Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Here are Giuliani's two cents on it, from 2000: "This is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths."

Posted by Jim Harris at October 10, 2007 09:33 PM

What form of dementia would result in your fantasy that I care what Rudy Giuliani thinks about gun control? What is your moronic hangup and hard on about Rudy Giuliani?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 10, 2007 09:48 PM

Giuliani is one of the main candidates for President of the United States. You have had a lot to say about Clinton, Thompson, Obama, Edwards, and McCain. So why leave out Giuliani and Romney?

Besides, just because some comments are about Giuliani, that isn't necessarily a demand for your personal fascination. It's simply a germane topic, if for instance some of the readers happen to be Republicans. After all, the primaries begin in just a few months.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 10, 2007 10:04 PM

Gun control is using two hands.

Posted by Mac at October 11, 2007 05:44 AM

If the irony meter was smoking on the previous post, it's fully engulfed now.

Makes me glad I don't live in D.C. Oh wait, I live in Illinois, which is also completely controlled by corrupt, brain-damaged Democrats. Stupidity rules here, too.

Posted by Dave G at October 11, 2007 05:57 AM

A government that is not "by the people, for the people", is a direct danger to its citizens. Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that "America is not a government with a people, we are a people with a government."

Sadly, most of our politicians and now many citizens believe the opposite. Some serious changes need to be made, or our freedoms will continue to decline and America will cease to exist.

Posted by Don at October 11, 2007 06:16 AM

America is not a government with a people, we are a people with a government.

That is a great sentiment. It would be even better if conservatives actually believed it when it comes to immigrants.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 11, 2007 06:47 AM

That is a great sentiment. It would be even better if conservatives actually believed it when it comes to immigrants.

We do believe that so long as the immigrants come here legally like my wife did.

Posted by Larry J at October 11, 2007 07:19 AM

We do believe that so long as the immigrants come here legally

You're not getting it, Larry. The government is using legality itself to interfere in the lives of a lot of immigrants. It can't even decide whether they are legal or not. Its rule is, if we can't decide, then you're not legal. It won't accept living and working here for years as good enough. Instead, it imposes quotas. Maybe your wife came in under quota or whatever, but she's not the only immigrant.

This is clearly backwards from the Reagan principle. It makes the government a club with membership and trespass, instead of letting those who live here choose their government.

But we can save immigration for another thread. If conservatives truly believed the Reagan principle when thinking about Washington DC, they would favor Congressional representation for residents of DC. For instance they could favor statehood.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 11, 2007 07:50 AM

You're not getting it, Larry. The government is using legality itself to interfere in the lives of a lot of immigrants.

Actually, its you that doesn't get it Jim. You keep leaving out the word ILLEGAL. If the person is in our country against our laws, why should that person be allowed the same rights as a person born here?

Posted by Mac at October 11, 2007 10:49 AM

I am a libertarian/conservative. I don't agree with Giuliani about guns. I will vote for Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee. None of these statements contradicts any of the others. I represent and am responsible for only my own opinions, not for those of other people who may be labeled libertarians or conservatives. I vote for the candidate who has both good character and the best combination, in my view, of positions on issues. This means that I will probably disagree on some issues with any candidate I vote for. It does not mean that I am confused, ignorant or hypocritical.

But we can save immigration for another thread.

Thanks, Jim! Nice of you to suggest we stay on topic. Perhaps now you will share your thoughts on the the 2nd Amendment and the Parker case?

Posted by Jonathan at October 11, 2007 10:55 AM

But we can save immigration for another thread.

Yes, we can. Why didn't you?

Posted by McGehee at October 11, 2007 02:26 PM

If the person is in our country against our laws, why should that person be allowed the same rights as a person born here?

Because people aren't "allowed" rights, they are born with them, and the rights that they are born with are unalienable. As it says in Declaration of Independence.

I will vote for Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee.

Is that in the primary or in the election? And what about the libertarian candidates, if as you say you are libertarian/conservative?

