Posted on 02/18/2007 12:46:51 PM PST by dirtboy
Rudy Giuliani's interview on Hannity and Colmes, 2/6/2007
HANNITY: Generally speaking do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment
If there is a terror attack involving guns on US soil during the tenure of a President Rudolph Giuliani, will President Giuliani adhere to the sentiments about the right to bear arms that he expressed recently during his Hannity and Colmes interview? Or be more inclined to respond similar to his actions as mayor of New York City when his administration took guns away from long-term permit holders who had never engaged in wrongdoing? Some would say that we should listen to what a candidate says. Others say we should look at what a candidate has done in the past. As it so happens, Rudy did have a chance to express his opinions about what he thought was the proper federal response to a terrorism attack involving guns. The attack in question happened February 23, 1997 when a Palestinian opened fire on tourists at the observation deck of the Empire State Building. One person was killed and several injured. A note found on the terrorist said the attack was punishment against the "enemies of Palestine." So how did Mayor Giuliani respond to this attack? By calling for gun control and supporting Bill Clinton's proposed gun control law?.
Citizens Crime Comission
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
1095 Avenue of the Americas
March 6, 1997, 8:15 a.m.
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building.
The Empire State Building is such an important landmark... such an important symbol of America that, like so many other places in New York City, when a tragedy happens there, it receives a great deal of attention in the media.
[snip]
Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is gun control.
And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
[snip]
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements.
[snip]
I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can.
I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue. ---
-----------------
Now, Rudy Giuliani has said recently that federalism dictates that New York and New York City should be able to pursue avenues of gun control that are not needed in more rural areas. However, he did not adhere to that federalist sentiment in response to this terror attack
At City Hall, Mayor Giuliani attempted to shift the focus toward gun control. He was accompanied by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train that killed six people and wounded 17. In both that incident and Sunday's shooting, the gunmen circumvented New York's strict gun control laws by traveling out of state to buy the murder weapons, officials said.
"New York State, New York City have great gun control laws," Rep. McCarthy said. "But as the mayor said, we cannot control all the guns that are coming in from other parts of the country and that's what has to be stopped."
----------------
So voters concerned about the Second Amendment have to decide if what candidate Giuliani says now carries more weight than what Mayor Giuliani did back then. Candidate Giuliani recently said that gun control was a state issue. But Mayor Giuliani had no problem wanting to use federal power to overrule state laws about gun rights.
Gun rights advocates rightly decried efforts by groups such as the Brady Center and Handgun Control Inc. to exploit school shooting tragedies to push for gun control laws that had no relevance to the shootings.
And here we have Mayor Giuliani ... exploiting tragedy to push for gun control laws. And asking that gun control not just be applied to New York City, but other states. In complete opposition to his stated fealty to federalism when it comes to gun control laws.
So those who are concerned about 2nd Amendent rights to bear arms in self-defense, both of homes and of society when confronted in public by criminals and possibly terrorists, must decide what carries more weight.
What Rudy Giuliani says now as he runs for president. Or what he has done in the past.
Because the gun-grabbers are still out there, pushing for more laws, despite what Giuliani's posters claim to the contrary, that gun control is a dead issue. In response to the latest Salt Lake City shooting, Carolyn McCarthy was again calling for more gun control laws. So if Rudy Giuliani becomes president in January 2009, and there is a school shooting two months later, will he resist call for gun control? Or stand with Carolyn McCarthy as he did in 1997, exploiting tragedy to call for more federal gun control laws?
"Time to face the facts. If you are upset about Rudy being a threat to gun ownership, just imagine life with Hillorat."
I'll support whoever wins the GOP nomination....and I'll support Rudy for that nomination because I think that
a. He would be the best president in the WOT of the crop of candidates and
b. He can beat Hitlary
Now look at what I posted earlier today:
"I see three basic claims being made by the RudyBots:
1. Rudy is a security expert, tough on terrorism,
2. He isn't John McCain,
3. He can beat Hillary."
Its like I was reading your mind. LOL
Problem. What else is there? Rudy is completely wrong on the social issues and he's nothing more then another big government Republican. Haven't we had enough of big government Republicans? This conservative has had enough. I say, no thanks Rudy. I want limited government.
I would rather see him as President than any of the current crop of candidates.
But as you and I both know, the chances that he could win are low. The MSM would drudge up all the old lies and hammer him mercilessly. And starting with negatives like his, its not a winning recipe. Newt admitted as much, adding the caveat that people will tire of the early campaign, and may be willing to look at a fresh face towards the end of this year.
Newt will be cheering, but knowing his political smarts, there is no way he's gonna run (though never going quite as far as saying so).
The NRA gave the Republicans that message in October 1996. The result was a 97-2 Senate vote (and a pretty appalling house vote as well) on the most egregiously unconstitutional legislation to date.
Rudy knows that trying to impose those views is a recipe for defeat. He is nothing if not a shrewd, dollars and cents kind of guy. He will assure the social voters by appointing conservatives in the Judiciary (or he'd be a one-term president), and will veto anything too over the top that Congress passes.
So he won't be a Reagan or a GWB, but his ability - and even less so his desire - to affect these social issues is WAYYYYY overblown.
