Posted on 02/15/2007 10:12:09 AM PST by meg88
Pundits of all political persuasions have been chattering about whether Rudy Giuliani, whose name is invariably modified by the description "social liberal," can overcome the objections of many religious conservatives to win the Republican nomination.
Will his assurances to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito and Scalia be "enough" to put their concerns to rest? Will conservatives overlook social issues in an election focusing largely on foreign policy?
The more interesting question is whether Giuliani can establish a new description of what it means to be "socially conservative." Perhaps to be socially conservative means something more than just fidelity to pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions.
Giuliani has a convincing argument that he is an ethical or cultural conservative who in the end will protect the values that most conservative Republicans hold dear.
What does this mean? It means that he sees the world as a battle between good and evil, and politics as a struggle between decent hard working people and elites who have too little respect for their values -- public safety, respect for religion and public virtue.
His world view is not one of multi-culturalism or moral relativism. He shows no empathy for bullies -- be they Mafia bosses or Al Sharpton. Giuliani, of course, first rose to public prominence by fighting the largest bully he could find: the Mob. Time magazine called his prosecution in 1985 of 11 Mafia leaders the "Case of Cases" and quoted his declared intention to "wipe out the five families."
For him, it is all about who is good and who is not, regardless of whose feathers he might ruffle.
Liberal sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and diplomatic niceties did not prevent him from tossing Yasser Arafat (with great delight) from Lincoln Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
That's what the Second Amendment to the Constitution says, but hey, let's not debate that question. Let's just debate whether that's a fair characterization of Rudy's position. It is not.
Does every Republican agree with that definition? No.
No, every Republican does not. But if that were an honest assessment of his position, he wouldn't have so many detractors.
Do the radicals own the party? No.
Wrong. They do. But you don't recognize it: the radicals are the leftist statists in the party who have almost completed the destruction of conservatism in America.
I don't put a lot of faith in the words politicians say unless their actions support those words. That is why I didn't just direct you to the words Rudy used in that column, but I substantiated my point by explaining what the policies he supported had done and were attempting to do and how his words and actions supported by statements.
Fell free to post or link to the reasons Rudy has said the second amendment is important, but back it up with actions Rudy has taken to support it.
But if you want to argue that no 2nd Amendment absolutists believe in the right to own machine guns, turret guns, chain guns, etc., let me know, because there's a guy on Free Republic I'd like to introduce to you.
The main point I was making is that Rudy isn't just a little anti-gun, and I backed I feel I backed up my point.
But I won't argue that there aren't people who believes that the second amendment guarantees the right to own machine guns. Congress itself felt that it didn't likely have the authority to ban ownership of machine guns when they passed the National Firearms Act in 1934.
They thought that banning ownership was likely unconstitutional, so instead they levied a high tax excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of such weapons.
The tax was (and still is) $200 to manufacture or transfer such a weapon at a time when the annual per capita income was $424.
Later, the treasury department simply refused to issue tax stamps for any new machine guns, so machine guns can no longer be made to sell to individuals. However, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 requires that the federal government still allow machine guns registered at that time to be legally transferred as long as allowed by state law.
If I was willing to pay the exorbitant price for a machine gun manufactured and registered before 1986 I could own one here in Ohio.
The federal law you are breaking if you illegally posses a machine gun is tax evasion for not paying the excise tax.
I might agree that you can make a reasonable argument that the possession of some weapons or destructive devices should be banned, or at least regulated. However, there is a proper way to do that. It needs to be done by a constitutional amendment, not by congress doing an end run around the constitution with a excise tax, or by reinterpreting the constitution as times change. The only way to change the constitution is to amend it. If there isn't enough support to amend the constitution, then obviously times haven't changed as much as some would have you believe.
Gun control advocates don't want to push for amending the constitution, because they don't want to be bound by the constitution. They know they cannot push through an amendment that would allow them to infringe upon gun ownership anywhere near as much as they want, so they work to undermine the constitution instead.
There are very few politicians who truly respect the constitution. I'm not going to say I won't vote for any candidate that doesn't completely respect the constitution, because I recognize that I have a responsibility to vote for the best candidate from the choice I have.
But don't tell me that Rudy only opposes the ownership of turret guns and machine guns, because his past actions tell a very different story.
Our human right to be able to defend ourselves has long been under attack in this country, and Rudy has been on the wrong side of the fight.
Great pro-gun post.
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.