Do you know anyone who supports Giuliani?
- Thread starter cabin pressure
- Start date
Wildalaska
Moderator
OK, granted, then I assume you will never be one of the ones trying to "educate" one of the "sheeple", (like many claim they are trying to do with thinkgs like open carry) since a change of heart is never sincere
Gun Control is a non issue in this campaign, except to the extent that I, as an educated voter, know that any Dem elected is beholden to Josh, Sarah and george, while the repub might not be beholden to anyone.
Smart terrs should know that...wanna bet there wont be any incident calculated to stir up terstosterone ?
I honestly think Rudy could be the TR of our time, without the rascist baggage so common for his era.
WildbutonlyinthisrealityAlaska TM
Wildalaska, I educate as much as I can, but the people I educate aren't running for President. You know full well politicians will say whatever they can do get votes, and it usually isn't cause they believe it. If Rudy was an average joe on the street, I'd believe his change was genuine. He's not.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Why dont you write him a letter then? Ask him WHY he has changed his views.
WildidontconsiderallpoliticiansmeretriciousAlaska TM
And more ot the point, would that be the same thing he's day on November 3rd or February 21st? There is absolutely ZERO to say that he won't simply revert back to his former self immediately upon getting into office and then do something else to cloud memories as to what he did to sodomize our rights. He could do just about anything, good or bad, and the majority of the American people would forget all about it. Sadly, everyone's memory is never very good when it comes to 4 year terms. Heck, we don't even make noise past maybe 3 months at the most, and by then it's too late to not have voted for them and too soon to be remembered for the next time around. There's much too much insulation from any kind of accountability. REAL accountability would be the ability to recall him at the drop of a hat.
Of course the real check as designed is the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment itself as a solid concrete wall against Hitlary, Rudy, or ANYONE doing anything of the sort, but obviously we're having this discussion because the Constitution doesn't mean d*** to them or we wouldn't have to wonder what they'd do, would we? If the Constitution is read and adhered to as intended it shouldn't matter much at all who's in the White House because it dictates that the federal government do as absolutely as little as possible. But of course they haven't recognized that fact in nearly 80 years. It royally ticks me off that we have to wonder if the people we elect will obey the law or blatantly ignore it.
Of course the real check as designed is the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment itself as a solid concrete wall against Hitlary, Rudy, or ANYONE doing anything of the sort, but obviously we're having this discussion because the Constitution doesn't mean d*** to them or we wouldn't have to wonder what they'd do, would we? If the Constitution is read and adhered to as intended it shouldn't matter much at all who's in the White House because it dictates that the federal government do as absolutely as little as possible. But of course they haven't recognized that fact in nearly 80 years. It royally ticks me off that we have to wonder if the people we elect will obey the law or blatantly ignore it.
Last edited:
Wildalaska
Moderator
Under the strict scrutiny test, how much of what Rudy advocates would be unconstiutional 
WildyallgonnahavetodealwiththatyaknowAlaska TM
WildyallgonnahavetodealwiththatyaknowAlaska TM
As a very general statement, I see nothing wrong with that at all. It's very true, unless you're an anarchist. The only quibble I would have would be with the words "great deal" by which Rudy and I mean very different things.
For example, he thinks I should have to get permission before owning a handgun, and I think the government should have to show some reason before preventing me from having a handgun. In the end, though, I do believe there are times and places and reasons for disarming people, meaning I "cede to lawful authority" the question of handgun ownership. Lots of other questions as well.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Beats me, you would think though that if you are so critical of his "change of heart" you would try?
Or would that take too much effort...easier just to rant about it on the net..especially when cherised ego beleifs are involved?
WildmanyworldsAlaska TM
What change of heart are we being suspicious of, anyway? He's friendly in a disrespectful way toward the NRA now? Whoop doop dee doo!
He hasn't said anything to contradict his longstanding belief that we need permission to own handguns, and that Congress should pass a law saying so.
What change of heart?
He hasn't said anything to contradict his longstanding belief that we need permission to own handguns, and that Congress should pass a law saying so.
What change of heart?
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Well, of course, that makes perfect sense. Guilliani is VERY anti-gun. And YOU are very anti-gun. So why wouldn't you support him? What's that got to do with the 99.99999% of TFL members who are actually PRO-gun?
Unregistered
Moderator
Lots of big talk here, but if it comes down to Giuliani versus Hillary, the Republican party knows who you guys will vote for.
Many of the same people who are disparaging Rudy today will disparage people voting for a 3rd party candidate if he gets the nomination. He'll become the lesser of two evils, and the obvious choice for gun owners. In the end, gun owners will line up and vote for Rudy, thinking that Hillary would even be worse.
I think its going to be tough for Thompson to take the nomination away from him.
Many of the same people who are disparaging Rudy today will disparage people voting for a 3rd party candidate if he gets the nomination. He'll become the lesser of two evils, and the obvious choice for gun owners. In the end, gun owners will line up and vote for Rudy, thinking that Hillary would even be worse.
I think its going to be tough for Thompson to take the nomination away from him.
Wildalaska
Moderator
And the ad hominems from a certain element of the far right continue LOL
I'll bet 99.99999% of the TFL members actually believe in reasonable gun control.
