However, in other localities I could see a compelling state interest for a band on most guns — except for certain licensed and registered firearms (such as in densely populated urban area labeled as the murder capital of the world). It depends on where you are and what state interests are in the area.

Yeah, that’s worked so well in Washington DC.

The NRA is in favor of instant background checks and efforts to prevent felons from getting firearms; the vast majority accept restrictions on crew-served weapons that wouldn’t fall under the scope of an individual weapon. no one is suggesting “no restrictions” as your little strawman suggests.

Perhaps you should just sum up your argument as “I don’t believe in following the 2nd Amendment”, as that seems to sum it up pretty well. But please- let us know what other amendments of the Bill of Rights don’t apply when politicians decide that there’s a “compelling state interest” to ignore them.

However, in other localities I could see a compelling state interest for a band on most guns — except for certain licensed and registered firearms (such as in densely populated urban area labeled as the murder capital of the world). It depends on where you are and what state interests are in the area.

tommylotto on September 23, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Spoken like a true Rudy fan.

Rudy is if going down faster than a fluffer at a porn convention.

Ah, the old straw man argument. No one is talking about rockets or nuclear weapons- we’re talking about rifles that are judged in part on cosmetic appearance. But please, share with us your view of what kinds of firearms

are
protected by the 2nd Amendment if not semi-automatic “assault weapons” (quotes due to the fact that technically an assault weapon is capable of automatic fire).

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM

It is not a straw man argument, because many NRA types believe that any limitation on the right to bear arms (even on military grade hardware) is a violation of the second amendment. However, I agree with you that gun control based on cosmetics is stupid. Gun control must be based on a compelling state interest. The state does not have a compelling interest to prohibit folding stocks and muzzle flash guards. In fact, in some localities and under certain circumstances I can’t see a compelling state interest to ban fully automatic weapons. However, in other localities I could see a compelling state interest for a band on most guns — except for certain licensed and registered firearms (such as in densely populated urban area labeled as the murder capital of the world). It depends on where you are and what state interests are in the area.

Most NRA types do not want to have an intelligent discussion about what is reasonable and where is it reasonable, because they argue that any restriction is unacceptable.

Even if his phone were on vibrate it wouldn’t start ringing just because he took it out of his pocket. They either vibrate or ring, the whole point of the vibrate mode is so that you know a call is coming in but the ringing does interrupt what ever else you might be doing.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 5:20 PM

My cell phone vibrates hard, while the ring GRADUALLY grows in sound volume… And, being able to hear Rudy’s phone ringing before he pulls it out, I tend to believe that the call was legitimate, if a planned stunt, and his intended words will forever be a mystery. Anyone who ’sits out’ the election, ANY election, is part of the problem and no patriot, in MY view. We MUST vote for the candidate of the party and make it clear, in his first term, that we want MORE Conservatism… Not less. At any rate…, the alternative option (allowing a Lib-Dem to be elected) is NOT an option.

WRONG. Rudy agrees that Roe v. Wade was bad law made by activist judges which should be overturned, and that has been his position since he ran for Mayor against David Dinkins.

If you want to disagree about his position on abortion you are free to do that, but don’t confuse being pro-choice with supporting Roe v. Wade.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18478985/page/7/

Moderator: OK to repeal?

Giuliani: It would be OK to repeal. It would be also [be OK] if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.

Moderator: Would it be OK if they didn’t repeal it?

Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it.

Yeah, real strong stance there- it would be “OK” either way to repeal Roe v Wade, and his view of a “contructionist judge” is one who would let it stand.

The right to own assault weapons is your very loose interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are a loon on this issue, along with a few other nutcases here.

Maybe you’d like to have some shoulder-fired rockets in your home arsenal too? After all, any attempt to infringe upon your “rights” is unconstitutional!

Buy Danish on September 23, 2007 at 8:27 AM

Ah, the old straw man argument. No one is talking about rockets or nuclear weapons- we’re talking about rifles that are judged in part on cosmetic appearance. But please, share with us your view of what kinds of firearms

are

protected by the 2nd Amendment if not semi-automatic “assault weapons” (quotes due to the fact that technically an assault weapon is capable of automatic fire).

I have to run out for the day. If you have the time, can you explain to Nick and others why you are correct to say that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the Second Amendment?

The lawsuit against gun manufacturers had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

A guy who has no problem with Roe v Wade (a blatantly activist decision

WRONG. Rudy agrees that Roe v. Wade was bad law made by activist judges which should be overturned, and that has been his position since he ran for Mayor against David Dinkins.

If you want to disagree about his position on abortion you are free to do that, but don’t confuse being pro-choice with supporting Roe v. Wade.

Romney is as bad- he openly supports another federal “assault weapon” ban, proving he has no respect for the 2nd Amendment and therefore no respect for the Constitution in general.

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 2:57 AM

The right to own assault weapons is your very loose interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are a loon on this issue, along with a few other nutcases here.

Maybe you’d like to have some shoulder-fired rockets in your home arsenal too? After all, any attempt to infringe upon your “rights” is unconstitutional!

No, they’re saying that Rudy’s newfound belief in the Second Amendment is so transparently phony and designed to pander to the base that he couldn’t even be bothered to get the wording of the amendment straight.

Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Thank you, AP.

When Rudy files an amicus brief in his lawsuit against gun manufacturers, stating his abject OPPOSITION to its merits, and stating repeatedly, in the court hearing the case, that he was sadly mistaken for filing the suit, then, and only then, I may believe his sincerity defending the Second Amendment.

