McCain Takes Florida

[Hudson]

Florida Victory Gives McCain Huge Boost


By DAVID ESPO and LIZ SIDOTI,
AP
Posted: 2008-01-29 23:45:35
Filed Under: Elections News (http://news.aol.com/elections), Politics News (http://news.aol.com/politics)
MIAMI (Jan. 29) - Sen. John McCain won a breakthrough triumph in the Florida primary Tuesday night, gaining the upper hand in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination ahead of next week's contests across 21 states and lining up a quick endorsement from soon-to-be dropout Rudy Giuliani.
"It shows one thing. I'm the conservative leader who can unite the party," McCain said after easing past former Massachusetts Gov, Mitt Romney in a hard-fought contest.

"It's a very significant boost, but I think we've got a tough week ahead and a lot of states to come," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the Democratic winner in a primary held in defiance of national rules that drew no campaigning and awarded no delegates.

The victory was worth 57 national convention delegates for McCain, a winner-take-all haul that catapulted him ahead of Romney for the overall delegate lead.

Giuliani ran third, his best showing of the campaign but not nearly good enough for the one-time front-runner who decided to make his last stand in a state that is home to tens of thousands of transplanted New Yorkers.
http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/0d/01/20080129221309990017 scary picture....please don't yell!!!


http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/florida-victory-gives-mccain-huge-boost/20080129065509990001

[BIV]

Ladies and gentlemen, The President of the United States!!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/thebiv/humor/john_mccain.jpg

[LAX]

Yeah Giuliani is expected to endorse McCain tomorrow

[Voss's Tumor]

We got any news on Ron Paul? I haven't looked too hard, mind you, just wondering why there are still only 3 candidates in the Republican Party being talked about in any story I find on a major wire.

[BIV]

We got any news on Ron Paul? I haven't looked too hard, mind you, just wondering why there are still only 3 candidates in the Republican Party being talked about in any story I find on a major wire.
He didn't drop out yet?

How long till he takes a third party nom.

[CougarHunter]

Who is this Ron Paul? Oh yeah the guy that votes for earmarks and tax increases and other assorted bullshit to add to bills while in committee and then votes against the bills when they get to the floor to manufacture a bullshit voting record.

Forgot about him.

[Voss's Tumor]

He didn't drop out yet?

How long till he takes a third party nom.

You do realize what his true platform is, right? I mean, you don't really think he's the KKK candidate do you?

His basic platform is the system's broke, he's been a part of the system for 20 years, and he knows he can make you see it by how much he can scare both sides while being a Republican.

I mean, he tried the Libertarian path when he ran before, he's just found a new avenue to intelligently pursue a path through the system, and he's being blacked out in the media because of it. I mean, he truly is scaring them.

He's broken fund raising records without starting with $100 Million finance package for Christ's sake. Why would so many people know his name when the media refuses to speak it?

A 72 year old gynecologist from Texas has been anti and pro abortion and doesn't even think it's an issue, he'd rather talk about how to fix the economy and adjust foreign policy based on his 20 years of experience.

Are you not the least bit curious why you've never heard any of these stories on the news? Why he could actually poll higher than a few candidates who were thought to be "the big 3" and it doesn't get reported anywhere?

He's not David Duke, he's not Nader, he's not Perot, the ultimate culmination of all of their radical good points, and a complete disregard for all of their really shitty points.

I mean, I honestly think we should start a new party called the "Smart Party", Democrats and Republicans used to mean completely different things, they were once chosen as party names that would speak tot he intelligent people to illustrate what they stood for... I think since we're talking to the actual masses now it should be called the "We Actually Think" party.

[mendozathejew]

I mean, I honestly think we should start a new party called the "Smart Party", Democrats and Republicans used to mean completely different things, they were once chosen as party names that would speak tot he intelligent people to illustrate what they stood for... I think since we're talking to the actual masses now it should be called the "We Actually Think" party.

good luck with that

[Sam_Adams]

Man I fucking called this yesterday morning at work. I told the other folks there that McCain would win Florida due to the high number of retirees that are in the same age range as him that would give him their votes.

[BIV]

You do realize what his true platform is, right? I mean, you don't really think he's the KKK candidate do you?

His basic platform is the system's broke, he's been a part of the system for 20 years, and he knows he can make you see it by how much he can scare both sides while being a Republican.

