Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Helping A Brother With SSA | Main | SSA & Seminary »

September 29, 2006

Comments

Veritas

"Being unelectable is something I share with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney..."

I think its funny that you would put yourself in the same sentence, much less the same league as Giuliani and Romney.

Andrew

I'd vote for you, Jimmy.

Scott W

I would have thought the first thing he said:


In my case, I (a) have no interest in being president and (b) I don't have the background for it and (c) I'm simply unelectable to that office.

would be enough to establish that JA does not think himself in the same league.

Brian John Schuettler

Since I am the current king of Londinium it is rather flattering that you covet my throne.
Thanks for making my day, Jimmy!

I think Rudy Giuliani is definitely electable. Who is going to run to the right of him? The Democrat candidate? Ha! The Dems would have to put up a candidate that was different enough from Rudy to be electable (in their eyes). They'd end up fronting a candidate that is far left of Rudy, like a Howard Dean or a Michael Moore. That would be enough to get most left-to-center voters to support Giuliani, and maybe even the few righties that don't simply sit this one out.

As for Mitt Romney, though... I could even vote for a baby-killer if there were no other alternative and one baby-killer were otherwise more palatable than another. But I could never in a million years vote for someone who belongs to what is essentially a cult. I'd vote for a Jew or a Muslim before I'd ever vote for a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or a Baha'i. And FWIW, I married a JW.

Brent Robbins

If the Dems and the Reps are both pro-baby killing, anti-gun and pro-homo then what is our solution, Jimmy? Vote for the Christian party candidate? Okay, he'll get about 4 votes. If neither the mainstream parties align with even the most basic of moral principles, I say we start an uprising, or something productive. If we don't vote, we're going to get bent over.

DJ

In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one of the risks he takes. - Adlai Stevenson

Kasia

My opinion, FWIW:

If the Republicans put up Giuliani, the Democrats would put up Hillary Clinton or someone politically like her - not too dissimilar from Giuliani. After all, they KNOW that the Dean/Moore/Kucinich types aren't electable, and if they put up Hillary the way-lefters are going to be tempted to vote for her strictly because she's a woman, and a lot of the traditionally Democratic left-centers will probably pick her over Giuliani because of the last remnants of party loyalty. The exact platform and approach would depend on the candidate, opponent, and situation, but would almost certainly focus on foreign policy and the economy (which at least here in Michigan is still dreadful).

I do think a third-party candidate could pull a lot of votes with a Giuliani v. Clinton election, simply because of the life issue. I think it would, excuse me, be foolish of the Republicans to put up as liberal a Republican as Giuliani, because a pro-life third-party candidate could easily pull enough votes to hand the election to a moderate Democrat. That said, they might feel confident that Giuliani would pull enough of the middle to make up for it...

Mike

(N.B., though I have no interest in being president, I would like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.)

Nothing like a Firefly reference to start your morning right :-)

Nick

"Rudy is pro-abort and pro-homosexual and anti-gun, so he's got this whole tripple whammy thing going. He got points for his performance on 9/11, but that's not a pass with social conservatives in this country on the issues they care about."

I, for the life of me, do not understand how being anti-gun is a demerit for social conservatives.

As a former New York resident, who has personally witnessed crime stats take a dive due to Giulliani's policies, succeeding in ways that Koch and Dinkins never had, I would think that gun ownership is an issue that would become obsolete.

I oppose his abortion and homosexual views. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is such a stupid issue for a strong contingent of social conservatives to cling to.

Nick,

The problem is that criminals do not buy guns legally anyway. They will find ways to obtain them, whether they are legal or not. When guns are outlawed, law-abiding citizens do not have any immediate defense against an armed aggressor. Sure, the police have guns, but what if you don't have time to wait for the police to arrive at the scene and your life or the lives of the members of your family depended on it?

Dan E.

I don't think the nation has to worry too much about a Guiliani presidency, thank God. Don't forget that these wannabes must participate in primary elections nationwide before securing the nominations of their respective parties in 2008. The primaries tend to weed out the "moderates" until the Democrats nominate someone like Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, and the Republicans nominate someone like Dole or President Bush. In other words, candidates fom the left side of the Dem party and the right side of the Repub party usually become their party's nominee.
Guiliani is a lefty; after all, how could he have been elected mayor of an overwhelmingly Democrat city like NYC? He won't win enough primaries to win th Repub nomination.
Although the polls show a slight turn away from her in Democrat circles, I believe the Democrat party nomination is Hillary's for the asking. She is liberal in the extreme, she is from a state with a huge number of electoral votes and her name is Clinton. That's enough for her to win the primaries and take the nomination over much less polarizing candidates like Mark Warner.
On the Republican side, I don't see anyone beating John McCain. Although he is not as conservative as I would like, he is a war hero in a time of war, and a media darling. And he would crush Hillary in November 2008. Perhaps Guiliani would take the SecState job in a McCain administration?

