Posted on 02/06/2007 12:08:48 PM PST by 300magnum
NEWTOWN, Conn.—In response to New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's filing of a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission yesterday, indicating that he would enter the 2008 presidential race as a Republican, the firearms industry's trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), reminded America's sportsmen and gun-enthusiasts of the former mayor's record of hostility toward firearms and gun-owners.
"Recent remarks indicate the mayor is attempting to camouflage his record on guns – a political maneuver now common for politicians seeking national office," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
In June of 2000, then New York City Mayor Giuliani became the lone Republican mayor to sue members of the firearms industry as part of a wave of lawsuits that began in the late 1990's by major metropolitan cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Philadelphia and San Francisco that sought to hold firearms manufactures responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. The Giuliani lawsuit is still pending and being aggressively pursued by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Giuliani strongly opposed legislation blocking suits like the one he filed against members of the firearms industry. In 2005, President Bush signed legislation into law that barred such lawsuits after Congress, by a broad bipartisan margin, passed the bill. During the debate in Congress the Giuliani lawsuit was specifically referred to as an example of the kind of "junk" lawsuit the law is intended to stop.
"Giuliani's lawsuit may have gained him praise in Gotham, but will surely handicap him in the rest of the country, particularly during the southern primaries," predicted Keane.
More recently Giuliani's campaign has flipped-flopped on whether he continues his longstanding support for restoring the Clinton-era federal ban on some semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic appearance. The so-called "assault weapons" ban sunset in 2004. Several studies including those by the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control showed the ban had no impact on crime largely because the banned firearms were very rarely if ever used in crime. The ban had nothing to do with machine guns, which have remained heavily regulated since the early part of the last century.
According to the New York Post, Giuliani's political operative in New Hampshire, Wayne Semprini, "has been telling voters that the mayor will be an 'easy sell' - and that the ex-mayor 'satisfied' him that he won't support federal assault-weapons bans, as he has in the past." All the while Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani's top advisor, has been telling New Yorkers "the mayor's position on this [the assault weapons ban] has not changed."
Commenting on this equivocation, Keane added, "You can't pretend to be a supporter of sportsmen and gun-owners in New Hampshire when you tried to sue the firearms industry out of existence in New York. Other politicians learned the hard way that sportsmen and gun-owners are a well-informed and highly motivated voting bloc. Former President Clinton in his memoirs admitted the gun issue cost Al Gore the White House, and Senator Kerry's ill-fated goose hunt cooked his presidential aspirations in 2004."
Formed in 1961, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is the trade association for the firearms industry. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.
What a weasel. That's a total non-answer. An actual answer to that question would have been "yes" or "no".
"Where is he functionally different from the Democratic candidates? "
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24318_Rudy_Giuliani_on_Hannity_and_Colmes&only
Listen to what he says about terrorism - VERY different than what you hear from the barking dog dems.
And throwing arafatso out of the concert, no dem would EVER do that; http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19980
Then he rejected the 10 million from the Saudi Prince; http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/rec.giuliani.prince/index.htm
Know of any dems that would do that??
For the Brady Bunch, "reasonable and sensible" gun laws means "ban them all".
What? We can't buy high cap mags now?? I thought we could.
We have focused and he is against everything Conservatives believe. If you don't believe in the BOR DO NOT APPLY FOR THE JOB.
Yes or no doesn't allow room for "restrictions". But he could have said Yes, though gun ownership by convicted felons should be restricted. Essentially he endorses his own track record on this issue, which isn't surprising.
But he didn't. He just emitted a bunch of squid ink.
Essentially he endorses his own track record on this issue, which isn't surprising.
Not surprising. Also not something I can vote for.
"confidence in the existing tier of conservative GOP presidential candidates."
Rudy is not in any conservative tier.
He didn't forget it, he just has a different view of allowable infringements. I have no problem keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons, for example. It appears Rudy would have no problem keeping them out of the hands of urban dwellers.
I coud vote for that. The first Intelligent Black President. Sleezo was the first black president.
"In fact, I'd say that on every issue but national security, we have no right to demand agreement with our views on ANY issue."
I disagree with that statement, especially concerning an issue where the Bill of Rights states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I guess I don't necessarily want a candidate to agree with me on this issue. I would just like a Republican candidate that agrees with the Constitution on this issue. And as I stated earlier on another Rudy thread, of the five issues I see as critical, Rudy is on the other side on four of them. I'd like a Republican candidate that could at least "agree with me" on more than 20 percent of the issues I consider very important.
"140 posts and none of the usual suspects ..."
Those New Yorkers are afraid of you and your shiny black guns! LOL!
Please get a bit more informed on the various gun legislation. The Brady bill was background checks.
All he has to do is make it clear in his campaigning he won't go after our guns, and he's a shoe-in.
The Gays/Abortion issues won't hurt him.
This is all over but the counting, I think.
I'm lukewarm on Rudy, but he is a strong manager and tough decision maker. We could do worse.
If you have to rebuild a conservative Republican party it is an easier job if one of your own didn't sign all of the liberal legislation that Congress sent him.
Uh-oh.
He actually answered it no, for all practical purpose. Someone who does not affirm that rights are enumerated is someone who believes our rights exist only at the whim of government.
Thank God for their foresight. If they could see what's happening in this country now, they would all high 5 each other for adding it.
It makes my blood boil when I hear any stupid politician say something to the effect:"No sportsmen or hunters rights will be violated." when they are talking about gun control.
Makes mine boil too.
With all due respect, can I have some of what you are smoking?
History shows that if the GOP abandons core conservative values, it both fails to hold the base and fails to attract Reagan Democrats.
They are not called Nixon Democrats. Or Ford Democrats. Or Bush Democrats.
They are called Reagan Democrats because Reagan's views are what pulled them into the GOP column.
Not the views of the Rockeller wing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.