Monday, February 12, 2007

He's a politician ... and his lips are moving.

Looks like Dear Old Rudy is trying to scratch some litter over a troublesome issue for his campaign.

No, you don't "...understand the Second Amendment" and you bloody well don't "...understand the right to bear arms."

Understanding the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms involves a fundamental understanding of the phrase "
Shall Not Be Infringed", and you, Rudy old cock, happily and thoroughly infringed the Second Amendment all through your reign as Mayor of Newt Yack City.

You don't get to crawfish your way out of that one, I'm here to tell you.

You are a gun-grabber, you lying sack of o-rings. Bloomberg is standing on your shoulders.

You damn sure don't have my vote, and there is no chance this side of Hades that you're ever going to get my vote.

Period. Full stop. End of statement.

LawDog

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rudy, Barack, Hillary- Easy to decide who to vote against... Every single one that the media and political machines have thought to offer. It's going to be an interesting election.

Hammer said...

I was shocked when I first read that goolianee was a Republican.

I thought he was a facist holdover from Mussolini's black shirts.

(Insert deity of your choice) help us if that back of excrement gets to the white house

WildFire said...

I am a lady who loves firearms!! My newest addition is the Ruger P345. Oh, he's a sweet one. LOVE IT!! I'm hoping that for my 30th...cough....gasp....feeling...faint....birthday, I get a sweet new 9. I already have one, but I do want a new one. Rudy has no concept of the Second Ammendment, nor will he ever totally grasp why we "gun toters" get riled when we hear of such nonsense as bans and such. Sheeeeesh!

WildFire said...

Typo:

Amendment.

Ambulance Driver said...

It's an important enough amendment that it deserves a second M, wildfire.

Anonymous said...

Guiliani "said what he did would have no effect on hunting." These are the words of, A) someone who does not understand the Second in the least, and B), someone who is keeping national gun control on the table for his administration.

Guiliani winning the primary would be electoral Russian roulette for the GOP. (Although the same is true for the other two media-anointed RINOs, McCain and Romney.)

Strings said...

Oh, I don't know: I may vote for Rudy... for municiple dog catcher. For Pres though, I'd sooner vote Satan...

Anonymous said...

Hey, Strings,

The problem with making statements like that is that the Republicans are just dumb enough to nominate Rudy ... and the Democrats are certainly demented enough to nominate someone worse.

THEN what the F**K do you do?

Answer: GET OUT AND VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES! Or I don't want to hear you whining. Period. I know far too many people who come across committed as all get-out, but who can't be bothered to vote until the general election. Somehow they're never happy with the choices they are offered.

Foo.

Tower Tales said...

I can tell you now, if there's ever a national gun control law, I WILL become a lawbreaker. Dog, I realize you and your ilk would be duty bound to arrest me, but I pray that there would be enough people to see the sense in ignoring that particular law in cases where honest citizens were found to hold weapons. Failing that I guess I'd have to just hide them until either a sensible government came back into power or a cabal was formed.

Anonymous said...

Easy question for Rudi, "How do you explain the dramatic rise in crime involving firearms in Canada and Australia after their nation gun bans/grabs?"
I lied - follow up question, "Compare and contrast those statistics to fall in crimes against citizens in states with shall issues concealed carry laws."
Criminals, by definition, do not obey any laws - be they firearm, theft, assault, or parking. And they love to be better armed than their victims.

Anonymous said...

Although I dislike Rudy as much as you do Lawdog, if it comes down the the unthinkable, a choice between Rudy or Hillary, what are you going to do?

On one hand, Rudy will set gun rights back, no doubt about it. On the other, Hillary will ban them outright while committing more atrocities along the lines of Waco.

The choice will truly be the lesser of two evils.

And yes, getting out and voting in the primaries is going to be more important than ever.

Cybrludite said...

Rudy over Hillary, though it'll require a closepin to do it, and whomever the Libertarians are running if it's McCain vs Hillary. And if the GOP is listening, that's a threat, not a promise.

Mark said...

