5 of 6
5

The Story So Far Is Stability; But Why?
Posted: 12 August 2007 01:14 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 61 ]  
D. Miller
Total Posts:  1616
Joined  2006-12-01

Snowman Posted: 11 August 2007 03:50 PM

Even with all you damn Californians moving to NV, we still retain a majority here.  We thought they were moving from all that was bad in CA, instead they bring it with them.  They spend lavishly on houses making them unaffordable.  They demand Rodeo Drive shops that they didn’t like in CA, but want here.  They raise our auto insurance rates, then complain.

Same thing happened to Az and NC is still infatuated with the money, and Fl, well…

Migrants come in and at first, they are amusing and everybody is amused, then they don’t leave, it’s like the in-laws coming to live with you.

 Signature 

CONSERVATISM WINS, THEY LOSE

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 04:03 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 62 ]  
Voter
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2007-06-20

Rudy said, on the Sean Hannity Show, that he supported the 2nd
amendment, “with reasonable restrictions.”

I have two questions:

1.  Does he consider the gun laws in NYC to be reasonable?
2.  Which other parts of the Constitution does he think
need to be “reasonably restricted?”

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 63 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 4 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  2006-11-09

Bing!

I wonder what he thought of the sight of National Guard troops confiscating peoples’ guns in New Orleans after Katrina, with many of the police outnumbered or just gone, or busily looting.

He can take his ‘restrictions’ and shove ‘em.

 Signature 

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” - Mark Twain

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 64 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 1 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
W. F. Buckley
Total Posts:  5300
Joined  2006-11-20
Pandora - 12 August 2007 08:15 AM

Bing!

I wonder what he thought of the sight of National Guard troops confiscating peoples’ guns in New Orleans after Katrina, with many of the police outnumbered or just gone, or busily looting.

He can take his ‘restrictions’ and shove ‘em.

Here’s a link to the most recent GOP debate clip in which Rudy unequivocally supports 2nd Amendment Rights:
Rudy supports 2nd Amendment
I can see I’m going to have another problem with you, Pandora, as I detect lots of animus on your part to Rudy and I’m already tending to support him.

Your “hypothetical” about imagining Rudy’s “thoughts” during Katrina is just silly and completely baseless.
Rudy was a “law and order” mayor and I tend to think that when he watched the Katrina mess, he knew that confiscating the guns was a temporary but necessary step to take to restore law and order because you had bad people taking pot shots at the military rescue helicopters.
We all knew that.
Katrina was a mess and not a good situation to judge someone’s support for anything...President Bush, who is very pro-2nd Amendment, didn’t order the guns to be confiscated, I think Mayor Ray Nagin did, because the city was out-of-control.
I realize that law-abiding citizens should have a way to defend themselves but I doubt anyone was getting in a boat to go turn in their guns and most people were busy trying not to drown, instead of keeping looters at bay (even if they were often the police themselves) with hand guns.

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 65 ]  
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  2006-11-09

....because you had bad people taking pot shots at the military rescue helicopters.

That particular myth has been debunked.  In fact, a lot of what you’ve posted is incorrect.  People IN boats, trying to relocate, were stopped by the authorities IN boats, and had their guns confiscated on the spot.  A 58 year old woman was seriously injured by the cops when they barged into her house, tackled her and took her pistol after they asked her to ‘show’ it to them.

I have a problem with Guiliani.  What I write or think about him is not ‘a problem’ for you, it’s one less vote for him.  The only ‘problem’ you have is you.

 Signature 

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” - Mark Twain

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 66 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 3.7 stars out of 5 in 3 vote(s)
 
Voter
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2007-08-11

I suppose that it’s satisfying for one or two of the posters here to get all riled up over immigration policy all over again ... but this part of the thread seems to have started when I took issue with Pasadena Phil’s assertion that Rudy Giuliani is an “open borders guy”, which is clearly not the case.  Giuliani has the strongest record by far of any candidate, Dem or Pub, in the business of law enforcement.  He never declared NYC a “sanctuary city”, as that BS artist Mitt “I was the guy in charge of the Big Dig” Romney lied about last week.  Rudy did what he could as the leader of the largest metropolitan government in the USA to deal with the problems that are caused by out of control illegal immigration ... a situation not of his making, and one that only the Federal government is responsible for fixing.

Rudy simply could not simply deny all services, including emergency medical care, vaccinations, and public school education to illegal immigrants ... at least not without bringing the City to its knees with massive disease epidemics, a massive increase in street crime, and probably the equivalent of what was going on in Bagdad prior to the Surge.  The knuckleheads who say that that is the way to deal with illegals already here in America ought to go join the Taliban in the mountains of Waziristan, so that they can preside over the armed purification of the people with complete confidence that seventh century medieval governance is fully appropriate for the 21st century.  It worked so well for the the Afghans, you see.

In any case, Rudy is no open borders guy.  He does not support national gun control - he was dealing with firearms in the context of the nation’s largest and densest city that had already banned handguns in its ordinances, and his policies reflected the needs, opinions, and demands of his constituency within that city - but he says what is good for NYC is not necessarily what’s good for the entire USA.  He has said over and over and over again that he is a strong believer in Federalism, with most of the policies that affect each of us on a daily basis being determined by the individual States and not by the Congressmen and bureaucrats in D.C.

