Rudy is defined as not being "pro-life" because "pro-life" has been defined to mean "no abortion, whatsoever, by anyone, any time, for any reason."
Does every Republican agree with that definition? No.
Rudy is defined at not being "pro gun" because "pro gun" has been defined to mean, "buy and own all the guns you want with no restriction whatsoever, by anyone, any time, for any reason."
Does every Republican agree with that definition? No.
Do the radicals own the party? No.
What a load of crap.
How about we let Rudy speak for himself on this issue. Here's an archive of his weekly column from when he initiated the lawsuit against the gun industry.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000a/weekly/wkly0626.html
The federal government highly regulates the sale of firearms, and gun manufacturers can only sell them through federally licensed dealers.
Since Federal law doesn't ban firearms, and he wasn't able to disarm everyone as long as people in some part of the country could buy guns, he tried to bankrupt the gun industry because of the actions of criminals even though the gun industry sold the firearms legally through federally licensed dealers.
What were the crimes of the gun industry?
Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement, and knowingly targeting these excess guns to criminals, youths and other persons unqualified to buy firearms;
Notice that self defense isn't a legitimate purpose for owning a gun. Notice that while he says hunting is a legitimate purpose he misrepresents the gun industry's marketing of hunting and target shooting guns designed for young shooters. While a minor cannot purchase a gun, they do legally use them to hunt and shoot. He also apparently thinks he knows best as to how many guns people should be allowed to own.
Deliberately undermining New York City's gun control laws by flooding other markets which have less stringent gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City;
In other words, they simply followed the law and sold guns according to federal regulations, through federally licensed dealers. He felt that not only should he be able to unconstitutionally restrict gun ownership in NYC, he demanded that guns not be sold elsewhere as well.
Ignoring the illegal practices of gun distributors, many of whom openly engage in the above practices;
The authority to investigate illegal actions of gun dealers and to revoke their licenses lies with the federal government. The gun industry already bears the burden of operating in a heavily regulated industry and is following the appropriate regulations.
The anti-gun lobby has continuously tried to create draconian restrictions at the federal level and has failed. They have tried to smear the names of gun dealers, not because the dealers broke the law, but because guns they sold eventually fell into the hands of criminals, or were even traced for some other reason such as they were recovered stolen property.
However, congress has not legislated the restrictions they want, so they seek to gain them through frivolous litigation.
Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with features such as trigger locks and "personalization" measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon.
Such "features" have proven to be unreliable and expensive. They also can be circumvented given time, so their only benefit would be preventing quick access by an unauthorized person.
Personalized guns are a foolish and expensive way to achieve that goal, and make the guns less reliable.
It's not the gun manufacturers refused to design such guns, there's simply no market for them. Even the police forces don't want them.
This is simply a ploy to drive up the costs of guns and make it more difficult for law abiding citizens (especially the poor) to afford firearms.
This got shot down at the federal level, so he and other anti-gun extremists tried to force the gun industry into bankruptcy to gain the same end result of driving up the costs of guns.
Rudy isn't slightly anti-gun. He is extremely anti-gun and he has shown that he has absolutely no respect for the constitution or the rule of law when they get in the way of something he believes in.
Rudy was a great leader in the wake of 9/11. He has been a strong supporter of our troops in the war.
Rudy has been good at stamping out corruption, but he respect for the rule of law is inconsistent. He obstructed the federal government in finding and prosecuting illegal aliens and his efforts to punish the gun industry for following federal gun laws through civil suits are examples of this.
I agree with a number of things that Rudy has done, and I admire his leadership. However, if he has something he believes in he will not let the rule of law, or the constitution stand in his way. He only respects laws and rights that he agrees with, and that is why I will not vote for him.
Rudy is defined as a gun grabber because he grabbed guns from long-term NYC permit holders. And also because he sued gun manufactuers. And also because he has supported assault-weapons bans and stringet restrictions on handguns. And also because he thinks the 2nd Amendment protects your right to hunt ducks but is silent on the right to bear arms for self-defense. And also because he strongly supported Clinton gun control proposals. And also because...
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.