You managed to completely avoid answering any of the substance of my posts, kind of like RINO-rudy during his recent interview with Hannity.
If you are now ready to forego ad hominem attacks, I'll be happy to discuss the substance of your posts.
Your primary substantive point is that the threat of anti-gun laws is greater than I had stated: THE main function of anti-gun demonRAT-created groups like this are PRECISELY to fly under the radar and make it SEEM as if the threat of new gun control laws, as Wiener says, "has receded in urgency", and that "the danger at this time is minimal".
I would take issue with that. I believe the principle strategy of anti-gun groups has always been to convey a sense of the inevitability of gun control (and eventual gun abolition). They try to paint it as the conventional wisdom that guns are evil and dangerous, and that it's only a matter of time until Americans will mature to the point where the Second Amendment will be recognized as an archaic dead letter which is inapplicable to modern society. They want this viewpoint to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
During the 1980's and early 1990's, gun control had become one of the fundamental tenets of liberals and the Mainstream Media, to the point that it was a litmus test for every Democrat. The Brady Bill, banning "assault weapons", registering guns, etc. were proudly trumpeted by all the anti-gun organizations as evidence that the NRA was losing its grip on the general public.
The 1994 election had a shattering effect on the anti-gunners. Bill Clinton openly admitted that the Democratic Party's gun-control stance had cost them dozens of seats and control of Congress. CCW Shall-Carry laws modeled after Florida were spreading to other states, and with each new victory the alarmist predictions of the Brady bunch were further discredited. Gore's election loss in 2000 can be attributed to disaffected pro-gun Democrats as much as anything. By 2004 Kerry was pretending to be a hunter, and an increasing number of Democrats were getting high NRA ratings. The AWB expired in September, 2004, and the only consequence was that Republicans picked up seats in Congress.
Do you hear Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any other prominent Congressional leader promoting major gun control legislation now that they have control of Congress? Twenty years ago that would have been the number one (or close to it) issue on their agenda. Now it's near the bottom.
So yes, objectively speaking, the threat of new gun control laws has receded in urgency and the danger is currently minimal. Nor is this just some clever strategy on the part of gun-control groups to fly under the radar. Things really have swung around in our direction. It doesn't mean we've won a permanent victory; the pendulum could swing back in a few years. But even President Hillary will downplay the issue, even if Congress was willing to enact new laws, which it won't be. After all, she'll want to be re-elected in 2012.
So a Giuliani Presidency does not pose a big threat to our Second Amendment rights, especially if he appoints competent strict constructionist judges. That doesn't mean I support Giuliani (I don't, although I don't think he's as bad as several other candidates). Nor does it mean I approve of his past anti-gun positions. I consider his recent statements moderating his position to be based more on political expediency than anything else.
Still, I don't believe that the issue of gun-control will be a controlling factor among conservatives and Republican voters in determining whether Rudy gets the nomination. Those people (such as yourself) who are adamantly opposed to him would be opposed to him anyway based on other issues (such as abortion). The number of people who would support Rudy if ONLY he did not have an anti-gun history is, in my opinion, probably very small and not enough to effect the outcome.