Today Miles and I were watching the rerun of Wednesday's CNN/YouTube Republican debate.  It was really interesting and I learned a lot about the candidates.  But the most incredible answer came when Ron Paul was asked if he were to become president what three federal programs he would reduce in size in order to cut spending... you know what his first "agency" was?!?!? The Department of Education. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What an idiot!  Maybe you and No Child Left Behind loving Hillary can hook-up on a bipartisan ticket... YOU BOTH ARE CRAZY! (Slightly to his defense, I would guess that he would want to cut federal spending and increase state spending; but even then, A LOT of the states' money come from federal subsidies).

I think I am going to have to add Ron Paul to my list of "if they become president I am moving to Canada" list... currently it just contains Hillary.  ha ha ha

All ridiculousness aside, my favorite answer came from Giuliani when he was asked why he believes that citizens should pass a written exam to own a gun.  His answer was...

We have to be very aggressive in how we enforce gun laws that exist.  I had a city in which when I took over there were 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week, and I enforced the gun laws very aggressively. I enforced all laws very aggressively. And that is why we reduced shootings by 74%, we reduced homicide by 67% and we went from being one of the most dangerous cities in the country to being one of the safest. As far as that is concerned what I believe is the second amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms; government can impose reasonable regulations.  Generally, those reasonable regulations would be about criminal background and a background of mental instability; basically the ones that are outlines in the opinion of Judge Silberman.  If those regulations go beyond that then those are unconstitutional.  I think states can have a little bit of leeway, New York can have somewhat stricter rules than let’s say Kentucky; Texas might have different rules than Ohio, but generally you have got to comply with this rule. Now the Supreme Court is going to decide this probably within the next six months.  The Parker case (Parker vs. District of Columbia) has been taken to the Supreme Court and they are going to decide whether it’s a right that pertains to the militia, which I don’t believe that it is, or is it a right that is a personal right, I believe that it is and I will live by that and people will be allowed to have guns and I am not going to interfere with that.  Generally, decisions are going to be made on a state basis and they are going to have to comply with the constitution.

 I loved it; it doesn't mean that I will be voting for him, but still, it was a good answer. I don't really agree with the 2nd Amendment/ Gun Control issue, I think that the second amendment doesn't pertain directly to our societal situation, but none-the-less, until it is amended; a good Republican answer was expressed by Giuliani.  He put the responsibility in the states hands to regulate themselves. And that really is where most of the power should be (this is my Republican roots coming out). Giuliani is right, things are different in Texas and Ohio, Montana and Virginia, etc.. I don't care if we are taking gun control, education, etc. states should have the majority of the power to govern themselves. Thank you Giuliani for saying it; for standing up for your party, staying red and not trying to appear purple! (Although I would call myself more moderate, therefore more purple than red).