I think you have a valid point here…….

You just don’t want every joe on the west side from top to bottom, soho, and the bronx (that’s just Manhattan proper) walking around with a handgun. You just don’t.

Why not? I’ve always been a Heinlein fan, and one of his best quotes, in my opinion, is “An armed society is a polite society.”

Yes, I’ve been in NYC, and I understand the pressures that having so many people crammed into such a small space can create. But I also understand that, if every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” was to have a firearm, they would be LESS likely to use it out of simple rage, simply because they would know that there is a good chance the other person is also armed. That’s one point.

Another point is that even if the handgun ban were repealed, every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” would not be able to own a handgun. Federal law sets the minimum standards which must be met for a person to own a firearm. State laws may augment these federal requirements, but they can not allow federally disallowed people to own firearms. By federal law, the list of “prohibited persons” includes: convicted felons, individuals with a history of domestic violence, individuals with a history of violent crime (misdemeanor or felony), individuals convicted of crimes with drugs in the last 7 years, individuals who have been adjudicated mentally defective, and individuals who are currently awaiting trial for a crime (not traffic tickets). That right there will take care of most of your “loons with a squegee, frustrated artists, and crack dealers”.

My final point is, I think, the most salient one. You are, in essence, advocating stripping an American citizen of one of their God given rights, a right that is protected by the Constitution of these United States, on sheer virtue of where they choose to live. Whatever happened to, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable Rights: that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”? I don’t see in that statement anything about those rights only applying to people who don’t live in crowded areas. What you are suggesting is not only un-Constitutional, it’s criminal.

As for that tired arguement that NYC is different in that it needs gun control,

No, I know LA and San Fran well, Boston, sorta, Philly sorta, Miami, so-so, London pretty well, and Rome and Ontario a little but mostly – very mostly -I know NYC, and NYC is a world apart from every one one of those places. Density most certainly is the issue. Nowhere else in the world that I’ve ever seen (I need to get to Tokyo, but have no business there) is there such an intense concetration of people. The sheer density changes the human condition in fundemental ways that I’m sure you have heard psychologists talk about; in the less affluent areas in NYC, mental illness is absolutely commonplace, and NYC is the original home of road rage. No, you do NOT make it easy for every tom, dick and harry to get themselves a handgun in NYc.

Yes, Rudy was hugely tough on criminal prosecution – a good conservative thing – but you really really really don’t want every loon with a squeegee, every frustrated artist, or crack dealer, of tortured soho musician drinking himself to death on bleeker street until 4 in the morning, or a million other people walking around with a loaded piece.

I understand your concern about the crushing of 2nd amendment rights – and I appreciate Vermonts astoundingly lax weapon policies in my adopted, picture-postcard state – and those concerns are valid.

But no one thing is right for everyone or everything. easy hand gun access is insanity in manhattan, and isn’t too brilliant in Brooklyn or Queens either (Long Island is also different, and I’d relax them a bit on the island, personally). But manhattan proper is a non-stop powderkeg if you put easy handgun access into the mix.

You haven’t lived there. trust me. Rudy did not just the right thing, but the entirely obvious thing. I voted and campaigned for Reagan and have been hard conservative ever since. I wouldn’t be supporting Rudy if his record is what the propogandists are saying it is. It really is that simple.
You just don’t want every joe on the west side from top to bottom, soho, and the bronx (that’s just Manhattan proper) walking around with a handgun. You just don’t.

Gun control in NYC was as out of control as crime when General Dinkins was sent packing. Rudy did favor gun control, but as an NYC resident, you should know he brought crime down not by crime control, but by criminal control. When you actually arrest and prosecute the bad guys, they don’t commit as many crimes. And kudos to Rudy for that prosecution, because crime did fall dramatically. It just was not due to gun control.

As for that tired arguement that NYC is different in that it needs gun control, I get the same crap from the lefties here in CA. There is nothing different or special about NYC, even with the population density. The fundamental being missed here in CA is the state and most cities do not go after bad guys, they just tack on more ineffective gun control.

