Interesting Op Ed by Sandy Froman

[frankie_the_yankee]

The gist of it is that Hillary is the most anti-gun candidate in history, and we have to do anything possible to keep her out of the White House.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Sand ... e_gun_vote

That surely includes making sure that whoever is nominated in opposition to her be someone who has a realistic chance of winning.

[KBCraig]

The gist of it is that Hillary is the most anti-gun candidate in history, and we have to do anything possible to keep her out of the White House.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Sand ... e_gun_vote

That surely includes making sure that whoever is nominated in opposition to her be someone who has a realistic chance of winning.

If it's someone whose record on guns is even worse than Hillary's --yes, I'm talking about Giuliani-- what would be the point in "winning"?

[AEA]

Fred Thompson is our ONLY hope!

Notice how Guglanini (or however you spell it) is back peddeling on some gun statements he has previously made?

[frankie_the_yankee]

I agree that Thompson would be the best candidate on the Republican side. But I do not agree that if it came down to Giulianni vs. Hillary that Giulanni would be worse.

I think that Rudy would be much more likely to appoint "originalist" federal judges than Hillary. (Look at Bill Clinton's two appointees - Breyer and Ginsburg - two of the most vocal proponents of a "living" Constitution. What kind of 2A rulings do you think judges like that will make?)

Though Ms. Froman doesn't say this explicitly in her column, I think she believes this as well.

If the courts start handing down "collective rights" interpretations of the 2A, they will have killed "the right of the people" for 50 years.

Also, under Hillary you can be sure she will appoint FCC commissioners that will revive the "fairness doctrine". Say goodbye to free speech for the next 50 years. And her "living document" federal judges will rule against any challenges.

IMO, Hillary would be our country's worse nightmare.

As it stands today, I'm supporting Thompson. As for the future, we'll have to wait and see.

[nitrogen]

We agree. I'm a pretty big Liberal, and I agree about Hillary as well. She's bought and paid for by quite a few lobbiests I do not like. I'd prefer Edwards or Richardson.

I wish there was someone on the republican side I could support, or at least respect. As it stands, there's nobody there except Ron Paul, who scares me for different reasons.

[KBCraig]

Fred Thompson is our ONLY hope!

There is zero chance of a pro-war Republican winning the general election, even against Hillary. There's only one GOP candidate who opposes starting wars in other countries.

You know where I stand, and who I stand with.

By the way, did you see that Ron Paul is well on his way to raising $1,000,000 in one week? The original goal was $500,000, and they blew through that after three days. As I'm typing, the weekly total stands at $905,000+, with more than 30 hours left to go!

[frankie_the_yankee]

You know where I stand, and who I stand with.

By the way, did you see that Ron Paul is well on his way to raising $1,000,000 in one week? The original goal was $500,000, and they blew through that after three days. As I'm typing, the weekly total stands at $905,000+, with more than 30 hours left to go!

As nitrogen stated, Ron Paul scares me for reasons that have nothing to do with gun rights.

Would he be better than Hillary? Sure. Especially where judges and FCC commissioners are concerned. But can he win? I doubt it. Before I could take his candidacy seriously he would have to climb up above the low single digit range that he is currently polling in.

Just my opinion.

[stevie_d_64]

The other thing ya'll might want to think about is who is going to allow the further eroding of the Constitution and the "rule of law"...

Once it is difused or watered down enough what does that really mean...

Who is the authority in that case??? What exactly will be the rule of law...

Will all of us who claim to be law-abiding, really be law-abiding once the rule of law is diluted or removed all rogether????

Of course we will be decent, compasionate, and courteous to others...

But will those others we come across feel compelled to remain civil and decent to us and others???

Once you elect a government that does not protect the foundations of our freedoms, laws and courtesies, and makes a concerted effort to errode those things that help give all of us reason to be law-abiding...

I believe it'll set us back 150 years...Where in that time, we knew how to deal with the issues of that day...

I would like to think we could maintain a general decency in our society, but I feel all of it is teetering on the verge of colllapse anyway...

It certainly is a sad state of affairs when we already know the ramifications of electing or allowing a liberal/socialist to garner so much apparent support, that the opposition doesn't see who could possibly defeat them in an election in this country...And deciding to just stay home...

I believe that decision is irresponsible...I would suggest we stick with the plan till after we see what happens in the primaries...

Then come back a revisit this discussion...

This is just my suggestion...

[frankie_the_yankee]

The other thing ya'll might want to think about is who is going to allow the further eroding of the Constitution and the "rule of law"...

I agree 100% with that statement.

And the greatest danger to the rule of law is the appointment of judges who subscribe to the "living document" theory of constitutional law. (Ironically, what this philosophy really means is that the constitution is a "dead document" whose meaning can be changed at will.)

Whatever we do, we have to do everything we can to elect people who will appoint and support originalist judges.

I don't see a Democrat who fits that description.

Given the Democrats' failure to enact their radical social agenda via the Congress, most now unabashedly follow Schumer's position that they need to appoint judges who have the right ideology - meaning a Leftist ideology of course.

Completely missing from this is the thought that judges simply should fairly apply and fairly interpret the law - whatever the outcome.

Say goodbye to the rule of law in that case. Say hello to the rule of left wing judges.