I just got finished watching the New Orleans mayoral debate.

I hate to say it, but I think that Ray Nagin is a better choice than Mitch Landrieu.

Oh I hate to say that.

So it brings to light an interesting conundrum. Ray Nagin (to me) seems to be the right man to lead New Orleans into a prosperous future, something I wish for with my heart of hearts. But that same man was at least partially responsible for one of the most blatant defilements of the Second Amendment, an act I despise with my heart of hearts.

What wins?

Given the benefit of the doubt, maybe Nagin didn't authorize or know about the gun confiscations. He still held up the process of returning those firearms to their rightful owners. But on the other hand he had done wonders for the City of New Orleans in so many respects and has continued to do (in my estimation) a pretty good job of holding down the fort since the storm.

Other than the confiscation thing, I can't recall anything "anti-gun" about his first administration at all. That makes me believe that he didn't tell the NOPD to take guns, they decided to do that themselves. I do think he tried to cover it up abit, but maybe to try and save New Orleans another black eye. Since most of the gun laws in this state are governed by the state, I don't really see how even if he was anti-2nd amendment that he could do much harm.

Either way, I guess that it's just one of those times that one belief needs to be put aside to facilitate all others.