If the criminal were kept out of the population, the population could be armed to the teeth and everyone would be fine.

Do you really believe that your – I’ll be charitable and refer to it as “posting” – has endeared anyone to your cause?

You seem to be advocating that the frog in the warm water who is slowly cooked is better off than the frog dropped into boiling water who jumps out.

It’s true that Hillary or Obama will advocate all sorts of terrible things for this country – and they might even get some of them through. They might even get another Ginsburg on the court.

What we’re saying is “perhaps it’s time to remind this nation just what that means.”

As a people we have lost our way, precisely through the gradualism that you support. We abandon issue by issue – never to get them back – because the next candidate supports “everything but that issue.”

With Mitt it’s healthcare. With Rudi it’s abortion. With McCain it’s our borders. Etc. Which one of these do we want to abandon this time – is that the Sophie’s Choice you’re telling us we should make?

Sometimes you have to let the Prohibitionists win, just to remind everyone that nobody has the right to tell you that you can’t drink a beer.

Let’s watch a few states go bankrupt under the weight of these entitlement programs. Let’s see another city become like DC or Philly or LA where guns are essentially banned, but the gun violence literally rivals Baghdad. Let’s watch the dollar plunge to the point where oil is quoted in Euros per barrel, not dollars. Let the prisons overflow with “undocumented foreign citizens.”

At some point the political landscape will be ready for someone like Fred to step in and say “enough. This is not America anymore. I want my country back” and people will understand.

If it happens in the next few years, we can get out of the water. If it happens slow, like the frog we’ll be asleep when the poaching actually begins.

He was mayor, not governor, and immigration is a federal issue about which he had no control.

However he had absolute control over what the police did with illegals. Banning them from turning them over to the feds means that this “federal issue” you speak of was never dealt with because they were never TOLD.

Do you not grasp the concept behind the phrase “sanctuary city”? The “City” part is actually fairly important.

That’s a past tense you should have there, because as Mayor of NY you just don’t want handguns everywhere.

So during his campaign, when he speaks of gun control, I should just plug my ears and go “la-la-la I can’t hear you”? Because that’s what you must do.

He is in favor of restricting MY ability to get a handgun. Explain to me how making it harder for the people who follow the law will have any effect on people who don’t give a toss about the law?

For god’s sake, he spoke of gun control laws at an NRA meeting…

he said the law favors a woman’s right to choose, and therefore so does he insomuch as he inforces the law. He’s also said, even as Mayor, that he would like to see that decision reversed.

So sorry, but that makes no sense. The “right to choose” frankly only exists BECAUSE of Roe v Wade, maybe the worst example of a ruling creating law.

He favorers their right to choose, but wants a reversal of the SOURCE of that right? Yeah.

He’s pro abortion. If that doesn’t bother you on some level, I fear you’re beyond helping.

Thankfully, thanks to a death-spiral in FL, he’ll be out soon. Then it will only be a choice between the lesser of three evils, not four.

All three of the republicans who were actual conservitives have dropped out.

How the hell do you know? Because you “read” about them like you did Rudy’s record. Your “conservative” Duncan Hunter just endorsedd the least conservative of the bunch after McCain, and that’s Huckabee. The trouble with you is when you read that someone lies,you assume the author is telling the truth without knowing the facts.

Here’s an education for you, in case you weren’t within 500 miles of NYC during that time when Rudy was mayor, which I imagine was probably the case:

And enforced a sanctuary city,

I’m so tired of that bullsh*t. A. He was mayor, not governor, and immigration is a federal issue about which he had no control. He was constantly trying to get the feds to take the illegals, but the liberals under the Clinton administration wouldn’t have them. I remember how Rudy was demonized constantly by the press for being “heartless” whenever the issue came up. You’re reading ultra-left propoganda designed to do exactly what it is doing – turning you off to the front runner best equipped to beat Hillary.

favors massive gun-ownership restrictions,

That’s a past tense you should have there, because as Mayor of NY you just don’t want handguns everywhere. The normal to unbalanced quotient of a population living on top of each other like rats is something you can’t imagine unless you know the place well. He’s expressed different views on the issue nationally, and always did. That city was a powderkeg of people about to snap when he took office. No one thing is right for everyone – or everything, and NYC filled with people with handguns is insane. Unlike most places where decreased handguns increases crime because the criminals have nothing to fear from their victims, in NYC crime went down during Rudy’s watch, and went down astoundingly. You don’t second-guess that degree of success.

and is pro-RvW.

