On what do you base how you think about the issues and how they related to the federal government? Me? I use the US Constitution. If the guy said he used the US Constitution to make up his decisions on federal laws, that's cool with me. If he uses some sort of consensus, poll-driven, or emotion-driven approach, then I don't want him to be president. If GWB had bothered to read the US Constitution and use it as his guide, he would have vetoed CFR and many other things.
Okay, fine. Let's have a look-see at some words I will quote from memory:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, Rudy believes that the word regulated implies the Constitutionality of things such as the Brady Act. As it so happens, I disagree with this interpretation. In fact, I believe that the Second Amendment ought to fall under the category of "incorporated rights" under the 14th Amendment and thereby apply to the states as well. But Rudy's interpretation is reasonable. It's undoubtedly in good faith. He's not trying to ignore or rewrite the Constitution to push an anti-gun agenda, he's applying what he sincerely believes is the meaning of the Constitution. I can respect that.
If GWB had bothered to read the US Constitution and use it as his guide, he would have vetoed CFR and many other things.
...and later, by flashbunny:
But if a democrat controlled congress passes anti-gun laws, will Rudy the Rino sign or veto them?
Indeed. The Constitution provides three bars to bad legislation, and the President with his veto pen is the second of them. The first is the Legislature. When bad legislation is enacted, it's because Congress passed it and the President didn't veto it. Bad legislation is a problem. I prefer to attack it at the source: the legislature. Get Rudy a good solid conservative Republican Congress to work with in 2008, and he'll never have the chance to not wield his veto pen on a gun control bill.