I vote for the candidate who has both good character and the best combination, in my view, of positions on issues.

If you're interested in a man's character, you could consider what his wife and children think of him.

Perhaps now you will share your thoughts on the the 2nd Amendment and the Parker case?

I can't think of all that much to say. I have nothing against gun rights. But...

Why didn't you?

Because it's relevant to the Reagan principle of "government for the people". The question is, do you believe in this for all rights, or just guns? My first example was this mistaken idea that the government is a Santa Claus of rights for immigrants, legal or illegal. It isn't of course. They have rights whether or not the government grants them; declaring them illegal is mostly an excuse to deny their rights.

But an even better example is DC itself. It sounds sanctimonious if you say "government for the people" when it comes to gun rights, but not voting rights. It makes it sound like you want guns to have more rights than people.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 11, 2007 04:43 PM

Jim is playing word games to avoid answering the question. Notice he keeps squriming back to illegal immigration which the article does not mention.

Either he has to admit the right is right and the people do possess the indivisual right to keep and bear arms or admit that his beloved modern populism movement that cand find abortion on demand in the constution thru soome penumbraic masturbation while the second amendment is ignored at best or hypocritically lied about at worst.

"Power to the people" from populism my ass.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 11, 2007 06:45 PM

Sorry for my spelling errors.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 11, 2007 06:47 PM

Mike, I said "I have nothing against gun rights". Beyond that your tone of interrogation doesn't make you look good.

While the second amendment is ignored at best or hypocritically lied about at worst.

Hmm... an interesting quote from the Giuliani for president web site: "Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn't necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana."

Posted by Jim Harris at October 11, 2007 07:09 PM

Hmm... an interesting quote from the Giuliani for president web site: "Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn't necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana."

Hmmmm...you continue to be obsessed with Giuliani, even though he has nothing to do with the original post.

Fascinating. Maybe you should talk to your therapist about that...

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 11, 2007 07:18 PM

Meanwhile here is Mitt Romney's wisdom on the Second Amendment: "I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban." That and the Brady Bill.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 11, 2007 07:19 PM

Jim, do you have ADD? This post was about neither Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. I have expressed support for neither of them, not that it really matters, since you seem unable to stick to the topic of discussion.

You should talk to someone about adjusting your medication.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 11, 2007 07:34 PM

Jim,

Neither Rudy or Mitt will get the Republican nomination for largely those reasons and others.

Therefore, why bother wasting time discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Neither are discussed within the linked article.

Here is a clue, completely reading the article Rand linked to and commenting on the ideas discussed within that article would be a step in the right direction.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 11, 2007 07:51 PM

Gun control means never having to say sorry I missed you. Texas is a good example of gun ownership. We have 2 of the largest cities in the country and a huge rural area. Both seem to function fine with current gun laws. The criminals know many citizens are armed and ready to defend themselves.

Posted by Bill Maron at October 11, 2007 08:04 PM

that should be for gun ownership laws

Posted by Bill Maron at October 11, 2007 08:06 PM

"Texas is a good example of gun ownership. We have 2 of the largest cities in the country and a huge rural area. Both seem to function fine with current gun laws. The criminals know many citizens are armed and ready to defend themselves."

And yet according to this crime statistics page, Houston and Dallas both rank among "the most dangerous cities" in the US.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit01 pop.htm

So I guess your point is that they would be even more dangerous if the citizens did not have all those guns.

Posted by Hank Stevens at October 11, 2007 09:11 PM

Neither Rudy or Mitt will get the Republican nomination for largely those reasons and others. Therefore, why bother wasting time discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Is that so, Mike? Surely it's possible that if no one has the patience to discuss their drawbacks, one of them might sneak the nomination.

The truth is that one Republican candidate who really stands on principle is Ron Paul. I don't mean to endorse everything that he says, but he is at least consistent. In particular he is consistent between gun rights and Iraq. What the US is up against in Iraq is an array of militias. They won't defeat them, basically for standard gun rights reasons.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 11, 2007 09:19 PM

Hank Stevens:
And yet according to this crime statistics page, Houston and Dallas both rank among "the most dangerous cities" in the US.