He never said it. he said the law favors a woman’s right to choose, and therefore so does he insomuch as he inforces the law. He’s also said, even as Mayor, that he would like to see that decision reversed. You can imagine what the NY MSM said about that! Of course, you can’t imagine because you weren’t there and you’ve only beenreading bullsh*t on the blogs. Bullsh*t you seem only too happy to repeat at the drop of a hat.

You need a serious education about the man, my friend.

For suggestions I’ll give you Rudy: lowered taxes, turned a budget around in the 3rd largest economy in the US while increasing the quality of life: gigantic accomplishment Reagan would be proud of, and even Reagan came nowhere near that as Governor of California. No other candidate comes close

And enforced a sanctuary city, favors massive gun-ownership restrictions, and is pro-RvW.

There. That’s three.

No thanks. All three of the republicans who were actual conservitives have dropped out. There isn’t anyone left to like. It’s now a case of the lesser of evils, and who I dislike least.

And frankly, if I want to hear the “bad news” about the republicans, I’ll watch the network news.

And if I want news on anythng else, the three other blogs I watch usually scoop Michelle by about 2 days anyways.

On January 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm, swj719AWG said:
Sorry Cat, but I still have to side with Ordinary on this. MM’s site has been almsot nothing but shrill political harpings on every conservitive canidate.

I actually agree 100% with you on this, but not so much from Michelle but actually from people like OC. If you’ve been reading around I don’t have to tell you that I’ve been taking another road: asking people to qualify why their candidate is the one they chose on the basis of that candidate’s manifest accomplishments, not his thetoric. Nobody answers.

However, I wouldn;t say this about Michelle because A. she’s the host and B. I want her to spill the bad news – the good news I can often find myself, though it would be good if she posted a list of all their manifest accomplishments without any negatives at all so everyone has a comprehensive list on the flip side.

For suggestions I’ll give you Rudy: lowered taxes, turned a budget around in the 3rd largest economy in the US while increasing the quality of life: gigantic accomplishment Reagan would be proud of, and even Reagan came nowhere near that as Governor of California. No other candidate comes close.

Also, know that much of the “liberal” reports have been coming from the left that fears him to death, and it’s being fed in large doses to the right so someone Hillary can beat like Huck or McCain will get the nod.

Give me a complaint about Rudy being too liberal and I’ll give you the facts. I was in NYC the whole time and watched it all very closely. The story you’re getting is generally not the real deal. Rudy is as conservative as they get, and part of the proof is until recently the MSM had labelled him “mean” and “cruel”, always a good indicator that a conservative is doing his job right.

You bet, because there are essentially 2 electible candidates.

Thanks to sheep like you, that’s true.

By going 3rd party you effectively casting a de facto vote for Hillary.

No, by voting 3rd party, I am casting a de facto vote for….the third party candidate I vote for. This twisted logic that BOTH parties manipulate to get votes is disgusting. I am not “giving” the Democrats a vote by not voting Republican. I am exercising MY right, as an American, to vote for whomever the hell I want. Who are you, on your high horse, to tell me who I need to vote for?

The opinion is that in so doing, you’re having a childish hissy fit, but it’s an opinion that’s been well exrapolated, so I’ll stick with it.

In that case, I’ll have to stick with MY opinion that calling falsehoods facts and slinging names is “throwing a childish hissy fit”. I would say I’ve extrapolated that fact fairly well.

Or you’re a liberal shill trying to convince others to not vote also.

Two things. First, when have you seen me espouse any liberal beliefs? I’m fairly certain I’ve made my stance as a Conservative clear. Second, when have you seen me try and “convince others not to vote”? I have said that I will vote…just not for who you want me to vote for. South Park comes to mind.

