2007-11-15 02:44:29 · 11 answers · asked by idontknow 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
yes it does that why i wont vote for either
2007-11-15 02:48:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Rudy is currently in the middle of a law suit against major gun manufacturers for causing crime. Both Rudy and Hillary want to take this country to a soviet model which is where the government governs the people and not the other way around which means definately no guns. Ron Paul 08 100% Pro Second Amendment
2007-11-15 11:00:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since Hillary leans way to the left.....I think it's safe to say that she could potentially "side" with the anti-gun folks among her constituents, whereas Rudy would be far more inclined to attempt to protect 2nd. Amendment rights.
Neither, as President alone, can rewrite the Constitution -but- am betting the anti-gun lobby would find a more sympathetic ear with Hillary.
2007-11-15 10:52:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't matter if either Hillary or Rudy gets elected on most issues.
2007-11-15 11:15:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, there is a difference, but not a lot. Rudy wouldn't repeal the 2nd Amendment outright, but it would suffer some severe trauma. Hillary would do her best to do away with it completely.
2007-11-15 10:49:53 · answer #5 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Giuliani has been tough on ILLEGAL guns, as the former mayor of New York City. Also, as a big city dweller, he doesn't have much use for the so-called "assault rifles" because they were largely used in NYC by criminals in gang shootings and shooting of police. NYC was tough on guns long before Giuliani became mayor. He has already shown that his PRESIDENTIAL position on guns will be different from his position as mayor of a big crime-ridden city.
Residents of upper state New York and much of the rest of America recognize that leftists like Hillary,Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer and John Kerry have tried for years to classify all kinds of lawful sporting firearms as "assualt rifles", to get them ALL banned.
Even firearms like the original SKS, the AK-47, and civilian sporting versions of these guns are pleasant and inexpensive to use for light game and casual target shooting. They're about like the century-old .30-30 carbine in power, and actually shoot a lighter bullet. They are modern guns, just the same as the .30-.30 was considered "modern" compared to a muzzle-loader. Would you want to have to drive a Model "T" Ford today?
2007-11-15 11:29:49 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, either way the only people with the big guns will be the government. Not a position I want the American people to be in with either of them in office.
2007-11-15 11:24:34 · answer #7 · answered by benni 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good old right to Bear Arms. This is actually out the window as it is, so no it doesnt
2007-11-15 10:47:07 · answer #8 · answered by Priest of Anubis 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Or a broader question, does it matter regardless?
2007-11-15 10:46:59 · answer #9 · answered by barthebear 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
why would the right to bear arms have anything to do with either one of them?
2007-11-15 10:48:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