Dave Mueller

I think we have to work hard for (1) Brownback, or (2) Huckabee. They are heavy underdogs, but would be the best candidates we could put up.

Right now, I'd say McCain is the favorite but that is something I would not like to see. I might be able to swallow hard and vote for him, depending on who the Dems put up.

Jack

Gov. Romney is a convert to the full pro-life position. What kept him for so long unwilling to make his private disdain for abortion into a public policy position is the impact of a family tragedy.

From Wikipedia:

"'Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion,' Romney said in a televised debate opposite Senator Edward Kennedy. 'It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.' The person Romney was referring to was a teenage girl engaged to marry a member of Romney's extended family. Romney's sister Jane has said that the girl's death changed the family's perspective on the legality of abortion. 'With my mom, that was a personal thing because we had a tragedy close to us -- not in our immediate family, but a young girl who actually was engaged and had an illegal abortion and died.' 'She was a beautiful, talented young gal we all loved. And it pretty much ruined the parents -- their only daughter. You would do anything not to repeat that.'"

The embryonic stem cell debate caused Romney to see the ill-effects of pro-choice policy and opened his eyes to the reality of life from conception forward.

As he describes in his op-ed explaining why he vetoed an Emergency Contraception bill, "In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited."

READ ROMNEY'S WHOLE OP-ED

J.R. Stoodley

Here in New York, Hillary is considered moderate.

Big-T

"...both Evangelicals and Catholics--will simply not be motivated to show up at the polls to vote for a Mormon, no matter how much they'd otherwise like him. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is."

Jimmy, I'm not sure whether you're saying in your opinion it's unfair not to vote for someone because of that person's religious affiliation, but if you are...I guess I really disagree with your on that point. I think a person, if orthodox in his particular faith, brings with him intangibles that will invariably inform his decisions based on his belief system. I know virtually nothing about Mormonism, but I'm sure a Romney presidency would bring with it certain "Mormonisms" exclusive to that belief system, that may or may not be desirable, yet present in his decision making process.

Also, the "culture" that accompanies an orthodox believer in any particular religious sect, may be reasonably undesirable to voters, and that culture is the choice of the candidate, and thereby his responsibility and burden to bear.

In considering possible undesirable intangibles, culture, and attributes in a presidential candidate, I think one can draw reasonable differences between a candidate for President, and everyday citizens, just doing their thing in America. Simple law-abiding citizens in our country should be afforded the fair treatment and general human respect due any citizen regardless of their orthodoxy or lack thereof, but the office of President, I would argue, is different. The most powerful man on the planet should have values and make decisions based on, and formed from, what the voter feels is a properly defined moral compass. It is not unfair for a voter to consider the moral development of a candidate based on his belief in another orthodoxy, as a means to exclude that candidate from consideration. To the contrary, I would argue it's a sign of good mature judgment and discernment.

Lastly, I think it would be good to point out that our separation of church and state (at least originally) addressed concerns about the Government foisting a state church on its citizens, and not so much citizens being limited in voicing concerns about persons of other religions, including political candidates. I'm not saying you were going here at all with your article, but I thought I'd chime-in if you were.

Lastly, only you can choose whether you should run for elected office or not, but I wouldn't put to much stock in your being unelectable analysis. Defeatest Catholic candidates are the last thing we need. With your intellect, likablilty, firm moral grounding, excellent knowledge of Canon Law, and gentle compassionate heart, perhaps you SHOULD be running for something somewhere! Just a thought.

Big-T

JR,

You're absolutely right!

I was shocked to hear Hillary Clinton described as "liberal in the extreme"! She's about the most conservative mainstream politician in the State right now!

I'm more worried about George Pataki getting the Republican nomination than Hillary getting nominated by the Democrats!

Nick

To : On a day where, not one, but two schools are being beseiged by gunmen, one of which, a student, killed the school principal... are you suggesting that the only way to keep schools in suburbia safe is... guns? Are you crazy? Where do you think the taunted kid got his gun? The black market?

Conservatives are not being compassionate by endorsing the right to own weapons so that their children can play cops and robbers with them.

Nick,

I never said that most parents are not complete idiots. I see evidence of that every day when I drive home and see how many kids are playing unsupervised in the middle of the street. You know, maybe if the teachers were armed, such incidents would be preventable.

Nick

"You know, maybe if the teachers were armed, such incidents would be preventable."

I cannot imagine elderly Mrs. McGillicutty sporting a firearm.

