I could live with Guilliani as the Republican nominee and I think he is generally articulate on the issues, but he got. . forgive the pun. . . shot up over the gun contol question.
His basic premise to the Second Amendment was that the rules applying to the right to bear arms are not absolute, and then went on to cite certain legislation.
He would have been much better off saying, "Look, The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Relgion, but that doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice. The First Amendment aslo guarantees Freedom of Speech, but that doesn't mean you can go blabbing nuclear secrets to Iran."
"Similarly, the Second Amendment may not be absolute. It may be reasonable to ban assault weapons, do background checks, or deny weapons to someone who has a track record of mental illness. As the First Amendment has certain limitations, I believe the Second should as well."
Granted, the answer may have not gone far with last night's crowd, but it is defensible
2007-11-29
05:48:18
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Pythagoras
7
in
Politics