I mean, he tried the Libertarian path when he ran before, he's just found a new avenue to intelligently pursue a path through the system, and he's being blacked out in the media because of it. I mean, he truly is scaring them.

He's broken fund raising records without starting with $100 Million finance package for Christ's sake. Why would so many people know his name when the media refuses to speak it?

A 72 year old gynecologist from Texas has been anti and pro abortion and doesn't even think it's an issue, he'd rather talk about how to fix the economy and adjust foreign policy based on his 20 years of experience.

Are you not the least bit curious why you've never heard any of these stories on the news? Why he could actually poll higher than a few candidates who were thought to be "the big 3" and it doesn't get reported anywhere?

He's not David Duke, he's not Nader, he's not Perot, the ultimate culmination of all of their radical good points, and a complete disregard for all of their really shitty points.

I mean, I honestly think we should start a new party called the "Smart Party", Democrats and Republicans used to mean completely different things, they were once chosen as party names that would speak tot he intelligent people to illustrate what they stood for... I think since we're talking to the actual masses now it should be called the "We Actually Think" party.
I'm the Choir dude, no need to preach to me. I still can't stand his naive foreign policy stance. It's irrelevant though, he has as much chance of becoming president as I do.

I just think he will take a third party nod to keep himself, and his ideas, in the dialog.

[Hudson]

Man I fucking called this yesterday morning at work. I told the other folks there that McCain would win Florida due to the high number of retirees that are in the same age range as him that would give him their votes.
Hillary Clinton Birthdate: 10/26/1947
John McCain Birthdate: 8/29/1936
a decade apart..
Rather have a bitter Vet than a menopausal cunt!

[Voss's Tumor]

I'm the Choir dude, no need to preach to me. I still can't stand his naive foreign policy stance. It's irrelevant though, he has as much chance of becoming president as I do.

I just think he will take a third party nod to keep himself, and his ideas, in the dialog.

I really don't think his foreign policy is that naive man... I mean, the only argument against us that is so universally questioned that these wack jobs can throw at us is about how we still have troops in their holy lands. "You occupy Saudi! You have troops where my magical ghost was born!"

If we make an effort to start pulling everything out in a manner of compromise at least in the geo-polical eye, the next step Hajji takes in an aggressive direction will have the world on our side again.

I mean in the midst of all this can we remember that a U.S. Carrier battle group is the 3rd largest country in the world in terms of military power? Can we remember that we have at least 14-15 fully functioning battle groups right now? That the economy suffers by using this technology unilaterally using a resource which is almost solely controlled (because of our own environmental policies) in the countries where all the war's happening? I mean, let's not even talk about how when the U.S. started fighting with Brittan when we revolted we were considered "terrorists" in their eyes because we didn't line up with bright red coats and march to a drum and yell fire before each volley.

It's just a new form of warfare which needs a new look at foreign policy, but you have to look at the whole picture, because we don't want to build an empire here, we've already proven that doesn't work. We need to find a way to co-exist... And leaving guns pointed in people's faces never leads to an understanding unless you're dealing with the worst form of oppressed people... And I think they've proven they still have some fight left.

I mean, is apologizing for not realizing you've made a few mistakes with the best intentions really a bad foreign policy to adopt?

[Voss's Tumor]

I'm sorry for being long winded on the subject, it just drives me crazy when I hear someone say, "There's no way he's going to get elected anyway".

When you stop giving a shit because the system's what it is, you pander to the shit they feed you (or prevent you from being fed)

[Sam_Adams]

Hillary Clinton Birthdate: 10/26/1947
John McCain Birthdate: 8/29/1936
a decade apart..
Rather have a bitter Vet than a menopausal cunt!

Me too. but the dummies up here like to watch shit about Huckabee since he's from our state (will probably win the primary here, of course) but I just told them that the retirees would vote for McCain because he's been bashed about his age with people saying he's too old to be president.

Fuck, most of our presidents have been in their 60s when they were elected. When you're up there in age what in the fuck does five years make?

[Sinn Fein]

We got any news on Ron Paul? I haven't looked too hard, mind you, just wondering why there are still only 3 candidates in the Republican Party being talked about in any story I find on a major wire.

I really don't think his foreign policy is that naive man... I mean, the only argument against us that is so universally questioned that these wack jobs can throw at us is about how we still have troops in their holy lands. "You occupy Saudi! You have troops where my magical ghost was born!"