Lawdog,
I can tell you one thing about NYC, having lived there, the people of NYC WANT gun control. They're dumb enough to believe that making guns illegal will eliminate crime. I was regularly asked if I'd ever killed anyone when I lived there (not that NJ is much better, but it is better). Mayor David Dinkins had the Brady's in town one day to snuggle up to the 'roids and push for the Brady Bill before that was passed. (I was part of a counter-demonstration, FIVE of us showed up.) He also pushed thru NYC's Assault Weapon ban which includes such weapons as the M1 Garand (unless you cut off the bayonet lug) and at one point the 1903 Springfield (bolt action) rifle was classed as an assault weapon because of the bayonet lug.

The congress-critter from Harlem, Charles Rangel, has put forth bills multiple times to repeal the Second Amendment and he keeps getting sent back to Congress.

I voted for Rudy when he ran for Mayor, he was at least better than Dinkins (which ain't saying much, Dinkins is to Mayor as Carter is to President). I liked the way Rudy handled 9/11, but don't think he has what it takes to be President.

I just may have to give up my "Independent" status and register as a Republican so I can do something about who gets nominated.

Kaerius said...

I think that the biggest reason not to allow everyone to have a gun is to reduce fatalities from crimes of passion.

However I also think that america has so many guns that its basically a lost cause to get any semblance of gun control there. I read somewhere that using conventional disarmament procedures, it would take 200 years to disarm the USA.

99% of gun fatalities in my country are criminals shooting eachother(particularly bandidos vs hells angels), which is fine by me.

There's the occasional hunter shooting his (ex)wife, but other than that crimes of passion rarely end with fatalities.

To get a permit to own a gun here, you have to have a hunting licence(which requires taking a course, with written tests, shooting test, and having someplace to hunt), or to have been a member of a shooting club for at least two years. There are no concealed carry licences.

Dad29 said...

Rudy is a card-carrying member of the Party of Government.

What'd you expect from him/them?

flintlock tom said...

At least the "posers" make it easy for us to pick them out.
They associate the 2nd ammendment with hunting.

Kristopher said...

Kaerius said...
I read somewhere that using conventional disarmament procedures, it would take 200 years to disarm the USA.


Using conventional disarmament procedures would result in an immediate revolution, and most of the politicians responsible would either flee the country or get strung up from lamp posts.

Yea ... you are definitely from Europe. The only folks born in the US who would even consider such an idea are pretty much insane ... and unknowingly suicidal.

Kaerius said...

*grins*

Anyway I used that example to show how futile it is to try to do gun control in the USA. The people have guns, deal with it. :p

Now, while it's still pretty prudent to background check gun buyers(which really should take no more than a call a police department, assuming they can do a psychiatric history check there too), but if anyone in the USA wants a gun, they'll get a gun, legally or illegally. The 2nd amendment fan-club basically has it right, because the situation is so fucked up.

garys said...

If he can get past his "personal demons" Newt Gingrich would be the guy I want in the White House in '09. The problem is that the MSM will dump all over him for the stuff with his divorce. Of course if he were a Democrat, that would all be in the past and of no importance.

That BS aside, he's smart, speaks well, supports the Bill of Rights, and knows Washington.

Oh, and he's from the South.

What's not to like?

For any liberals reading, that was a rhetorical question.

Gary

Chris said...

He tries to pull that gun registration crap if, God-forbid, he screws around and makes it to the Oval Office and he's going to be the first President in US History to find out just what the Second Amendment was put in place for.

Anonymous said...

At this point, I don't know of anybody running for Prez that's worth voting for. I'm in full agreement that we don't need anti-gun idiots in office. Best way to have a revolution is at the ballot box before opening the bullet box would become necessary.

mustanger98 on THR

Anonymous said...

Lessee..

In town it's a collective right.

With the bears it's an individual right.

And what kind of right is it when I want to get politicians my site for burning the constitution?

Tower Tales said...

