TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

boomerang wrote:Rolling back 100 years of restrictive gun laws sounds like a great idea.

Except that's not what I meant and you know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The courts will do their dirty work for them and the politicians will say that while they personally believe in gun rights, it's what the courts have determined the constitution means and it is out of their hands. (Sound familiar?)

Yes. Very familiar. It sounds a lot like Giuliani.

But this is a discussion about Ron Paul's fundraising.

I donated to Dr. Paul's campaign because I believe he's the best candidate for President. How about you?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And if he's dumb, spiteful or stubborn enough to do that. and I'm almost certain he isn't, you might as well get used to hearing about President Clinton and the First Husband for the next 8 years.

As bad as that would be, it's sounds like a better future than one with President Giuliani. The Republicans in Congress would at least consider voting against unconstitutional legislation pushed by Clinton but they would probably bend over for Rudy. Same thing with the supposedly nonpartisan Supreme Court. Remember that Clinton's homeland defense rifle ban expired but the 1989 Republican rifle ban is still in effect.

I don't think Paul will run as a GDI if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, but I'd vote for Obama or Clinton before I'd vote for Giuliani. So I hope against hopes that Ron Paul will get the nomination. That's why I donated.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And the cause of gun rights in this country will be set back by 100 years at least, and maybe forever.

Rolling back 100 years of restrictive gun laws sounds like a great idea.