WildwejustdifferastowhatisreasonableAlaska TM
Wildalaska
Moderator
Thompson is still an unknown quantity to the republican electorate. He does have to make sure that he stays close to the center so that he doenst scare the mass of independent voters or progressive conservatives who have disgust for both the far left and the far right. If he can show leadership (ie talk and sound like a leader) he can take the nomination from Rudy since many of his views are more palatable to the extremists.
Wildiloverrealclearpolitics.combythewayAlaska TM
Unregistered
Moderator
I think Thompson will be able to show leadership. Hes a good communicator, and will do well in the limelight. I think his task will be to show that he is different from Bush. If he tries to run on a platform of 4 more years of Bush, I don't know how well he will do.
Rudy said:
He really doesn't understand what freedom is apparently.
publius 42 said:
Wow.... just wow....
I must admit Rudy's statement is a dichotomy to me, then I was completely floored by publius 42. Let's put them together with equally opposite concepts ans see if that works any better!
Fire is about water... It's very true, unless you are an arsonist.
Nope, doesn't seem to work.
how about this
Dating is about guys' only poker night... It's very true, unless you are a rapist.
I don't see that working either.
Here is my last try:
Marriage is about being single... It's very true, unless you are a polygamist.
That also doesn't work! Well technically it did sort of work for Rudy a couple times so that may be how he found a way to connect freedom to authority.
So how on earth can Freedom be about authority unless you are referring to freedom being the condition in which authority is the clear lesser of the two with one not being able to flourish in proximity of the other.
Just remember, this is the mayor of the city in which a Ruger 10/22, even with a 5 round mag, is illegal! Think real hard about that and then try and come up with a piece of legislation granting further authority to the government that he would not approve of.
:barf:
He really doesn't understand what freedom is apparently.
publius 42 said:
Wow.... just wow....
I must admit Rudy's statement is a dichotomy to me, then I was completely floored by publius 42. Let's put them together with equally opposite concepts ans see if that works any better!
Fire is about water... It's very true, unless you are an arsonist.
Nope, doesn't seem to work.
how about this
Dating is about guys' only poker night... It's very true, unless you are a rapist.
I don't see that working either.
Here is my last try:
Marriage is about being single... It's very true, unless you are a polygamist.
That also doesn't work! Well technically it did sort of work for Rudy a couple times so that may be how he found a way to connect freedom to authority.
So how on earth can Freedom be about authority unless you are referring to freedom being the condition in which authority is the clear lesser of the two with one not being able to flourish in proximity of the other.
Just remember, this is the mayor of the city in which a Ruger 10/22, even with a 5 round mag, is illegal! Think real hard about that and then try and come up with a piece of legislation granting further authority to the government that he would not approve of.
Wildalaska
Moderator
That all started before his time IIRC......
Keep in mind that since the 1960s, the only thing a NYC politico knows about guns is that they are a convenient target...simply because the electorate there doesnt give a hoot about them...
WilduniquelocalpoliticsthereAlaska TM
Musketeer, you might just be an anarchist!
Does less authority always mean more freedom? A government is going to need certain authority if it is to protect us from bad guys, protect our property, etc. In the more lawless parts of the world, the largest gangs with the best weapons decide whether people and property will be safe, and the people seem worse off than we are. To maximize freedom, we need some government, and it has to have some authority over us, which we willingly cede.
Jefferson might have said it better:
You have not mentioned yet whether or not you believe that Rudy's position that there should be a federal law saying we must show a reason for owning a handgun before we can own one is reasonable. Do you find that position reasonable?
Does less authority always mean more freedom? A government is going to need certain authority if it is to protect us from bad guys, protect our property, etc. In the more lawless parts of the world, the largest gangs with the best weapons decide whether people and property will be safe, and the people seem worse off than we are. To maximize freedom, we need some government, and it has to have some authority over us, which we willingly cede.
Jefferson might have said it better:
WildAlaska said:
You have not mentioned yet whether or not you believe that Rudy's position that there should be a federal law saying we must show a reason for owning a handgun before we can own one is reasonable. Do you find that position reasonable?
Yes.
As far as an anarchist... not completely though I am a Libertarian.
(who knows they have no choice and usually don't vote for them because I am trying to make the best of a bad situation.)Freedom does not mean you are safe. It means you are free. Free to starve or prosper, kill or be killed. Now I will state that for a society to function there need to be some rules established with which the vast majority are in agreement with and which infringe on thos freedoms as absolutely little as possible.
I find it ominous though that Mr. former prosecutor and mayor of NYC, where freedom is at about its lowest point within the USA do to its overwhelming and invasive laws, sees fit to say "Freedom is about authority." He could have said, with much more relevence, "Freedom is about Responsibilty." I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. It is scary though that the man who had no problem with almost any tactic used by the NYPD and whose whole life revovled around finding new ways to prosecute people immediately connects freedom with an immediate limitation on it as determined by the Government.
Jefferson said that. How do you think he would feel about the state of affairs in NYC?
Jefferson said:
Well that seems impossible when even .22 cal rifles are illegal in NYC. I am certain people could protest, if they can get a permit to stage one...
Yep, Rudy and NYC, models for a free society!