You make me proud Jim!
BTW, that was taken at the "Support the Troops" rally in Crawford Texas. I was very hot that day.
He says he understands the constitution and the second amendment and knows that the right to bear arms is constitutional, and that he can't just TAKE AWAY our rights, so he feels he CAN and MUST REGULATE them away.
"The restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible." Reasonable and sensible restrictions? Restrictions are infringement!
What part of the people's right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does he NOT understand?
REGULATE AWAY THE RKBA? NOT ON MY WATCH!!
BANG!
Amen!
I'm not a one issue voter, but the second amendment is one of several good litmus tests.
Does the candidate fear armed citizens? If so, why?
Should citizens rights be limited by what criminals 'might' do?
Does the candidate recognize that he is a citizen just like the rest of us, or is he a 'special case' that needs more protection than the rest of us?
9mm bump
He's "electable", that's all that matters around here.
You make me proud Jim!
BTW, that was taken at the "Support the Troops" rally in Crawford Texas. I was very hot that day.
What I found most pathetic about this interview was that Hannity was supposed to be asking the questions, but in many of them he ended up answering them for Rudy Giuliani in the course of asking them. This occurred quite a few times over the course of the interview.
I heard it and wondered when somebody would get the transcript and post it.
Disgusting isn't it?
Not on mine, either.
---
http://www.truthusa.com/2ndAmendment.html
He just doesn't get it. The best way to solve a "crime problem" is to leave the crooks wondering who is armed and who is not. It does wonders to reduce rapes, assaults, and break-ins.
If only Giuliani supporters would keep that fact in mind when they listen to him talk about gun control. He will NOT be a laissez-faire chief law enforcement officer when it comes to gun control. He will be aggressive and hands-on. Big city prosecutors despise guns and distrust ordinary citizens who have them.
When Giuliani says he won't take guns away, he'll just regulate them, it is akin to a criminal informing you he won't kill you, he'll just beat you so severely you'll wish you were dead.
Hmm - "shall not be infringed" sounds reasonable and sensible enough to me. Rudy seems to have a little reading comprehension problem with respect to the Constitution. A lot of legislators seem to have a similar problem - to them the purpose of government is to regulate the citizen and law is simply a means of effecting this process. It's a matter of perspective - to a stable boy the world is a stable full of crap. The problem is that the legislator wants us all to live in his.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780023/posts
February 12 deadline to turn in or remove shotguns and others from Cook County, Ill
Best regards,
Rudy's stance on the Second Amendment is the primary reason I will never cast my vote for him. Gun control (AWB, ammo taxes, "arsenal licenses," .50 cal ban, "Sniper Weapon (scoped rifle) Ban, et ecetera ad nauseum)is more likely to get passed in a Rudy presidency than a Hillary one because I think the Senate and House Dims will show more restraint on gun control legislation for Hilliary than Rudy.
Dims know that if Rudy is steady signing gun bans and such, the Republican base will be eroded for many years, possibly decades. On the other hand, even the dims understand that if a dim-Senate and a dim-House pass the AWB and other gun laws and these laws are signed by Hilliary, the dims will likely lose the House, Senate, and Presidency next election cycle.
So, here I am back at Duncan Hunter?
If the Dems were to pass legislation that put severe restrictions on handgun ownership and/or concealed carry, could we trust Rudy to veto it?
I sincerely doubt it. He has expressed glowing support for such laws in the past.