Debate

[Tabsr]

Giuliani , Romney and McCain, Register your guns or you!!

[cobb]

Giuliani , Romney and McCain, Register your guns or you!!

Would like to expand on this, or at least explain what you mean?
I'm not all that good on that text messaging abbreviations and meanings.

[JFettig]

These three "conservatives" were asked if they had any guns.... can anyone guess what their answer was?

Jon

[mnglocker]

These three "conservatives" were asked if they had any guns.... can anyone guess what their answer was?

Jon

Either silence or something along the lines of "only registered non-gunshow loophole cop killer evil black bang-boom things when I was a kid, but I no longer feel the need to own them because the jack booted thugs keep me safe."

Is that about right?

[EAJuggalo]

IIRC, they all said no, with McCain saying not anymore. Interestingly though Guiliani did say that there is a right to carry a firearm while talking about Parker v DC.

[cmj685]

Yah, funny how Giuliani has had this major conversion about guns during election season, isn't it? Suddenly he loves them and all those who own them. I would certainly trust him with my guns, wouldn't you? Could it be that Hillary is actually more honest than Giuliani? At least election season didn't seem to change her mind about the evil of guns!

I don't think it really matters if they own guns or not. If they did, they would all be among the Zumbo clan who owned $3000 rifles and shotguns and went to exclusive ranches to hunt guided hunts with other rich elite. All of them would assume that the 2nd amendment was always all about hunting, specifically their kind of hunting by their kind of people. Such people would still be highly anxious about most of us and ownership and use of guns by our kind. (There are, of course, conservative candidates who really do own guns and understand the 2nd amendment.)

[princewally]

Yah, funny how Giuliani has had this major conversion about guns during election season, isn't it? Suddenly he loves them and all those who own them.

There was no conversion, just a 'clarification'.

He loves the second amendment, but it's subject to 'reasonable' restrictions, like they did in NYFC.

[cobb]

He loves the second amendment, but it's subject to 'reasonable' restrictions, like they did in NYFC.

The issue is, my definition of reasonable and his definition of reasonable are on different ends of the spectrum.

[princewally]

He loves the second amendment, but it's subject to 'reasonable' restrictions, like they did in NYFC.

The issue is, my definition of reasonable and his definition of reasonable are on different ends of the spectrum.

I'm sorry, did my dripping sarcasm not come through? Damn intarweb.

That was the point I was trying to make.

[cobb]

He loves the second amendment, but it's subject to 'reasonable' restrictions, like they did in NYFC.

The issue is, my definition of reasonable and his definition of reasonable are on different ends of the spectrum.

I'm sorry, did my dripping sarcasm not come through? Damn intarweb.

That was the point I was trying to make.

No I didn't take it as sarcasm, sorry. But the reason I didn't was because I thought he did use the word reasonable during the debate.

[princewally]

Yes, he did use the word. I put it in quotes.

I was sarcastic. Rudy hasn't changed his stance on guns one bit. He's as anti as they get, but he's trying to spin it as pro, without sounding like he's waffling. He's on the list of people I would have a really hard time voting for.

[cobb]

Yes, he did use the word. I put it in quotes.

I was sarcastic. Rudy hasn't changed his stance on guns one bit. He's as anti as they get, but he's trying to spin it as pro, without sounding like he's waffling. He's on the list of people I would have a really hard time voting for.

I would not vote for him.

[justaguy]

Yes, he did use the word. I put it in quotes.

I was sarcastic. Rudy hasn't changed his stance on guns one bit. He's as anti as they get, but he's trying to spin it as pro, without sounding like he's waffling. He's on the list of people I would have a really hard time voting for.

A HARD time voting for? That was sarcasm right? I don’t see any way in hell I would vote for him.

[princewally]

A HARD time voting for? That was sarcasm right? I don’t see any way in hell I would vote for him.

I'm not convinced that Minnesota will necessarily go D in the presidential election. The front runners for the D ticket have some pretty major negative associated with them. The She-Devil may be in front of that race, but she's also got the highest negative numbers of and candidate, on either side, according to the last poll I saw.

With the current crop of polarizing democrats, and the recent presidential elections that were relatively close in Minnesota, there is a chance that we'll go R next year.

I will NOT vote for Guiliani in the primary.
I will NOT campaign for him.
I will NOT donate money to him.
If it is a choice between him and Hillary next fall, I probably WILL hold my nose and vote for him, because I'm not convinced I'd be wasting my vote.

It may only be an incremental difference in the level of evil in the white house, but it's a BIG increment.

OTOH:

[Thor]

Giuliani and Romney have established their anti-gun credentials prior to running for election. Their history is enough to convince me. I think that McCain is somewhat ambivalent on the issue, maybe leaning more towards the pro-2A side. The rest of the folks on the GOP ticket seem to be pretty pro 2A. Huckabee most definitely is, but I really see him as a Dem (lite). I'd really like to see Duncan Hunter win, but reality sets in and I know that he doesn't stand a chance. Hunter is probably the most TRUE Republican on the ticket. Thompson runs a very close second to Hunter, IMO. However, Thompson has really dropped the ball on his campaign. Fact is.... I will vote for whomever wins the GOP nod over ANY alternative, unless one jumps out there at the last minute.