Restrictive gun laws disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Why would having more such laws reduce crime rates? And if law-abiding citizens with guns cause crime, why do heavily armed places like North Dakota have such low crime rates?

Jim Harris:
The truth is that one Republican candidate who really stands on principle is Ron Paul.

So now your agenda becomes clear. The answer is that Paul stands on the wrong principles on the most important issue, the war. He would have us retreat in the face of attack. That is an extremely foolish position, principled or no, and IMO disqualifies him from national office.

Having watched him debate the other night I should add that his economic positions are becoming increasingly loopy. He now opposes our importing of goods such as oil because he asserts that by exporting dollars to pay for those goods we are weakening the dollar. This is ridiculous. Either the people overseas from whom we buy goods are recycling their dollars by buying US goods, or we are trading green pieces of paper for valuable goods. Either way we come out ahead.

Now why don't you stop trolling for Ron Paul, a lost cause if there ever was one, and tell us why law-abiding DC residents shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves.

Posted by Jonathan at October 11, 2007 11:00 PM

The point of voting for Ron Paul is not to back the persona of Ron Paul as a "cause". The point is to send the Republican party a message when it is unable to stand on principle. It's not about leaping onto the winning bandwagon --- which in the primary will probably be Giuliani according a lot of people, despite Mike Puckett's predictions. It's about making your vote mean something.

The refrain on this blog is that Ron Paul or whoever "doesn't know that we're at war". But knowing that we're at war does not mean that you should erase libertarian thinking. You should be suspicious of big government even when it wages war. Why should it cost a trillion dollars to take out what they say is just 20,000 insurgents? Why should "minor combat" turn out to be 20 times as much as "major combat"? Their war cries haven't made sense in years.

The truth is that the Iraq war is odious to libertarianism in general and the precepts of the Second Amendment in particular. They are up against militias that they cannot defeat without imposing anti-gun tyranny. They can take out this militia one day and that militia another day, and maybe half of those militias call themselves Al Qaeda. But other militias will take their place, because government cannot impose its will on an armed people.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 12, 2007 08:56 AM

If the person is in our country against our laws, why should that person be allowed the same rights as a person born here?

Because people aren't "allowed" rights, they are born with them, and the rights that they are born with are unalienable. As it says in Declaration of Independence.

People are born with rights, true. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness do not include being in our country without proper authorization.

So, answer the question...Why should someone here without proper authorization have the same national rights as someone born here? More importantly, why should someone here without proper authorization have more national rights than someone who went through the process to obtain authorization? All men are CREATED equal, though opportunity, perserverence, and luck does promote inequality later and there's nothing wrong with that. Inequality leads to competition and that drives America.

Posted by Mac at October 12, 2007 10:38 AM

What Jim is advocating is that anyone, born anywhere has the inherent right to live anywhere on the planet that they choose regardless of the laws of any country on the planet.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 12, 2007 12:00 PM

Jim Harris:
You should be suspicious of big government even when it wages war.

You should consider that people who disagree with you may have thought things through at least as much as you have, but arrived at different conclusions. I know I did. I concluded that radical Islam presents by far the greater threat to our freedom, and that Paul's naive isolationism would increase our vulnerability to that threat.

Why should it cost a trillion dollars to take out what they say is just 20,000 insurgents? Why should "minor combat" turn out to be 20 times as much as "major combat"?

Because wars are inherently expensive and full of surprises. OTOH, running away from wars that your enemies want to pursue is even more expensive.

On another point, Jim is confusing voting, which is a privilege of citizenship, with rights, which are independent of citizenship. It is silly to suggest that we deprive non-citizens of rights because we don't allow them to vote in our elections. What is the point of citizenship otherwise?

Posted by Jonathan at October 12, 2007 06:51 PM

Post a comment