If this is your solution, then you probably have not considered the possibility that kids could whisk the guns from their ill-trained teachers.

Then by all means... TRAIN THEM... you should be licensed and trained to be allowed to have a gun... no one is suggesting you be able to pick one up on the checkout line at the grocery!

Personally, the last time I went down to San Antonio, I had to snicker at the shops that had signs in the windows that said "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED"... I figured what they really meant was "ROB THIS STORE"... :>

Nick

Imagine that... you really DO think that elderly Mrs. McGillicutty ought to be the next Dirty Harry. Coz that's what you're saying...

Dan E.

J.R. and Anonymous,
On another thread here on Jimmy's page there are those speaking of Catholics who should be aware of "wolves in sheeps clothing." Hillary isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing. She is a Tyranosaurus in sheep's clothing. If you think she is truly moderate, I've got some oceanfront property in Omaha I'd like to sell you.

Publius

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, there will be a serious third party candidate and he or she will get a lot more than four votes. The third party candidate won't win, but might syphon off Ross Perot-like numbers and maybe even make Rudy lose. That would be the best case scenario, since four years of even a Hillary or a Russ Feingold would be preferable to the GOP going socially liberal.

Publius

If you think she is truly moderate, I've got some oceanfront property in Omaha I'd like to sell you.

I think J.R.'s saying she was considered moderate in New York is says a lot more about New York's wackiness than his own views.

Steve

In New York, the Ayatollah Khomeini would be considered moderate.

In New York, if you've ever voted against one tax increase, opposed cross species nuptials or drove by a catholic church on Sunday, you're a right wing extremist.

Steve

As for gun control, there's just that meddlesome constitutional amendment that says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

But, you know, I kinda can agree with Nick. Making guns illegal certainly would take most of the guns off the streets. Just look at what making drugs illegal has done, for example...

Nick

Steve...

Are you snarkily suggesting that it is the compassionate conservative position to legallize currently-illegal drugs?

Puzzled

I'd vote for ya, Jimmy!

Publius

Are you snarkily suggesting that it is the compassionate conservative position to legallize currently-illegal drugs?

No, I think he's suggesting that the only good reason to ban guns—to keep them out of the hands of people who would misuse them—wouldn't be accomplished very well and you'd end up with law-abiding citizen's being disarmed and criminals remaining armed.

Steve

No Nick. I'm saying that it's the sensible human position that making guns illegal will only take guns out of the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

And even there you're likely to find not a few holdouts. Including me.

Nick, the armed citizenry (2nd Ammendment, US Code Title 10) is part of the Constitutional system. The American answer to the old question of "who will watch the watchmen?" I think it is Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?

Cory

Jimmy for President!

I'd vote for you, Jimmy.

Nick

So, instead of having robbers and murderers having exclusive ownership, you believe that the children of "responsible" gun owners should have the freedom to explore ways of getting at the guns so as to shoot principals and school bullies.

Puzzled

Is there no Constitution Party candidate running in New York? (The Libertarians are pro-abort:-(

Nick - isn't it already illegal to bring a gun on school grounds? What are you complaining about? Schools are perfectly safe.

Oh wait...

Nick

Anon- to force teachers to carry firearms is akin to forcing pharmaceutical agencies to carry contraceptives and forcing hospitals to perform abortions.

J.R. Stoodley

Puzzled,

I have never heard of the Constitution Party. There is a Conservative Party. They either nominate the Republican candidate or their own who never has a chance. They arn't really a force to be reckoned with.

We do have some fairly solid Republicans running for Senator, Governor, and Attorney General this year but none of them stand much of a chance. I have heard suggested that the liberal Republicans let this happen because they knew the party didn't stand a chance anyway, so you might as well let the conservatives loose miserably and use that against them the next time around.

J.R. Stoodley

A little research showed that the Constitution Party does exist in New York, but as I knew it is not on the ballot.

bill912

Nick, as a police officer in the State of New York, I would like to see our state become a "shall issue" state. F.B.I. statistics and numerous studies have shown that gun-control laws help the criminals and hurt the law-abiding citizens (see John Locke's "More Guns, Less Crime).

The F.B.I. statistics show that guns are used 1,000,000-2,000,000 times per year in this country to deter crimes. In most of them, merely brandishing the gun did the trick. That doesn't even count the number of times a crime wasn't committed because a criminal *thought* his potential victim might have a gun. Ever wonder why there are few home burglaries when there are people in the house in this country, while in Europe they are fairly common? Because about 50% of the households in this country have atleast one gun, and the criminals don't know which 50% have the guns.

Locke's study, which looked at every county in the US, found that the counties with the strictest gun control laws had the highest rates of violent crime, and the counties with the least restrictive gun control laws had the lowest.

