Try and understand

A commenter on the post about Rudy Giuliani's presidential candidacy attempts to minimise Rudy's strong support for gun control:

. . . it would take Congress to enact laws limiting gun ownership, a president can have an influence on that, but he would have to have a lot of allies in the Congress, and they just aren't there. Plus the courts would have to uphold it.

First it was called the "Clinton" gun ban because Bill Clinton had one of his surrogates in congress introduce it as legislation and then arm twisted to get it passed so presidents can have a great deal to do with gun control legislation just like they can have a great deal to do with tax cuts (Ronald Reagan), tax increases (Bill Clinton), social programs (Lyndon Johnson, FDR, Richard Nixon), war (Woodrow Wilson - WWI, FDR - WWII, Truman - Korea, JFK/LBJ - Vietnam, George H W Bush/George W Bush - Iraq).

It is true that any president needs support in congress to get anything done but with Democrats in control of congress a renewed push for gun control is very possible. It is true that Democrats have tended to shy away from the topic in recent years, having found it a losing issue, but that can change. A Republican president taking the lead would give them cover and if the law were passed soon after an election thy would have two years to let the public forget.

Remember the bottom line of Democrats and gun control is that most elected Democrats are left liberals and left liberals really, really, REALLY hate guns, or to be more accurate they hate people who like guns.

Another thing is that support for gun control reveals a deep and very troubling character flaw in a person. Left liberals hate people who like guns because left liberals are, at heart, totalitarian Utopian fantasists who dream of waking among men as God walks among the angles. If you are the God of your own dreams then the one who will not bow down before you of necessity becomes Lucifer, falling like lightening from heaven to become the Devil.

Believing that common citizens cannot be trusted with the tools of self defense should disqualify any person from holding public office in any capacity. That opinion should be so repugnant to people of good will that those who express it publicly should face social ostracism.

Think of it this way. If a man running for president expressed the opinion that Negro slavery should be re-legalized would you say, "well for that to happen a constitutional amendment would need to be passed with the support of three quarters of the state legislatures and there is no chance of that ever happening so that opinion of his should not be used as a basis for our evaluation of him as a potential president"?

I don't think so. And yes, I AM saying that support for gun control is EXACTLY AS EVIL as support for slavery. An armed man is a free man and an unarmed man is a slave. The conditions of some slaves are better than others, as the house slaves lived more comfortably than the field slaves, but in the end they were all slaves and all alike were defenseless against the whims of the master.