Phil kept throwing lots of stuff at the wall about Rudy, and none of it stuck.  According to Phil’s fevered imagination, Rudy is not even a RINO, but an all out DEM ... from my point of view as a lifelong Republican, center-right, Cold War veteran, husband and father, and entrepreneur, Rudy says everything I want to hear an American President say.  And he’s backed up his words with his documented actions and proven successes in a lifetime career of service as a chief law enforcement officer, mayor of America’s largest city, and a proven hero of 9/11 who won’t take #### offa nobody, nowhere.  My kinda guy.

And if Phil doesn’t like that, he is entitled to rant all he likes and stay at home in November 2008.  Even without Phil’s vote, however, I still believe that Phil is going to be sorely disappointed to see our future President Giuliani kick Hillary’s ass come next November.  Because most Republicans aren’t as willfully ignorant and obtusely brain dead as Phil would like us to act.

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 67 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 3 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
Voter
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2007-08-11

What did Rudy mean by “reasonable restrictions” when it comes to the Second Amendment?  Well, I don’t really know the answer to that, but based upon everything else the man has said and done, I am confident that his intentions are both reasonable and intelligent.

Reasonable restrictions on gun ownership have been the law of the land since the founding of the nation.  It is obvious that most people in the country today don’t want civilians packing M60 machine guns, or grenade launchers, explosively-formed penetrator IEDs, or shoulder-launched heat seeking missiles.  Those would be a few examples of “reasonable restrictions”.  Another such restriction is to require that people purchasing firearms not be certifiably insane or, to put it in the old un-PC term, “nuts”.

And, in the middle of mass civil rioting, looting, and such as went down during the post-Katrina period in New Orleans a couple years ago, I think most of us would say that a temporary declaration of martial law - and shooting armed looters on sight for good measure - might very well be appropriate under those circumstances.

No rights under the Constition are absolute and without limit, because the rights of any particular individual taken to the extreme would violate the rights of other individuals.  Everybody knows that concept and instinctively understands it.  Everybody has a right to free speech in America, but there is also no Constitutional right to incite others to violence or to cause a public panic (the proverbial “crying fire in a crowded theater” scenario).  Every citizen has a right to vote, but the Federal government and the States are entitled to define citizenship requirements as well as reasonable voter registration requirements, including a minimum age, proof of residency, and reasonable restrictions on the voting rights of convicted felons.

Only unreasonable people set up straw man arguments based upon absolute individual rights.  Your right to bear arms ends when it begins to infringe upon my right to not be shot by your gun.

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 68 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 3 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  2006-11-09

Your right to bear arms ends when it begins to infringe upon my right to not be shot by your gun.

Whaaa?  You’re an idiot.

 Signature 

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” - Mark Twain

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 69 ]  
Voter
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2007-08-11

Very intelligently argued, Pandora!  Did you go to debate school to learn how to reply with such adult logic and verbal skill?

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 70 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 4 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  2006-11-09

There is no point to a battle of wits with the unarmed.

 Signature 

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” - Mark Twain

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 71 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  3888
Joined  2007-06-22

The reason for the injunction against Congress infringing our right to bear arms was so that we can check a tyrannical government.  Since the founding fathers wanted us to be able to do that, it also makes sense that they would have wanted us to be able to win any such confrontation.  Any “reasonable” restriction on gun rights would have to accommodate this.  Popguns won’t stop tyranny, should it come.

 Signature 

If you want to be the most popular person in your class, whenever the professor pauses in his lecture, just let out a big snort and say “How do you figger that!” real loud. Then lean back and sort of smirk.

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 72 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 4 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
R. Reagan
Total Posts:  7128
Joined  2006-11-09

Don’t confuse him, O.  He thinks he has a right not to be shot by my gun.

I don’t believe my gun even knows him so, I’ll have to take the matter up with it later and see what it has to say for itself.

Edited.

 Signature 

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” - Mark Twain

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 73 ]  
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  3888
Joined  2007-06-22

LOL. Made me laugh, P.

 Signature 

If you want to be the most popular person in your class, whenever the professor pauses in his lecture, just let out a big snort and say “How do you figger that!” real loud. Then lean back and sort of smirk.

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 74 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 3 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
Voter
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2007-07-13

Was Fred Thompson’s fundraising disappointing on an absolute scale or was it just the expectations game? If his committee had announced at the beginning that they hoped to raise two million dollars the first month, would people then be saying that he greatly exceeded expectations?

I know some politically very active people who aren’t paying attention yet. It’s still summer. They won’t pay close attention ‘til after Labor Day. There are probably many more like that. It’s still too early to count anyone in or out.

 
 
Posted: 12 August 2007 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 75 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
D. Miller
Total Posts:  1616
Joined  2006-12-01

JentheNeoCon Posted: 12 August 2007 09:18 AM # 65
...Your “hypothetical” about imagining Rudy’s “thoughts” during Katrina is just silly and completely baseless. ...
...Rudy was a “law and order” mayor and I tend to think that when he watched the Katrina mess, he knew that ...

JentheNeoCon is your argument; my crystal ball is bigger?

 Signature 

CONSERVATISM WINS, THEY LOSE

 
 
5 of 6
5

You need to be logged in to reply. Please Login or Register