you're right i typed that out too quickly and should have realized with such strict constructionists on this thread that there is no room for error. absolutism is the only way for you.
the fact that self professed gun experts draw no distinction between weapons of the 18th century to those of today clearly points to people too stubborn to be flexible to support someone whose ideas don't fully align with theirs. they'd rather lose everything than compromise.
i'll be blaming your types when Hillary wins and totally screws us. We need to take this fight one step at a time and right now that is a moderate.
i'd be happy to support someone else, but right now only Rudy has any track record to be competitive in 2008.
Fine. We'll know that she won, because the country club grabbers betrayed your fellows, and Freedom itself, to support a gun grabbing tyrant.
"i'll be blaming your types when Hillary wins and totally screws us. '
Sorry, you got it wrong, very wrong. Truth is, if you nominate Rudy, you'll have no one to blame but yourself...
Dear RINO Rudy Supporters,
I want to thank you for your wonderful support in helping to get me elected POTUS. Bill and I are so thrilled to be back in the White House again. Your support for Rudy, and helping him to get nominated, was the key to me winning. Without your help Bill and I would not be here today.
Affectionately Yours,
President Hillary Rodman
P.S. I plan to nominate Rudy to the Supreme Court as soon as there is a vacancy. He will help us tilt the court back in our favor to assure that millions more unborn babies will never see the light of day. After all, it's every woman's right!
P.P.S. As you may recall, my campaign slogan was, "We're Going to Take Things Away From You on Behalf of the Common Good". ALL YOUR POSSESIONS ARE BELONG TO ME---YEEHAAAA!!!!
No, you just don't know anything about guns, and apparently nothing about the gun control debate.
Absolutism? There are already 20,000 some-odd gun laws in this country. We, however, oppose efforts to restrict gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. History has shown where that path leads.
the fact that self professed gun experts draw no distinction between weapons of the 18th century to those of today clearly points to people too stubborn to be flexible to support someone whose ideas don't fully align with theirs. they'd rather lose everything than compromise.
No, we'd rather keep our guns than push a gun-grabber for the GOP nomination. And back in the days of the founders, just about ALL firearms double as military weapons, so you're full of it. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting - it is about self-defense - both against criminal elements and against the final act of usurpation by a corrupt government. If you don't understand that, you are pathetically ignorant of the terms of debate over the 2nd Amendment.
Are you familiar with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment? It has nothing to do with hunting.