The closest Rudy came to a response was saying something about how reasonable regulations are OK. Lots of people might think a written exam reasonable, but Rudy went further back in 2000. I think they should have asked him whether he still believes we should have to show that we need a handgun before being allowed to own one, and whether he still believes it was a good idea to file his lawsuit against gun makers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Was anyone here disappointed....
- Thread starter seeker_two
- Start date
The closest Rudy came to a response was saying something about how reasonable regulations are OK. Lots of people might think a written exam reasonable, but Rudy went further back in 2000. I think they should have asked him whether he still believes we should have to show that we need a handgun before being allowed to own one, and whether he still believes it was a good idea to file his lawsuit against gun makers.
Sigma 40 Blaster
New member
I think Rudy was talking pretty straight talk...it makes sense...I wish he would have expanded his answer to address the issue of having to take a written exam.
Other than the word "reasonable" regulation, where "reasonable" means absolutely nothing, I pretty much agree with WHAT HE SAID. Not sure if he meant it or what else he was implying.
The federal government should set pretty high level and general criteria regarding laws. States have the right and need to add any additional regulation based on their circumstances.
Some will say any additional regulation is unconstitutional (or any regulation at all). I feel good knowing that felons, wife beaters, abusers of firearms, and people with documented mental problems cannot get a gun, I think that is totally reasonable. If the state add any more criteria than that I wouldn't live in that state.
Conceal carry is left to the states to decide...I am actually in heavy favor of that...if we can have federal intervention saying that concealed carry is legal across the nation the flip side of that would be possible...they would be able to say it's illegal across the nation.
I do not support Rudy for different reasons but can't say I have a problem with what he SAID...I honestly do not support someone who I feel I have a need to analyze their statements to find any wiggle room they've left themselves for the future or who dodges pretty specific questions with generalities (ALL politicians).
Other than the word "reasonable" regulation, where "reasonable" means absolutely nothing, I pretty much agree with WHAT HE SAID. Not sure if he meant it or what else he was implying.
The federal government should set pretty high level and general criteria regarding laws. States have the right and need to add any additional regulation based on their circumstances.
Some will say any additional regulation is unconstitutional (or any regulation at all). I feel good knowing that felons, wife beaters, abusers of firearms, and people with documented mental problems cannot get a gun, I think that is totally reasonable. If the state add any more criteria than that I wouldn't live in that state.
Conceal carry is left to the states to decide...I am actually in heavy favor of that...if we can have federal intervention saying that concealed carry is legal across the nation the flip side of that would be possible...they would be able to say it's illegal across the nation.
I do not support Rudy for different reasons but can't say I have a problem with what he SAID...I honestly do not support someone who I feel I have a need to analyze their statements to find any wiggle room they've left themselves for the future or who dodges pretty specific questions with generalities (ALL politicians).
Federalist 45, James Madison:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Here is the problem, if you say how many guns you have - you have to buy new drapes or a washer / dryer!
I know this as I have a nice new 1911 and new drapes.
I know this as I have a nice new 1911 and new drapes.
seeker_two
New member
Sigma 40 Blaster: Better think about this.....what other restrictions on our rights has the government considered "reasonable"?......
Patriot Act.....
Eminent Domain for private development.....
McCain/Feingold......
TSA.......
Be careful what you wish for......
Patriot Act.....
Eminent Domain for private development.....
McCain/Feingold......
TSA.......
Be careful what you wish for......