If we make an effort to start pulling everything out in a manner of compromise at least in the geo-polical eye, the next step Hajji takes in an aggressive direction will have the world on our side again.

I mean in the midst of all this can we remember that a U.S. Carrier battle group is the 3rd largest country in the world in terms of military power? Can we remember that we have at least 14-15 fully functioning battle groups right now? That the economy suffers by using this technology unilaterally using a resource which is almost solely controlled (because of our own environmental policies) in the countries where all the war's happening? I mean, let's not even talk about how when the U.S. started fighting with Brittan when we revolted we were considered "terrorists" in their eyes because we didn't line up with bright red coats and march to a drum and yell fire before each volley.

It's just a new form of warfare which needs a new look at foreign policy, but you have to look at the whole picture, because we don't want to build an empire here, we've already proven that doesn't work. We need to find a way to co-exist... And leaving guns pointed in people's faces never leads to an understanding unless you're dealing with the worst form of oppressed people... And I think they've proven they still have some fight left.

I mean, is apologizing for not realizing you've made a few mistakes with the best intentions really a bad foreign policy to adopt?

I'm sorry for being long winded on the subject, it just drives me crazy when I hear someone say, "There's no way he's going to get elected anyway".

When you stop giving a shit because the system's what it is, you pander to the shit they feed you (or prevent you from being fed)

ENOUGH WITH THE RON PAUL TROLLING. Every fucking thread doesn't have to be about Ron Paul. He's your idol. We get it.

He's got no shot at being elected. Get over it.

[BDfromFREEPORT]

Ron Paul is a tin-foil hat wearing mother hucker. Libertarians supporters are worse than Liberals sometimes.

[UCFGavin]

mccain won....but the sweetness of yesterday came with giuliani's campaign coming to a crashing halt. i don't like it....i LOVE it

[BDfromFREEPORT]

speaking of which, Edwards is done also. He is to step down this afternoon. He has not picked a side yet between Obama and Hilary.

[Vyce]

You do realize what his true platform is, right? I mean, you don't really think he's the KKK candidate do you?


The KKK sure would be surprised to hear he isn't.

I really don't think his foreign policy is that naive man...

Really. You don't think that an isolationist foreign policy (not just pull out of Iraq, pull out of EVERYWHERE and basically act like a turtle retreating into its shell) is naive.

If we make an effort to start pulling everything out in a manner of compromise at least in the geo-polical eye, the next step Hajji takes in an aggressive direction will have the world on our side again.

History has proven you wrong.

And "compromising" with the extremists and rogues is exactly why 9/11 happened. Because in the mindset of the Muslim / Arab extremists, we're were a weak, decadent nation that had no will to fight. Until we did.

[UCFGavin]

i can't believe people still believe in this isolationist BS. how are you an isolationist when you voted to go into afghanistan after the people who were responsible for 9/11....

[Kris_LTRMa]

ENOUGH WITH THE RON PAUL TROLLING. Every fucking thread doesn't have to be about Ron Paul. He's your idol. We get it.

He's got no shot at being elected. Get over it.

THANK YOU

:clap::clap:

[Vyce]

i can't believe people still believe in this isolationist BS. how are you an isolationist when you voted to go into afghanistan after the people who were responsible for 9/11....

Take it to the Ron Paul thread.

[TheDrip]

Well, it's certainly shaping up to be McCain for the Republicans and who cares for the Democrats.

Enough with the primaries, bring on the election. I've got a 'goof factor' vote to cast.

[Voss's Tumor]

ENOUGH WITH THE RON PAUL TROLLING. Every fucking thread doesn't have to be about Ron Paul. He's your idol. We get it.

He's got no shot at being elected. Get over it.

I was under the impression this was a political thread...

And I like your even handed "he has no shot at being elected" comment. My whole point is how the fuck would we know when no one's talking about it except his supporters who are labeled racist, naive idiots by the media?

[Sinn Fein]

I was under the impression this was a political thread...

And I like your even handed "he has no shot at being elected" comment. My whole point is how the fuck would we know when no one's talking about it except his supporters who are labeled racist, naive idiots by the media?

If the shoe fits....

BTW, my last post like this one is just that... a post. I'm not shutting down the thread or anything. But believe me, people are sick of hearing about Ron Paul in every thread. Aren't there enough Ron Paul threads?