Nick

bill912, as a former resident of the city of New York, it wasn't gun ownership that brought crime statistics down, it was Giulliani's leadership--which included strict gun control.

And none of your statistics give me any solace that there are many more child-related atrocities bound to happen due to stupid parents.

bill912

I have no desire to be president or King of all Londinium. (Now Official Taster for Guinness is a different matter).

bill912

Nick, I have never run across a single rational pro-gun control argument; i.e., one based on evidence. Every pro-gun control argument I have ever heard has been based on either falsity (like the Brady people) or emotion.

bill912

Enforcement is vital, which is what Giuliani did. Just think how much more violent crime could have been lowered if the people of NYC had been able to defend themselves.

Nick

You're quite incorrect about your thesis that violent crime would have been lowered if people were allowed to carry guns--it would have made things much, much worse. Everybody gets to a breaking point every now and then, and you do not want such individuals within reach of a firearm. A perfectly normal attorney two towns over from me went and murdered his neighbor because he had suspicions that that neighbor violated his two-year old daughter... so much for due process.

What Giuliani did was prove that enforcement was possible without curtailing to the cries of the NRA. That is why I don't hear about Columbine-type incidents happening in New York City.

So, no, I do not agree with John Lott's thesis.

Margaret

Nick,

I'm an ex-New Yorker who's truly grateful to Rudy, both for making the city so much safer (as in able to take my kids to the Central Park playground on the edge of Harlem without a moment's worry) and for his masterful handling of the mind-boggling chaos on 9/11.

That being said, I don't know that his gun control enforcement deserves that much credit. The community policing approach, from what I've read, seems to have been the linchpin. NYPD starting solving lots of unsolved, serious crimes when they started actually arresting and FINGERPRINTING apparently minor thugs for apparently minor things like fare-jumping in the subway.

Dave Mueller

Bummer, I eagerly jumped at the chance to read comments on the merits of GOP Presidential candidates, but found a gun control argument instead. Oh well, carry on...

Nick,

Nobody suggested forcing teachers to arm themselves, but why not allow them to keep a firearm in a locker in the classroom, if it means that little Johnny in the classroom down the hall might think twice about going on a shooting spree?

Nick

Indeed, I agree with the community policying approach... but do you honestly believe that gun ownership would have made things better? If NYC had a lax gun ownership laws, which is what anti-gun control lobbyists want... I wouldn't even trust Central Park, Harlem, or even low-crime areas such as Stuyvesant Town and Roosevelt Island.

Think about it; you're all talking about robbers and murderers being challenged--and all I'm talking about the kids, some of whom being smart enough to figure out how to get the guns from their cautionary parents (and gun-toting teachers for that matter).

We live in different times than in the Revolutionary war. Certainly, we have the right to bear arms, and join the armed forces, to protect this country; but the last time I heard of folks protecting themselves from the military, we're talking Waco.

Nick

BTW, Anon... but in my high school growing up, lockers got picked. A firearm in the locker would be how Johnny STARTS his shooting spree.

Kasia

Just had to chime in on the gun control issue...

What I don't understand - and I mean this sincerely - is why the Second Amendment always seems to be abridged during these discussions. The entire amendment, as I'm sure everyone reading this knows, reads:

"A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine, of course)

Jimmy, or Steve, or Nick, or Mrs. McGillicutty, or whoever, packing heat in a classroom is not a 'well-regulated militia'. John Q. Texan having a shotgun in his car is not a 'well-regulated militia'.

If someone can clarify for me how the *full* amendment can be reconciled with the right to bear arms as we currently understand it, preferably without my having to read every Supreme Court case on the books (I have enough to read for RCIA), I would appreciate it. And I'm not being facetious - I was raised by militant leftists, and while I came around on abortion and am now pro-life, the jury is still very much out on things like gun control.

bill912

Florida relaxed its gun control laws in 1987. Over the next 5 years, while the national homicide rate rose by 12%, the homicide rate in Florida fell by 21%. Similar numbers have been shown in every state that became a "shall issue" state.

Being a cop, I deal in evidence. I can be convinced of anything with enough of it and of nothing without it.

bill912

Kasia, "militia" means the citizenry. It is nowadays sometimes used to mean the National Guard. But the National Guard didn't exist until the 20th Century, so the Second Amendment, adopted in the 1790s, cannot be referring the the National Guard.

Nick

And homicide rates fell in New York City by keeping gun control restrictions intact, and by finding new approaches to topple crime. I remain unconvinced. You have yet to talk about the kids!!

bill912

"And homicide rates fell in New York City by keeping gun control laws intact." Not *by*; the evidence says "despite".

Your argument about the kids is an emotional one, which I mentioned above. I deal in evidence.

