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.
Sound analysis.
I do believe that the dems ARE taking yet another anti-gun strategy by creating false "pro"-gun organizations in an effort to divide and conquer MY NRA, and other gun owners in the country. In other words, they want to separate those NRA members whose main concern is protecting and defending the 2nd Amendment, from those that are primarily concerned with hunting and sport shooting (sporting clays, skeet & trap, etc.). These groups, with names like Americans For Gun Safety (AGS) and the American Hunters and Shooters Association (ASHA), ARE FAUX pro-gun organizations, which APPEAR to unsuspecting gun owners, to be "reasonable" and "sensible" (words right out of the anti-gun whacko crowd's playbook, and words RINO-rudy has used as well). The NRA has reported on these organizations at length in their magazines, and have pointed out, that there are many devout anti-gun liberal democrats (some that even worked in the clinton admin) that are on the INSIDE, running these organizations from leadership positions.
This is yet another way for the gun-grabbers to try and chip away at our 2nd Amendment rights, since they know it can't be done in one fell swoop. Previous tactics (most of them ATTEMPTS that failed, thankfully) have been inexorably high taxes placed on ammunition, bans on classes of weapons and hi-cap magazines, licensing and registration schemes on guns and ammo, reclassifying formerly legal firearms as restricted weapons (done by clinton's secretary of the treasury), trying to create de facto gun registration through various means, and on, and on. These people will NEVER stop devising ways to strip us of our 2nd Amendment Rights. To think any different, or to trust these types, is dangerous and naive.
OF COURSE reid and pelosi, and other rabid anti-gun pukes are NOT mentioning gun control. That doesn't mean they are not trying to develop new methods to reach the gun-free (like mediocre britain perhaps?) America they envision. Just as our military has battle contingencies drawn up for many different potential scenarios around the world, so do the gun-grabbers have plans drawn up for the next Columbine, or other high profile massacre where some crazy, criminal, or terrorist inflicts mass casualties. We've seen it before, when an event like this happens, lo and behold, new anti-gun legislation pops out of thin air. Actually, the gun-grabbing bills are there, waiting to be used. And what president will sign these bills when they reach his/her desk? I would submit EITHER president hillary OR president rudy (perhaps rudy more so than the Ice Queen, since he has been much more vocal than she with his gun control positions).
So, I say, if we truly value our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, those unalienable rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, we MUST STOP an anti-gun RINO from becoming our sole, Republican candidate for President.
And, due to all I've mentioned above, I DO think that, even IF rudy's ONLY fault was that he did not understand or revere our 2nd Amendment RIGHT (which he obviously DOES NOT), I STILL think that is a FATAL flaw in and of itself, and MOST of the gun people I know or have ever known, would NOT support him or vote for him.
Of course, the reality is, that he has MANY fatal flaws where real conservatism is concerned, so I don't think he is going to get far in the process, hopefully. For the good of the party and the country (and of course, the unborn and the 2nd Amendment), I hope he falls on his sword early on, so we can get a true conservative in line for Republican president.