BTW, if you haven't picked up on it yet - I made the comment about him having no shot (which he doesn't) because you left the door open and put up a sign pointing to it. I just chose to walk through.

[BIV]

I was under the impression this was a political thread...

And I like your even handed "he has no shot at being elected" comment. My whole point is how the fuck would we know when no one's talking about it except his supporters who are labeled racist, naive idiots by the media?
You've answered your own question. No Buzz=not electable.
Aside from that, conservatives wont vote for an isolationist and liberals wont vote for a closed border guy. Centrists think he's too extreme on all his views. He is never even going to get a whiff of the oval office.

I'm not a big McCain fan, but he's the best candidate out there right now, whether we like it or not.

[Vyce]

But believe me, people are sick of hearing about Ron Paul in every thread. Aren't there enough Ron Paul threads?

Oh, good. Glad to see others have noticed this.

[CougarHunter]

Ron Paul for pzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Stormrider666]

I have a question, considering Giuliani's endorsement of McCain, what's more scarier. Giuliani as Attorney General or as Director of Homeland Security? The reason why I ask this, is because McCain is my second choice as a candidate.

[Vyce]

I have a question, considering Giuliani's endorsement of McCain, what's more scarier. Giuliani as Attorney General or as Director of Homeland Security? The reason why I ask this, is because McCain is my second choice as a candidate.

He would do a fine job in either position.

[Voss's Tumor]

He would do a fine job in either position.

Wow... Tell me again how you're not super conservative?

[Hudson]

He would do a fine job in either position.
I agree

[Voss's Tumor]

He would do a fine job in either position.

I agree

So we have Montana and DC checking in...

New Yorkers? What do you think?

[BIV]

So we have Montana and DC checking in...

New Yorkers? What do you think?
Wait, New Yorkers think? Since when?

Then again, I live in Seattle. So rocks and glass houses and all that.

[Stormrider666]

So we have Montana and DC checking in...

New Yorkers? What do you think?

Rudy did a great job at cleaning up in NYC, however he didn't do it alone. The credit should be shared also with the police commishoner William Bratton and the Clinton administration. As for his two possible future positions, I just see Ashcroft 2.0, if Rudy becomes Attorney General. Sadly to say, does anybody know what the current Director of Homeland Security does, so I guess I would be comfortable with him at that job.

[Vyce]

Wow... Tell me again how you're not super conservative?

How about you explain to me in detail why he'd be horrible.

Please consult your Ron Paul newsletters for the necessary talking points and get back to me.

[TrybalRage]

How about you explain to me in detail why he'd be horrible.

Please consult your Ron Paul newsletters for the necessary talking points and get back to me.

Well, first off I don't want someone who is supportive of illegal immigrants and anti-gun as attorney general.

And the DHS is such a fucking disgusting waste of money and everyone's time that it should just be disbanded.

[Sinn Fein]

How about you explain to me in detail why he'd be horrible.

Please consult your Ron Paul newsletters for the necessary talking points and get back to me.

:haha7: That is fucking funny.

[Vyce]

Well, first off I don't want someone who is supportive of illegal immigrants and anti-gun as attorney general.

And the DHS is such a fucking disgusting waste of money and everyone's time that it should just be disbanded.

As far as illegal immigration goes, that's what you're going to get any damn way, no matter who is the nominee. Unless, somehow, Romney gets the nom and wins, although that's rather a longshot at this point (and many conservatives don't even feel Romney is good on this issue).

You're going to get some sort of comprehensive immigration reform passed within the next couple years. If you think that's going to lead to some sort of amnesty program, then vote for a local congressional candidate who's opposed to such measures being part of reform. But let's not act that even if Rudy's soft on immigration, he's a total open borders proponent. Regardless, comprehensive immigration reform is going to happen. And I don't really have a problem with it passing. Something needs to be done, and rounding up all of the illegal immigrants (how many? 20 million?) and deporting them is not any sort of feasible solution.

As for the 2nd amendment? Rudy has explicitly, and repeatedly, said that he cracked down in NYC only to get a grip on the crime wave extant at the time, and that he recognizes that other parts of the country have different needs, and they should be able to determine those themselves. To me, that is a federalist / local government solution to the issue that sounds reasonable and that I can accept.

So wait, someone tell me why my support for Rudy, who many conservatives consider to be something of a RINO, makes me an ultra conservative.

