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 & Government ➔ Politics
There were no assault weapons banned during the AWB that clinton signed. Assault rifles fall under the NFA act of 1934.
His answer was more in line with the concept that our freedoms are granted from government. Something our Founders wrote extensively against.
2007-11-30 19:11:14 · answer #1 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't win over the audiance only because people are aware of his gun control tactics, law suits against manufacturers for saturating the market and allowing regular people to buy guns.plus his own interviews in the past where he stated that only law enforcement should carry guns. He can't dance around his statements and actions of the past several years and suddenly change his mind in the past 6 months and he knows it. So he dances instead not only around gun control but illegal immigration as well and that is due to his major interests in the NAFTA freeway.
2007-11-29 13:56:05 · answer #2 · answered by skycat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who knows what the guy believes? He flips and he flops, over and over on all issues. The only thing he's sure of is his 9/11 hero status. He changes positions as often as wives.
2007-11-29 13:53:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do think your answer was better, but I still agree with him. Why shouldn't someone weilding a deadly weapon have to pass a simple written test?
We have to pass a test in order to drive! (Which I realize isn't in the consitution, but nonetheless)
2007-11-29 13:57:22 · answer #4 · answered by 0 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Honestly I thought none of his answers were. Huckabee on the other hand gave much better answers even I don't agree with his views.
2007-11-29 13:56:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it was. It was pretty obvious to me he is for gun control. He seems to be for requiring government approval for us to have our rights. He is no Conservative. He does not believe in our constitution.
2007-11-29 13:56:54 · answer #6 · answered by Bob J 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He seemed to have the same answer for every question. He is responsible for lowering crime in NY. Blah, blah, blah!
2007-11-29 14:04:39 · answer #7 · answered by Just my opinion 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The constitution is what it is and there is not much a president can do about it. That seems to be his answer and it is, what it is.
2007-11-29 13:53:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They'll take away my guns, grenades, surface to air missiles, and small thermonuclear device when they pry them from my cold dead hands. Amurrikkah, HeLz yeah!
2007-11-29 13:58:32 · answer #9 · answered by Kal H 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
your answer was better than his...
maybe you should be running for president instead of him.
In his defense though... you had more time to formulate your answer than he did..
2007-11-29 13:52:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