Nick Alexander

Don't ignore my citations like that. I match your statistics, and you simply do not wish to counter them. I bring up harsh reality situations, some of which occurred just today, and you wish to sidestep them, saying that it's emotional.

Well it IS emotional... are you too jaded to look at the realities of what happens when guns get into the hands of the children of otherwise responsible gun owners?

I've met you point to point on the crime stats... but you will not address how to prevent Columbine from happening again (as it did, sadly, today). Gun control is the answer, and in my mind, the only compassionate response.

Remember, we are talking about two realities: "bad guys", and "children". I say we can handle the "bad guys" without guns. Pepper spray. A security system in your home. Metal detectors in school. Fingerprinting turnstile evaders and squiggee-ers. And the crime went down, without a loosening of gun control.

But... children. The children who are not watched by their parents 24/7. The children who play in the basement, who come across a hidden door. The children who are not educated enough to know that it's bad to pull a gun on somebody, no matter how much they witness on TV, or in video games.

This is reality, and as someone who was a youth who has been mugged in New York, I assure you, I would have been mugged either way, because a fifteen year old is not allowed the privelege of carrying a gun. And even if I were allowed, I would have been in a position to be hurt, or hurt someone else--thank God I don't have that on my conscience.

Rhys

There's a Superman story where Jimmy Olsen has a dream of what would happen if Superman was president. When he wakes up, he tells Clark about his dream. Clark tells him Superman can't be president, because he wasn't born in the US, he was born on Krypton.

Interesting how in the US so many conservatives are pro-gun, while here in Australia, it was our conservative government that enacted gun control laws after the port arthur massacre. Seems to work ok for us.

Lily

What I don't understand - and I mean this sincerely - is why the Second Amendment always seems to be abridged during these discussions. The entire amendment, as I'm sure everyone reading this knows, reads:

"A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine, of course)

Jimmy, or Steve, or Nick, or Mrs. McGillicutty, or whoever, packing heat in a classroom is not a 'well-regulated militia'. John Q. Texan having a shotgun in his car is not a 'well-regulated militia'.

***************************
At the time the constitution was written, the word militia did NOT refer to the military. This is a case of a word changing its meaning over time.
During the War of Independence, the regular soldiers were called the "Continental Army"; those who showed up armed & ready to fight, despite no military training, were called militia. Some were extraordinarily courageous, & we owe them a debt of thanks we can never repay, because without them, we would have continued to suffer the predations of the Brits.
But they were not trained soldiers. In fact, some of them went home every night to work in the fields & milk the cows, to retun to the fight in the morning. (More than a few were, in fact, women...Unable to enlist, they cut off their hair, picked up their rifles, & showed up on the battlefield.The Revolution, not recent hostilites, was the first war in US history to see female combatants. One of them may even have been named Mrs McGillicuddy....).
The notion that "militia" means the National Guard is a liberal invention that attempts to overturn the right to keep & bear arms.

bill912

Rhys, I understand that your rates of violent crime skyrocketed after you took the guns awayfrom your law-abiding citizens. The UN--hardly a right-wing organization!--calls Australia the second-most dangerous technologically-advanced country in the world. (#1 is Britain, which took all guns away from it's law-abiding citizens).

bill912

"Gun control is the answer..." The criminals agree with you.

Tim

I was so dissapointed to find out Romey was pro-death. Oh well, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

the best thing that could happen to the USA would be for a third party to actually have a sitting president and be such a reality that the ruling party in congress would have to put together a coalition and "work together".

this would seriously upset many people that receive lots and lots of money (as in Billions of dollars) keeping control of everything for themselves.

Tim M.

Besides "pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control," I think Guiliani also has the killer-of-campaigns in the eyes of the Christian Right and the neo-cons: 3 Divorces!

eCurious

Nick's 1:08 post refers to a lawyer who murdered his neighbor over suspicions the neighbor had been abusing the lawyer's two-year-old daughter. Unless I'm mistaken, the murder weapon in that case was a knife. So unless we're going to pass knife control laws, people are still going to kill people, sometimes.

Come to think of it, what's to stop a school kid from stabbing a classmate or two, if he's determined to commit a violent crime and hasn't got access to a gun? What's to stop him from cooking up a homemade bomb? That's the problem I generally have with gun control advocates: they do seem to think that what they see as an easy availability of guns makes these crimes happen, and that without the guns people wouldn't kill people so much anymore. But the will to kill someone comes from the heart of the person doing the killing, not from the choice of available weapons.

Mary

Imagine that... you really DO think that elderly Mrs. McGillicutty ought to be the next Dirty Harry. Coz that's what you're saying...