[Voss's Tumor]

As for the 2nd amendment? Rudy has explicitly, and repeatedly, said that he cracked down in NYC only to get a grip on the crime wave extant at the time, and that he recognizes that other parts of the country have different needs, and they should be able to determine those themselves. To me, that is a federalist / local government solution to the issue that sounds reasonable and that I can accept.

You just answered your own question of why I think Rudy's a piece of shit who should never even see the inside of the AG's office on a visit.

Anyone who can say, "But I only disregarded the Constitution because I had the best intentions!" Is one step away from some other short cut that fucks over half the country now, not just New York. Once they pass this hard legislation to make one thing happen, no one ever goes back and un-passes it, so those laws stay on the books, and a few years later the people just get used to them, then we have the FCC taking Opie and Anthony off the air, we have all semi-automatic weapons demonized as assault rifles, we're told that a pistol magazine with 10 bullets is safer for us than a mag with 12, etc.

So you want to make a man with a proven track record for disregarding our most basic constitutional rights the top lawyer in the country? I'm the wacky guy with the crazy opinions in this discussion? Really?

[Vyce]

So you want to make a man with a proven track record for disregarding our most basic constitutional rights the top lawyer in the country? I'm the wacky guy with the crazy opinions in this discussion? Really?

Even though I believe in the second amendment, it has NEVER been one of the constitutional rights that the courts have applied to the STATES via incorporation by the 14th amendment.

Thus, though I disagree with Rudy's crackdown on weapons in NYC, I don't really perceive it as quite the egregious violation of civil liberties as you feel it to be, especially considering there was a justifiable, legitimate reason for it.

But that's just one issue, and besides, to reiterate my point, being pro-gun control is really more of a liberal trait (at least, far more conservatives are for less strict gun-control regulations than are liberals), so again I fail to see how that makes me ultra-conservative for admiring a guy many in his party consider to be a RINO at worst, or a moderate-to-liberal Republican at best.

[TheDrip]

And the DHS is such a fucking disgusting waste of money and everyone's time that it should just be disbanded.


QTF!!! It would be one thing if it consolidated other departments, but it's nothing more than an oversight department that really doesn't do jack shit. Basically, it was something created to give ol' pal Tom Ridge a job.

[Voss's Tumor]

Even though I believe in the second amendment, it has NEVER been one of the constitutional rights that the courts have applied to the STATES via incorporation by the 14th amendment.

Thus, though I disagree with Rudy's crackdown on weapons in NYC, I don't really perceive it as quite the egregious violation of civil liberties as you feel it to be, especially considering there was a justifiable, legitimate reason for it.

But that's just one issue, and besides, to reiterate my point, being pro-gun control is really more of a liberal trait (at least, far more conservatives are for less strict gun-control regulations than are liberals), so again I fail to see how that makes me ultra-conservative for admiring a guy many in his party consider to be a RINO at worst, or a moderate-to-liberal Republican at best.

You're a lawyer? Really?

You're a lawyer that thinks it's acceptable for the mayor of the largest city in the country to ignore a constitutional right when he makes laws? What do you specialize in? Family law?

[Vyce]

I thought I explained, in enough detail, that the 2nd amendment has not been held by the courts to have been incorporated into the 14th amendment, thus applying it to the states.

You can frown on the technical hair-splitting involved here, but since NYC is not a federally controlled city like Washington D.C., for example, the mayor can legitimately impose strict restrictions upon private firearm ownership and NOT run afoul of the U.S. constitution. Which is what happened there. Because as of yet, the courts haven't held that the 2nd amendment applies to the actions of state (or local city) governments, only the federal government.

You're all, "how can you support a man who violated the Constitution!" That's my point, he didn't really do so.

Regardless, when you initially expressed all of this anger at the man for supposedly violating constitutional rights, I didn't think you'd be going after his gun control policies, I thought it would be something.....I suppose I don't want to say more "substantive", but I thought you'd be making a different argument.

[WaddleDoodle]

But does New York have a preemption clause like PA, which would prevent cities from making laws that conflict with established state laws?

[TrybalRage]

Even though I believe in the second amendment, it has NEVER been one of the constitutional rights that the courts have applied to the STATES via incorporation by the 14th amendment.

Thus, though I disagree with Rudy's crackdown on weapons in NYC, I don't really perceive it as quite the egregious violation of civil liberties as you feel it to be, especially considering there was a justifiable, legitimate reason for it.



