refer only to the federal congress sitting in Washington or does it really mean "The federal congress sitting in Washington and all levels of public government from the national level down through the state level all the way to county, city, and even local school boards, shall make no law..."?

This phrase from the Bill or Rights: "Congress shall make no law ..." refers to the federal congress, but it does not allow States officials to ignore the "Law of the Land" in the writing and/or enforcing of State laws. - Read Article VI as to "the Constitutions or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".

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.

You've forgotten powers -- "-- prohibited by it to the States --" Re-read the 10th.

The interpretation of the Supreme Court is that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the restrictions of the federal government onto the individual state governments depending on case law.

Yep, that's their 'opinion', one that ignores both Article VI and the prohibitions mentioned in the 10th, -- prohibitions which always included the entire bill of rights.

That's a different argument than arguing how those restrictions applied prior to the 14th's passage. It is also different depending on which amendments have received the "incorporation" blessing from the Supreme Court.

"Incorporation" is a 'legal fiction' made up by the USSC in order ignore the clear words of both Article VI, and the 14th.

The passage you cited about "the supreme Law of the Land" has no bearing on whether or not an amendment is "incorporated" by the USSC.

So 'majority rule' statists would have us believe. That precept allows State & local government to ignore our individual rights they insist on controlling.

[EternalVigilance]

Damn straight; you'll take care of that all by yourself, so you don't need any help from her, right?

You're the worst of the bunch. How many times have you lied about my exchange on that thread now?

[Delphinium]

They harp endlessly on their perceived slights.

They weren't slighted in someone making fun of Rudy's homosexual connections were they?

Or were they?:-)

[Howlin]

Are you foaming at the mouth now? GEEZ, grow a pair.

[Peach]

Didn't you just call NittanyLion brittle?

Not yet. But I'm going to.