And you really DO think that she ought to be the dead Mrs. McGillicutty, and other children and teachers with her?

erick

eCurious-, quite right!.
Blaming guns for killings, is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'donnell being fat!.

Rhys

Rhys, I understand that your rates of violent crime skyrocketed after you took the guns awayfrom your law-abiding citizens. The UN--hardly a right-wing organization!--calls Australia the second-most dangerous technologically-advanced country in the world. (#1 is Britain, which took all guns away from it's law-abiding citizens).

Huh? Well that's news to me, and I live here. Most violence I here about is people getting bashed or knifed, and I'd rather face someone with a knife than a gun. And aren't these the same people (the UN) who say we're the most racist country in the world?

Sure, people will still be violent without guns, but
you can go on a shooting spree with a gun, you can hardly do that with a knife. At least when someone comes at you with a knife you have a chance at overpowering them, and you're more likely to survive than if you were shot.

Pro-gun people like to play argumentium ad absurdium (if I got that right.) What will we ban next? Knifes? Sharp sticks? rocks? cricket bats? Well, two can play at that game. What should law abiding citizens be allowed access to? Anti-aircraft missiles? Tanks? Landmines in the backyard to deter unwanted visitors? Nuclear weaponry? If we ban it, it only means these things will just be in the black market, in the hands of criminals and not law abiding citizens. Better that everyone should have their own nuclear bomb in their backyard. Things were safer in the cold war, right? With mutually assured destruction, when with one push of the button means everyone gets blown to bits. And
it's not like any kids are going to accidentally get a hold of daddy's landmines and blow themselves up, right?

The line has to be drawn somewhere between what people can legitimately use to defend themselves, and what is safely kept out of the hands of most people. I draw the line at guns, and I do feel safe here in a gun-controlled country.

bill912

"...I do feel safe here in a gun-controlled country." I bet the criminals do, too.

bill912

"...I'd rather face someone with a knife than a gun."

I'd rather face someone with a knife with a gun.

bill912

"Atleast when someone comes at you with a knife you have a chance at overpowering them..."

If you ever have the opportunity, let us know how it turns out...if you can.

Rafael

Pro- abortion and pro-homosexual are positions that no Catholic can hold. Why do you mention him being anti-gun? That is an issue Catholics can diagree on but, it doesn't have much to with Catholicism. It looks like secular coservative ideological position that shouldn't matter.

Jeff

My main concern is doing everything possible to make sure that the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not make it IMPOSSIBLE to chip away at all the anti-life, anti-religious, anti-family laws, policies, and practices that have taken hold in the United States.

All I expect from a President is to appoint good justices. I think Giuliani and Romney would do that.

Therefore I might well vote for either of them if they were nominated. I think that faced with the choice between that and a Democrat, many social conservatives would do the same.

We have had so many disappointments on judicial appointments over the years that we have forgotten to remark what a wonderful job George Bush has done on that score. As good as could reasonably been expected, in terms of getting candidates actually confirmed without filibuster, etc.

No, no. Let's forget everything else and concentrate on that. THAT is an achievable goal. I want two or three more good justices and then we can really start chipping away...

David B.

Rhys said:

"The line has to be drawn somewhere between what people can legitimately use to defend themselves, and what is safely kept out of the hands of most people. I draw the line at guns"

The founding fathers didn't.

"Pro-gun people like to play argumentium ad absurdium (if I got that right.) What will we ban next? Knifes? Sharp sticks? rocks? cricket bats? Well, two can play at that game. What should law abiding citizens be allowed access to? Anti-aircraft missiles? Tanks? Landmines in the backyard to deter unwanted visitors? Nuclear weaponry? If we ban it, it only means these things will just be in the black market, in the hands of criminals and not law abiding citizens"

This aurgument is hyperbolic. The right to bears arms is in the constitution. End. of. discussion.

DU

Presidents...
I know by saying this most of you die-hard-democratic-freedom-liberty-egalitarian formation will get ticked off...
But I'll say it anyways...
Presidents are a decadence of society.
Apart from their masonic ties, they aren't examples of moral conduct. And the fact that they aren't Catholic (JFK could be likened to John Kerry, worst than a protestant or atheist) gentlemen, who are faithful to God and His Church and its head on Earth, the Pope, is enough to make a government illegitamate. But that can go off a tangent. St.Thomas said you can't get rid of tyrant till you have a back-up plan ready to go into effect. Evil government is worst than anarchy.
From Catholic Nations and Catholic Princes, we went to protestant and atheist and God knows what else, who regardless of having a vocation to lead or the qualities, can be put up as a puppet.
-----
I would never, ever want to be the President.
First I would have to become a mason of some sort, because it is strongly tied to the roots and foundation of this and many other governments.
And that warrants excom., second I would not be able to change all the laws that allow and promote immorality and sin.
Third, democracy is a last resort government.
And even then, it needs to have the influence of those called to lead.
And the most perfect government, except for Theocracy is Monarchy. Why?
God, the Pope, St.Louis, St.Fernando, St.David, St.Stephen and many others are kings and not presidents. And if democracy is a nations vocation, as democracy is not evil in itself, Gabriel García Moreno is an example of how to be a president.