The current status of how the SC views the 2nd Amendment may be changing in the very near future, with the DC case coming up in March.

And who is to define what is justifiable to ignore the constitution?

The fact is, Rudy does not believe the constitution is absolute, whether you like it or not, and so is unqualified to be the Attorney General.

You can frown on the technical hair-splitting involved here, but since NYC is not a federally controlled city like Washington D.C., for example, the mayor can legitimately impose strict restrictions upon private firearm ownership and NOT run afoul of the U.S. constitution. Which is what happened there. Because as of yet, the courts haven't held that the 2nd amendment applies to the actions of state (or local city) governments, only the federal government.

And this is what I find to be a fundamental problem. Do states/localities have the right to restrict speech? Privacy? Religious expression? Of course not. The viewing of the 2nd that it is somehow lesser than the other rights defined in the 10 amendments is the issue here. Just because he can (meaning, he can get away with it) doesn't mean that he should, and it sets a dangerous precedent of what the man's beliefs are.


Regardless, when you initially expressed all of this anger at the man for supposedly violating constitutional rights, I didn't think you'd be going after his gun control policies, I thought it would be something.....I suppose I don't want to say more "substantive", but I thought you'd be making a different argument.


Well, then there is something else we disagree on. I hate to drag out the old cliche about how the 2nd protects the 1st, but I believe it's true. What keeps government in check besides the threat of force?

[Voss's Tumor]

I thought I explained, in enough detail, that the 2nd amendment has not been held by the courts to have been incorporated into the 14th amendment, thus applying it to the states.

You can frown on the technical hair-splitting involved here, but since NYC is not a federally controlled city like Washington D.C., for example, the mayor can legitimately impose strict restrictions upon private firearm ownership and NOT run afoul of the U.S. constitution. Which is what happened there. Because as of yet, the courts haven't held that the 2nd amendment applies to the actions of state (or local city) governments, only the federal government.

You're all, "how can you support a man who violated the Constitution!" That's my point, he didn't really do so.

Regardless, when you initially expressed all of this anger at the man for supposedly violating constitutional rights, I didn't think you'd be going after his gun control policies, I thought it would be something.....I suppose I don't want to say more "substantive", but I thought you'd be making a different argument.

Pull your head out of the vacuum in which the law exists and tell me how making a law which makes it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire guns, keeps anyone safe from criminals who don't give a shit about what the gun control laws are?

I mean, that's a basic, street level reality, gun control laws only take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Vyce]

The current status of how the SC views the 2nd Amendment may be changing in the very near future, with the DC case coming up in March.

And who is to define what is justifiable to ignore the constitution?

The fact is, Rudy does not believe the constitution is absolute, whether you like it or not, and so is unqualified to be the Attorney General.

Define what you mean by absolute. Not everyone follows a strict constructionalist approach to the Constitution, not even members of the current Supreme Court. And as I explained before, it's not a matter of ignoring the constitution, he's not prohibited by the Constitution from imposing gun restrictions. If you want to argue that it's the wrong move to make, okay, but I keep hearing "He's violated the Constitution!" or "he's ignoring the Constitution!", and I keep saying, quite simply, this isn't an area where the Constitution (the 2nd amendment) even really applies. You could, IN THEORY, say that it does, but no court has done it yet.

You're right about the SC, it will be reviewing the 2nd Amendment with regards to D.C.'s gun control legislation (which was basically a ban on most firearms), but the question of applying it to the states will still likely be left unanswered, considering that D.C. is federal property and is federally controlled, home rule or no home rule.

And this is what I find to be a fundamental problem. Do states/localities have the right to restrict speech? Privacy? Religious expression? Of course not.

They actually can.

We sort of addressed this in the Patriot Act thread from a few weeks back. The truth is, and this is where I may get in trouble with some of you, but just because a right is listed in the Constitution - even a specific enumerated right, not all of these various privacy rights (of which, for example, abortion would be one) that were basically created by the courts years later - it does not mean that it is absolute. Pretty much EVERYTHING can be restricted under the right circumstances. Speech, for example, CAN be restricted. You want to hold a rally at a local park to promote, or protest, a specific political issue? Your local government can deny you a permit to do so. That's a perfectly simply example of a limitation on your right to speak and assemble, which is also, for the most part, constitutional.

