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?
Oh, defeating the Dems in 2008 is going to be very difficult for any GOP nominee.
However, I can tell you a strategy that history has shown cannot work.
Run so far left that a sizeable third-party movement forms. And give no reason for anyone to cross party lines for you.
Rudy will not be able to hold the party together. And he will give no reason for pro-life and pro-gun Dems to cross over. And he will have little luck attracting independents and Dems as a pro-war candidate, since the Iraq War is becoming more unpopular in that segment with each passing day.
I am not so arrogant as to know what can win. But it should be blindingly obvious that Rudy can't win.
What tag line are you referring to? Perhaps the Gremlins have blocked it on my machine.
I recall similar rhetoric about the nomination of Bill Clinton by the left.
He won because of Bush the elder's leftward drift split the party. THANK YOU for making my point for me! We cannot afford that again!
I don't even want to think about that possibility.
Awesome list! Saved for re-posting on future 'bash Rudy' threads....
Sooo is Rudy now the "new clinton"? I thought ya'll were saying he was the "new reagan"?
I think clinton is closer even by Rudys own admission.
But I'll bet he can post another 'Oldie but Goody' picture of Rudy in a dress.
Or maybe their candidate comparison chart that depicts Hillary's position on the WOT as if she were Tommy Franks.
Would be interesting to hear thoughts on his candidate. Kinda sounding like Hillary might be their man.
That's the entire problem - he is getting a fair amount of the GOP money and bull**** machine behind him. He could well win the nomination given the newly-compressed primary schedule as a result, but has no chance in hell of winning the general election. Which will give the White House to the Dems.
I fought the Clintons tooth and nail when Slick was president, jack. WHAT DID YOU DO TO FIGHT THEM? Slime sure comes easy to the Rudy boosters - but I guess that's the case when you have little else in your quiver.
Read the comprehensive list a few posts up - it will enlighten you about Rudy's economic philosophy.
Elections are usually won on the economy (unless we're at war) and Rudy's got the goods on both those issues.
Or would you prefer a pure Stalinist who WILL try to introduce gay marriage, who WILL try to ban all guns, who WILL try to ban homeschooling - not to mention appoint HUNDREDS of Federal Judges who will make sure to 'make it so.'
Getting a clue now?
P.S. I don't know who Duncan Hunter is, I don't care who Duncan Hunter is (because his chance of being elected is 0.00000%), and people who are on bandwagons of unknown House Representatives are detached from reality....
Hey! Now there's a tagline in there somewhere!
"has no chance in hell of winning the general election"
Do you have any empirical evidence to back this up? Most of the polls I see show Giuliani defeating Hillary and Osama Obama in the general.
Now, you may *want* Giuliani to lose, but there is nothing a priori that says reality must conform to the fantasies of dirtboy, TommyDale & co.
Your post describes a NYC liberal. Take your pick. Two are in the lead. One (R/L), the other (D/L). Same philosophy, different letter of the alphabet.
BTW RE, the wife, who'd knowingly burned the evidence proving this was a terrorist attack, and the daughter, who lied about it for ten years and who apparently supports her father's agenda, why are they still walking around free? They should either be thrown in jail for interfering with a police investigation and destroying evidence, deported or both. Had they come forward with the evidence at the time and been able to convince a real investigation that they weren't knowing conspirators then they should have stayed free. Instead they'd make a nice example for justice.
You think polls now are an accurate indicator of 2008? Those same polls also show, once they dig below the beauty contest, that GOP voters have widespread misconceptions about Rudy. A large number think he is pro-life, for example.
And electoral history shows the dangers when the GOP lurches the bus leftward directly into the path of oncoming Democrats...
In other words, he drifted to the left. He also alientated the NRA.
Leftward Ho! is not the course to set for electoral success in the GOP. Reagan showed that to the Rockefeller Republicans, who seem hell-bent to unlearn that lesson.
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.