Yankee Doodle

'... without them, we would have continued to suffer the predations of the Brits.'

Amen, with the Brits running things, we might easily have suffered the predations of abolishing slavery legislatively, expanding our North American empire without massive genocide, and ending up with a parliamentary democracy unfettered by an unelected Supreme Court.

That was a close one.

hippo354

Not meaning to derail the discussion, but could someone explain to me why Traditionalists are also Monarchists? I don't understand why they always go hand in hand.

Publius

Pro- abortion and pro-homosexual are positions that no Catholic can hold. Why do you mention him being anti-gun? That is an issue Catholics can diagree on but, it doesn't have much to with Catholicism. It looks like secular coservative ideological position that shouldn't matter.

Jimmy was doing political analysis, in which Giuliani's anti-gun views do matter.

Publius

All I expect from a President is to appoint good justices. I think Giuliani and Romney would do that.

Don't be so sure. I'm told that there are, in fact, socially liberal law & order type judges out there, particularly in the northeast. I deeply suspect that those are the kind that President Giuliani would appoint.

As for Romney, I have no idea what kind of judges he would appoint. He's made and is making a trasition from electable-in-Massachusetts to electable-in-the-GOP-primary, or at least as much of one as is possible without converting to another religion, so he's pretty unpredictable.

bill912

I thought Bush41 would give us good judges, too. While he did give us Thomas, he also saddled us with Souter.

Mary

Pro- abortion and pro-homosexual are positions that no Catholic can hold. Why do you mention him being anti-gun?

Good Catholic should also tell the truth. And the truth is -- an anti-gun position weighs heavily in the considerations by which people vote.

Matt McDonald

Just a thought here on Mitt Romney, did he have a conversion or is he responding to the necessity of a pro-life position in order to win as a republican presidential candidate? He was always a pro-choicer in his platforms, the sudden conversion is suspicious, especially since he hasn't spent a lot of time explaining what his previous philosophy was based and how precisely it was changed.

As far as gun-control. Those opposed to it, are you saying absolutely no restrictions, regulations, licensing, etc.? Any nutbag can own a machine gun?

It seems any reasonable person recognizes that, for the good of society, all rights can be restricted in certain ways, the question is what is the appropriate level for personal gun ownwership? isn't it?

Michael

As far as gun-control. Those opposed to it, are you saying absolutely no restrictions, regulations, licensing, etc.? Any nutbag can own a machine gun?

I think that this is what Kasia was trying to point out when referencing the entire text of the 2nd Amendment, that is, a well regulated militia. I don't think that anyone would disagree that the militia means the citizenry. The question is what does "well regulated" mean? And someone like Giuliani and now Mayor Bloomburg aren't opposed so much to gun ownership as they are to unrestricted access to guns. The big crackdown here in NY is on illegal guns.

To say that Giuliani is "anti-gun" seems to be mischaracterizing him. For those who see is "anti-gun" stance as a problem, I'm curious to know what they know of his policies as mayor and why they feel he is wrong.

Michael,

"well-regulated" in the 18th century simply meant "well-trained"... the 18th century was not the age of bureaucracy that we live in now... "regulation" at that time did not mean "legislation"

David B.

"And the fact that they aren't Catholic gentlemen, who are faithful to God and His Church and its head on Earth, the Pope, is enough to make a government illegitamate."

Really? DU, please tell me when have the Popes ever taught that the President has to be Catholic to lead the country?

"I would never, ever want to be the President.
First I would have to become a mason of some sort..."

Where is that in the Constitution?

"Third, democracy is a last resort government."

Let's get this straight: The United States is a democratic REPUBLIC, not a free-for-all democracy.

"And the most perfect government, except for Theocracy is Monarchy."

Theocracy is not a viable form of government, even in a Catholic country. The Church does not have the power from Christ to govern a society; she is primarily concerned with men's eternal destinites, not their temporal ones. Her leaders do not have the power to make civil laws; except in non-negotiable matters like abortion, they can usually only recommend how governments should govern in the civil sphere.

"God, the Pope, St.Louis, St.Fernando, St.David, St.Stephen and many others are kings and not presidents."

I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is a Saint Fernando.

bill912

Yeah, there is, David B. San Fernando III of Castile, St. Louis IX's first cousin (their mothers were sisters).