The viewing of the 2nd that it is somehow lesser than the other rights defined in the 10 amendments is the issue here. Just because he can (meaning, he can get away with it) doesn't mean that he should, and it sets a dangerous precedent of what the man's beliefs are.

Now, this is a separate argument, and the one I feel should have been made from the beginning. If you think he should NOT have made the restrictions he did, that's perfectly fine, that's a valid criticism. But it's different from just flat out saying he was violating constitutional authority in what he did.

And the viewing of the 2nd amendment as lesser is, unfortunately, something that the courts themselves have basically promoted. We've been independent from the monarchy for over 225 years now, yet in all of that time, our courts have yet to even definitively address the issue of whether "militia" means we as private citizens can own guns.

Pull your head out of the vacuum in which the law exists and tell me how making a law which makes it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire guns, keeps anyone safe from criminals who don't give a shit about what the gun control laws are?

I mean, that's a basic, street level reality, gun control laws only take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Here's something which may shock you, I actually agree with you. I do live and work in D.C., you know, this isn't exactly the safest town in terms of gun violence, and I actually support the recent court decision striking down D.C.'s prohibitive gun law, which is the issue that's going to be going before the SC before too long.

I do, however, support some gun restrictions (waiting periods, I'm not too keen on convicted felons or those with confirmed significant mental illnesses from owning firearms, and I'm of the mindset that fully automatic weapons just aren't necessary for the average consumer, no matter how much one hunts), and my discussion in this thread was pretty much just to clear up misconceptions regarding the legality of Rudy's past actions.

[Voss's Tumor]

Here's something which may shock you, I actually agree with you. I do live and work in D.C., you know, this isn't exactly the safest town in terms of gun violence, and I actually support the recent court decision striking down D.C.'s prohibitive gun law, which is the issue that's going to be going before the SC before too long.

I do, however, support some gun restrictions (waiting periods, I'm not too keen on convicted felons or those with confirmed significant mental illnesses from owning firearms, and I'm of the mindset that fully automatic weapons just aren't necessary for the average consumer, no matter how much one hunts), and my discussion in this thread was pretty much just to clear up misconceptions regarding the legality of Rudy's past actions.

So you agree with me, but you support a man for AG who'll end-around the constitution to implement a gun control policy which you admit did little to no good in fighting crime in NY?

[TrybalRage]

Define what you mean by absolute. Not everyone follows a strict constructionalist approach to the Constitution, not even members of the current Supreme Court. And as I explained before, it's not a matter of ignoring the constitution, he's not prohibited by the Constitution from imposing gun restrictions. If you want to argue that it's the wrong move to make, okay, but I keep hearing "He's violated the Constitution!" or "he's ignoring the Constitution!", and I keep saying, quite simply, this isn't an area where the Constitution (the 2nd amendment) even really applies. You could, IN THEORY, say that it does, but no court has done it yet.

Well there we are. I want people in government who have that strict view, and Rudy, as an example, does not share that view.

I believe that the second is very clear, shall not be infringed. Period. I believe the only reasonable restriction is to be applied to those who have other rights restricted as punishment - i.e. incarcerated. I don't believe in being restricted for life because of a felony - first because felonies are so easy to come by, even for non-violent crimes, and if you are still a danger to society, you should be in prison.

The supreme court hasn't had a chance to rule on the 2nd since the thirties, IIRC, they have avoided the issue for years.



You're right about the SC, it will be reviewing the 2nd Amendment with regards to D.C.'s gun control legislation (which was basically a ban on most firearms), but the question of applying it to the states will still likely be left unanswered, considering that D.C. is federal property and is federally controlled, home rule or no home rule.

I don't know about that... it depends on how this plays out. There is currently a bill going through congress to repeal DC's gun control laws - and if this passes I think it will neuter the SC case, they may even throw it out - and in that case you may be correct. However, I believe the current suit may result in finding that the 2nd guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms - which could be used as a precedent to overturn many states and cities restrictions.



And the viewing of the 2nd amendment as lesser is, unfortunately, something that the courts themselves have basically promoted. We've been independent from the monarchy for over 225 years now, yet in all of that time, our courts have yet to even definitively address the issue of whether "militia" means we as private citizens can own guns.


And since this is an issue that is important to me, I want people who believe that the 2nd is an individual right, just like the rest of the individual rights spelled out in the first 10 amendments. If Giuliani doesn't, then I believe he is wrong, and his views unconstitutional, and unfit for office.