You are voting principal over the damage that action does

And if more people would open their eyes and vote on their principles, instead of who they’re told can “Beat the Dems, yarg!”, there would be no “damage” to worry about.

It also, in my estimation, makes you an unpatriotic scumbag.

Wow. So, in your estimation, one poster, who has served his country in uniform, is unpatriotic because he says he won’t vote. Now, I’m an unpatriotic scumbag because I won’t vote for your party…and when is the Fourth Reich, exactly?

Sorry, but I’m just exprssing my principals.

And as an American, you’re free to do so. As an American Soldier, I’ll die for your right to do so.

And this in your sick, detached mind, is a good thing. Tell that to the mothers of the murdered children if it all comes to pass, creep.

I have told it to the mother’s of murdered children. Their sons were my troops. And guess what? They want me to go out and keep doing what I do. They’re optimists too.

Unbelieveable.

Yes, you are.

That is, when she gets passed attacking Hillary/Bill/The Clintons.

At this point, considering Hunter is backing Huck, maybe Fred should tell his supporters to do the same.

If only to piss Michelle off. God knows I’ve not seen anything resembling a reasonable suggestion regarding the Republican field YET.

Choosing to stand by my principles, and in turn voting on those principles, is throwing a hissy fit?

You bet, because there are essentially 2 electible candidates. By going 3rd party you effectively casting a de facto vote for Hillary. This is fact, not opinion. The opinion is that in so doing, you’re having a childish hissy fit, but it’s an opinion that’s been well exrapolated, so I’ll stick with it.

Or you’re a liberal shill trying to convince others to not vote also.

You are voting principal over the damage that action does and you don’t give a sh*t. That’s amazing. It also, in my estimation, makes you an unpatriotic scumbag. Sorry, but I’m just exprssing my principals.

I stated (rightly, in my estimation) that is Hillary gets in the White House, that we will be fighting the terrorists on our doorsteps, instead of in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m merely looking on the positive side of a bad situation. Call me an optimist.

And this in your sick, detached mind, is a good thing. Tell that to the mothers of the murdered children if it all comes to pass, creep.

Unbelieveable.

Idealism over practical reality.

If it weren’t for idealism, everyone would lead depressing, boring lives. Either way, I don’t claim to be an idealist. As a matter of fact, I see the reality of the situation. The reality is that the Republican party is no longer representative of true Constitutional Conservatism. Instead, it has become the party of “Let’s beat the Dems!” No thanks.

intellectually dishonest

How so?

relentlessly negative

Pull the other one.

hissy-fit childish

Choosing to stand by my principles, and in turn voting on those principles, is throwing a hissy fit? I would dare say that name slinging because someone refuses to toe your party line is a more apt description.

destructive to the country

The simple fact is, out of all the remaining candidates, there is not a single Conservative among them. Voting for any of them would be akin to aiding and abetting the enemy. What is more destructive: Standing in defiance of the enemy and getting trampled anyway, or giving up your principles, just to go along, and AID in the destruction of that which you hold so dear? Which is morally correct? What would a FREE MAN do?

To your friends, neighbors, kids, our military and the future.

Actually, my friends will be doing the exact same thing I’ll be doing: voting by their principles. Those principles may not be the same as mine, but at least they stand by their convictions. My neighbors? Believe me, they can take care of themselves. My vote won’t be destructive to them. Same goes for my family. Destructive to the military? Wake up and smell the java: The President doesn’t control funding for the military. Take your vote to Congress. The future? My future looks pretty darned sunny.

And the smarmy wisecrack about not caring if Hillary is elected shows you really don’t give a damn.

Read that “smarmy wisecrack” again. I didn’t say I don’t care if she gets elected. I stated (rightly, in my estimation) that is Hillary gets in the White House, that we will be fighting the terrorists on our doorsteps, instead of in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m merely looking on the positive side of a bad situation. Call me an optimist.

And the smarmy wisecrack about not caring if Hillary is elected shows you really don’t give a damn.