Where the President has a leading role is in defending this country. And anyone following his career knows that he can and will use the "iron fist" against our enemies. He did it with the criminals in NYC and he'll do it with al Quaeda abroad.
Remember that he personally (and privately, in dead seriousness) asked President Bush to be allowed to "throw the switch" if bin Laden was ever captured, tried and sentenced to death.
See the big picture folks. Hitlary's (or any Dems Federal Judges are the ones who will try to legislate (imm)morality; Rudy will appoint conservatives who won't. Or he'll be a one-termer, and I guarantee you that he is nothing if not a smart cookie. He is not an ideologue but a pragmatist. And pragmatism dictates that he govern as I have laid out above.
Hitlary, OTOH is a doctrinaire Marxist who believes is shoving her policies down your throat at any cost, consequences damned.
So when the police come to yoour door to tell you that you have to send your homeschooler to public school under the law just signed by Hitlary, you won't have me to blame for it - for I will walk over broken glass to vote against her.
Pleas see my post right above this one.
The fact you would put the word TRANSVESTITE as a keyword negates anything you have to say. Your screen name fits you to a tee.
I am unaware of Rudy's ever having repudiated his anti-gun statements and actions. If Rudy were to apologize for his earlier anti-gun behavior and start openly attacking gun control as a pack of lies, and Bloomberg-style lawsuits as a gross and willful violation of civil rights, then I would probably think him worthy of support.
Has he done anything remotely like that?
Dear Admin/Lead moderator. I have been accused of putting a keyword of "transvestite" in the keyword section. First of all, please remove the keyword - we don't need that crap on FR. Second, please admonish whoever put that keyword in the list, since you know who put it there - I don't want non-factual crap on my carefully-crafted vanity posts. And third, please inform Hildy that I posted none of the keywords in this post, if you have the time to indulge in such.
Thank you.
I disagree. The Bully Pulpit is a powerful tool in the hands of the right man. The President sets the overall agenda for the nation and the tone of the political debate. He is also the leader of his party. In this case, the GOP. I like my President's conservative on both social and fiscal matters. And adhering to the Constitution, without straying from its parameters. Voting for a big government, pro-amnesty, pro-gay rights, gungrabbing abortionist IS NOT my idea of leadership as represented by the Republican Party.
>>>>>anyone following his career knows that he can and will use the "iron fist" against our enemies. He did it with the criminals in NYC and he'll do it with al Quaeda abroad.
Being from NYCity, kept up with family and friends over the years, and always remained focused on politics. I always thought of Rudy Giuliani as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Until last year. When I determined he would be running for Prez, I did some research on his final record as Mayor of NYCity. It was not the record of a fiscal conservative. Maybe you could say, Rudy was fiscally responsible by NYCity standards. That's as far as I'd go. If you like, I can post that information I gathered from the Manhattan Institute.
In my estimation, Rudy is a social and fiscal liberal. Therefore, unfit to lead the Party of Lincoln and Reagan.
I would not put it past the Rudybots to put stuff like that in the keywords to try to pin onto the conservatives who are outing Giuliani's liberal views.
As much as some like to make it seem the NRA does not just support Republicians. They are a Second Amendment group not a Republician. Gulliani will not be endorsed by the NRA. NO way. They have been aganist him before and they will be again. Richardson could win and beat Hillary for this very reason. He is more pro gun than her and Gulliani.
(Don't hold your breath, dirtboy)
I'd settle for a reasoned disagreement of what I posted. However, that is basically impossible, which is why I got attacked for keywords I didn't post.
"The President is not a legislature or the courts - which is where the 'social issues' are legislated. So the whole threat of his stated personal views on these issues is WAYYYY overblown."
Only if you ignore veto ability, judicial appointments, executive orders and the vast federal agencies.
Do you really think that the president could not force the fbi to retain its instant gun check info and put it all in a database? Do you not think that he could not have the department of education set school accreditation standards that would rule out home schooling? What about having the BATF and federal attorneys prosecute even the slightest breach (or supposed breach) of those 20,000 gun laws? BATF reinterprets its rules & standards constantly now. From his past record, what is to stop him from making ACLU attorneys all of his judicial appointments. Would Arlen Spectre stop him? Would he sign the Kyoto treaty? What about how he would act in a crisis. Would he declare a state of emergency and restrict our rights?
He has demonstrated many times that after elected, he ignores his critics or goes after them. Even if they were the same people that got him elected.
The Rudy boosters always seem to ignore that leetle detail. For good reason.
Oh Boy!! Another trash Rudi thread!! You know it's really working on me....i'm really starting to hate Rudi...yep....I won't vote for this guy. If he gets through the primaries....you won't see me going out to vote....nosiree. That'll show everyone......
Forgive me. I never realized that asking if a politician's past performance was an indication of his future performance was trashing. I guess I'll join you in believing his every current utterance as the gospel truth, and screw what he did before he ran for a new office.
"Oh Boy!! Another trash Rudi thread!!"
I thought it was a gun thread and we were shooting holes in his record. LOL!
First of all. This is CONSTANT badgering..a turnoff. Second....who's your candidate? Third, I believe there is a Pre-9-11 and After-9-11 mentality. Last, can we listen to what the man says in today's world rather than dig up his druggy college days?
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.