Feel free not to read the site then. I spent basically all summer criticizing Fred for the LAT abortion story, for dragging his feet in getting into the race, and for his myriad campaign personnel problems. I criticize Mitt regularly for pandering to social cons, including in the very post that precedes this one. I criticize Rudy too when the occasion warrants — and also defend him, per my Vilsack post of last night. Everyone gets the same shake, but for some reason the Rudy fans tend to whine about it more. I wonder why.

Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Hey, this is your site, you can be a Fred honk if you want, but don’t pretend to be this un-biased neutral observer. Your critiques of Fred are regularly prefaced with Heart-ache. The prior article was an attack on Vilsack (and Hillary) — nowhere in it were you defending Rudy’s personal life. A few days back you criticized Rudy for taking out the Petraeus ad without his permission, when everyone else thought it was just good politics. (Was MM shamelessly exploiting Petraeus?) Here you are trying to condem him for what — a sentance fragment taken out of context!!! Not to mention your breathless headlines for each Rasmussen poll that show Fred ahead, even thought practically every other similar national poll still has Rudy in the lead.

I like your site, because I agree with much of what you say, but not all — and I like the feisty debates. Who wants an echo chamber? However, you must admit you have a man crush on Fred…

Did you not read my comment at 1:40AM ? I don’t care if his speech was going on for 10 days prior to the segment above and continued for an additional 30 days after the segment above. The topic of the discussion concerned only the few words and the small segment that is displayed at the top of this post.

And that is all my comment was based on and all that is relevant to what I stated. Good Grief Man !

Believe it or not, he spoke for more than 30 seconds. Actually, the speech was about 30 minutes long. The section in the clip above came at about the midway point of the speech. Therefore, he said some things before it, and then said some other things afterwards too. They even had something to do with each other! Imagine that. It’s called context.

The speech I mentioned is the same one, from the NRA meeting. Here it is again. just in case you feel like informing yourself. The section of interest is a little less than halfway into his speech.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 2:42 AM

So your telling me its the same video but it says something different than the one above. That’s pretty amazing.

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Dude, I told you I don’t swing that way. Stalking won’t change that.

Agreed. The phone calls are really stupid but he’s solid on the Constitution.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM

A guy who has no problem with Roe v Wade (a blatantly activist decision) and who thinks that the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that doesn’t apply to states and cities is “solid on the Constitution”??? I don’t think so.

Romney is as bad- he openly supports another federal “assault weapon” ban, proving he has no respect for the 2nd Amendment and therefore no respect for the Constitution in general.

You don’t get to pick which parts of the Constitution you’ll follow and which ones you won’t folks. It’s an all-or-nothing deal; either you follow the text and intent or you don’t.

The speech I mentioned is the same one, from the NRA meeting. Here it is again. just in case you feel like informing yourself. The section of interest is a little less than halfway into his speech.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 9:27 PM

If you want to understand what he was saying, watch the whole speech. Somebody else linked to it (on the C-SPAN) website) earlier in this thread. He was making the point that the word “people” in the constitution means what it says, and that activist judges shouldn’t interpret it as meaning “individuals” in one case and “militias” in the other. In fact, he invoked the 4th Amendment in making his argument. He obviously knows the difference between them, if you bother to watch the video.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM

Firstly, we are not talking about some other speech as it may have been presented elsewhere, we are talking about the video clip as it unfolds above.

Here is a transcript of what he says in the above video. Watch the video again to see if my transcript is accurate. This is what he said:

After all the Second Amendment is a freedom that is every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first ten amendments. Just think of the language of it. The language of it is THE PEOPLE shall be secure …. [phone rings] Oh let me see, this is my wife calling I think ….

When he says “Just think of the language of it” he is clearly talking about the Second Amendment, just as he was in the prior sentence.

Then he goes on to say… The language of it is THE PEOPLE shall be secure…

That’s wrong… the word “secure” is nowhere to be found in the Second Amendment. He gaffed it, it happens sometimes. That’s not to say he doesn’t know the difference between the Second and the Fourth Amendments, but it is to say that he blew it in this particular setting.

And the “wife phone call” thing is a stage gag, just as Allah pointed out.

Savor THIS:

A website paid for and authorized by the Massachusetts Democratic Party has posted a picture of a flier reportedly passed out at a 2002 ‘gay pride’ event by then-gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney expressing support for homosexual rights.

The flier, on red paper, claims to have been paid for by “the Romney for Governor Committee and the Kerry Murphy Healey Committee” and reads, “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride Weekend. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference.”

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FLIER

How’s that going to help them numbers?

The phone thing was as appalling watching it the second time as it was the first time Hotair covered it. Dangit Rudy, you’ve got to know your every gaffe is going to be pored over in exruciating detail. Youtube, Rudy, Youtube.

Somewhat related, wouldn’t the framers have saved an awful lot of trouble by replacing the second comma with a period or semicolon?

If you want to understand what he was saying, watch the whole speech. Somebody else linked to it (on the C-SPAN) website) earlier in this thread. He was making the point that the word “people” in the constitution means what it says, and that activist judges shouldn’t interpret it as meaning “individuals” in one case and “militias” in the other. In fact, he invoked the 4th Amendment in making his argument. He obviously knows the difference between them, if you bother to watch the video.

Why are both of you not in here bashing Rudy on this?
Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Apparently you missed my post at

at 6:17 PM

.
.

My first post at:

at 4:32 PM

was just an attempt to distract you from this debate.

I guess it worked. :)