I believe if the politicians tried to repeal the second amendment, THEN I would go to war...I think other than that, I'd rely on organizations like the NRA and other conservatives to use our votes to put things right. I WOULD go to war if they decided to use words like "repeal" in the same sentence with 2nd amendment.
In a way, Kaerius is right, though I don't think he fully understands what it means to be an American.
Our situation isn't screwed up..we just count on the politicians to be evil in some manner. we keep guns to enforce our liberty. Like Thomas Jefferson said " a little revolution is good for a country, every once in awhile."
And looking at the rap sheets of most of congress, I think its about time to give it an aenema anyway.
just my 2 cents

Troop said...

Can you actually post the link to the facts on the rise of firearms related crime in Australia?

reno said...

The only person I like for Pres right now is Ron Paul (even though he stands a snowballs chance of winning). We need someone hard line like that to bring us back to where this country should be.

I also agree that "repeal" would be grounds for war. They would never try it though. Government is just as happy hen pecking and taxing our rights away from us.

That being said....
"If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution." - Abraham Lincoln

Lil said...

One of my favorite jokes: "A guy asked me what it was like to live in New York City...so I shot him."

C.S.P. Schofield said...

Reno is onto something.

I think - and have thought for a while - that the Pro-gun side of the argument is approaching the matter wrong. This is easy to do, since so many side issues come up our way.

Our core argument should be simply that we know, from the well documented debates on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that the founders wrote and passed the Second Amendment specifically to make sure that the average citizen would have easy access to military grade arms. There is no room for debate on this. The question then becomes; "If the meaning of the Second Amendment can be turned on its head in the name of safety, how safe are the other Amendments?" Lots of people are afraid of guns - not entirely without reason. But lots of those same people are fond of the intended and historical meaning of other Amendments. The Thirteenth, for example. Or the First.

We should be telling the Gun Grabbers, "We aren't ready to even BEGIN debating the specifics and the flaws of your plans until you admit that, for any gun control to be legal, you have to Amend the Constitution."

They will, of course, object stridently. Which will let us expose them as people who don't believe that the Constitutional limits to the power of the State apply to THEM.

This is something WE take for granted about the Gun Grabbers and their Liberal ilk, but it is also something that THEY have managed to obscure fairly thoroughly. It needs to be made plain to the general public. If it is, the Gun Grabbers and their friends will be on the defensive to a degree that their myriad failures has never accomplished. They can, and do, weather their failures. They can't weather being exposed as a bunch of hectoring bullies who don't think the rules apply to THEM.

Hammer said...

mctIf Ron Paul became president, I would eat my hat and enjoy every bite.

Ben Swenson said...

Calm down, folks. He knows exactly what the Second Amendment says.

A well controlled populace, being necessary for the security of a Big City, the right of the people to apply for a license to possess a firearm exclusively for taking a bit of a hunting trip upstate every now and again shall only be infringed if the mayor feels like it would be beneficial at the time.

Anonymous said...

When I left NYC 22+ years ago the toll for a Firearms ID card (Long gun Registration) was approaching the $100 mark. A pistol license was abot $150. Don't know what the FID costs now but the handgun permit runs about $450 and is only good for 3 yrs. So if you are rich and well connected, no problem. If you need the money for more important things.. no guns. No Gulliani...no way.

Sarita said...

Lawdog, thanks for the blog,love the book recommendations! Come to think of it, the book "Albion's Seeds" by Fischer has an interesting discussion on why different parts of the country feel so differently about law and order and how to keep it. Thanks again for the blog, I got my husband the first Sten book and he stayed up half the night reading it!

Rorschach said...

reno, there are two people you might find acceptable that have a bit better chance (and won't be quite the isolationist that paul is) and those are Brownback and Hunter. Both are conservative, support border security (Duncan Hunter wrote the house bill for the fence), and the WOT. Ron Paul would have us pull every serviceman back to the CONUSA and dismantle what little anti-terrorist enforcement we have managed to get passed because of his libertarian tendencies. Ron Paul is not a republican, even though he runs as one. He is a libertarian with anarchist tendencies. That can't be good for the presidency or the US.