Some Day

Bill is right. St. Fernando is Fernando III of Castile. They both were Crusader kings. And I think theocracy is the most perfect government. But with no middle men. God was the direct ruler of the Israelites before they asked for a worldy king. And I think that there is a Church document stating monarchy is the best form of goverment and another condemning the views of the current republican-democatic ideals. It doesn't condemn democracy, it just condemns the current ones.

Mary

The big crackdown here in NY is on illegal guns.

Under the Sullivan Act, NY is a "may issue" state.

In plain English, the police can refuse to issue a license, making gun ownership illegal, for any reason and no reason at all. (The racial patterns have certainly been interesting.)

Calling them illegal does not mean that the ownership is unreasonable.

David B.

Bill,

thanks for the clarification.

Some Day,

"there is a Church document stating monarchy is the best form of goverment and another condemning the views of the current republican-democatic ideals. It doesn't condemn democracy, it just condemns the current ones"

With all due respect, I'd like some direct quotations, rather than your word alone.

David,

Some Day is referring to documents that criticize the anti-clerical and anti-monarchy revolutions in Europe led by communists and masons, Church documents speak favorably about democracy in the USA.

Some Day

Read the Secret Consistory of Pius VI during the execution of King Louis XVI of France, on June 17, 1793.
Here is an excerpt on monarchical form of goverment.
"After having abolished the monarchical form of goverment, which is the best,
it [the Convention] transferred all public power to the people."


If you need more just ask.
Now don't think I am some wierd traditionalist who hates democracy. I am a traditionalist in the sense that I like things in a Catholic way. Not an egalitarian or communist or liberal way.
If the US is to be a democracy, it should be a Catholic one.

Some Day

Which ones speak favorably on the US?
The US has a "your morals are not my morals" system which is incompatable with Catholicism.
The Laws need to reflect morality and traditions of the place. And morality can be none other that the one and only morality of the Church.

Some Day

And as if the A.Rev. wasen't a masonic action.
Just look at the FF's faces. You don't even need the rest of the evidence.

David B.

Some day,

I agree that the U.S. doesn't have the best form of self-government. However, I don't quite understand what you mean about the U.S. having to be a "Catholic democracy." Catholicism can't be confessed by the state and, at the same time, voted on by the people.

bill912

I'm all for absolute monarchy, if someone can figure out a way to make sure all the monarchs are like St. Louis. The trouble is, there's only one way for a people to rid itself of a bad monarch: revolution. Those things tend to be a little bloody.

Some Day

It should be proclaimed by the people.

And there is a difference between revolution and rebellion.
Revolution is a sin, because it breaks with the Divine Order of the Universe, ergo a metaphysical sin. Rebellion can be a sin, but also a virtue when it is employed to reestablish a legitamate order over an illegitamate or decadent order.

Some Day

Oh and absolute monarchy is wrong too. That is not what the medieval order was. That is an erroneous concept. I'll explain later.

Daniel A.

"Not meaning to derail the discussion, but could someone explain to me why Traditionalists are also Monarchists? I don't understand why they always go hand in hand." -hippo354

I think that is mostly because traditionalists are more likely than others to look back at the past with an open (perhaps excessively open at times, but not always) mind. Thus, while most people today think of monarchy and immediately dismiss it, a traditionalist would think of it, decide there might be something good in it, probably read about it and discover that it did in fact have some good points, and perhaps then decide that it is prefferable to other forms of government. I myself am a traditionalist. I used to be strictly against monarchy and supported only republican forms of government. However, I have since learned that monarchy was not all bad, and in some ways is prefferable to a republic (though a republic is prefferable in some ways as well). Thus, I could imagine ways in which a monarchy, especially if it was run by a good monarch, would be a good thing. There are good points to various forms of governments, and given that traditionalists tend to like older and more established traditions, it is easy to see how many traditionalists would favor monarchy over a republic.

Jamie Beu

I remember http://jamiebeu.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!6E0753BD56367285!263.entry>writing about Mitt Romney a while ago. I remain unchanged about him - not trustworthy!

The problem with the Presidency is that all the decent, intelligent, and moral people avoid it like the plague. As Shakespeare wrote, "Either a criminal's office or a fool's."

J.R. Stoodley

The United States should be a Catholic democracy, because all Americans should be Catholic. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

I became a bit of a Monarchist too when I read The Lord of the Rings. The ideal is just so beautiful. We do have Christ as our King, but it would be nice to have an American king as well, reflecting the kingship of Christ in some way. I would not want him to be much more than a figurehead though. There is too much potential for getting a bad king when the office is hereditary. On the upside, the crown prince can be prepared for kingship from childhood.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31