“After all the second amendment is a freedom every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first ten amendments. Just think of the language of it — ‘the people shall be secure’ –let’s see, this is my wife calling…”I agree with Stop the ACLU that "What Rudy was quoting was most likely the 4th Amendment." But I'll go a step further and charge that the "well timed phone call [that] saved him" was a transparent manipulation of the audience--some of whom dutifully applauded. My money says it was a staffer telling him he was entering a swamp of no return.
Besides- Rudy told his first wife he loved her, too. And his second. Now we're to believe he loves us?
And here's another insight into The Bill of Rights According to Rudy:
"You should know I understand that the right to bear arms is just as important a right in that Constitution as the right of free speech and the other rights ... It's not going to change, unless something dramatic has happened to make it change, and then I'll explain to you why," he said.
Why don't you "explain why" right now, Rudy, or at least "how."
About the only perversion of founding intent that could even be "legally" raised--however implausibly--would be to repeal the Second Amendment. And that would not only require the Constitutionally-mandated ratifying process, but you'd still have at least some of us resisting on the principle that unalienable rights are not bestowed by government. But if that's what you're talking about, Rudy, we don't need you to tell us "why"--we'd be on top of that "debate."
So the only alternative scenario I can come up with is Rudy hinting at imposing martial law as a result of some "disaster"--be it natural or directed. I read this as nothing less than a promise he'll read us the edict when he orders mass citizen disarmament.
I see some in the "gun rights community" are already paving the way for how we'll have no choice but to support this monster if it boils down to Rudy vs. Hillary. The hell with that, and yes, I'm aware of the appointment of judges and bureaucrats argument. I see no difference between either proto-tyrant, and see no evidence that Rudy wouldn't pad his team with statists and functionaries loyal to his particular brand of fascism. And it should be obvious that the Republicans would at least offer token opposition to a Democrat president. When it's their boy in power, incentives to go along for the good of the party--quid pro quo rewards or punishment for "disloyalty"--will do much to keep all but the already marginalized in line.
We celebrate the anniversary today (or at least we should) of the immortal words (or at least they should be) "I have not yet begun to fight." If either Rudy or Hillary ascend to the Imperial Throne, we'd better come to terms with what they mean--and prepare ourselves to give up before the fight begins if we're unwilling to do so.
[Via John S and 45superman]
