I want to win the war...
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?
The complaints about abortion and gays are valid, but Giuliani's record on education is solid.
Giuliani has supported vouchers, has taken on the teacher unions repeatedly, and has advocated privatizing failing schools.
Rudy can't win without the Social Conservative and moral moderate vote. He's lost already.
The liberal press hasn't exposed him...... yet. They're waiting until after the primaries. Then, the Republicans are burnt toast.
Most polls already show the voters think Giuliani is a moderate, not a conservative or a liberal, which suggests voters have a general feel of what they're getting with Giuliani.
What really upsets people here is that as Rudy gets more airtime, his numbers go up, not down, which again, contradicts the lunatic predictions in these parts.
Gun grabbers don't sleep, as I already demonstrated here.
Rudy is a proven gun-grabber. So thanks for confirming that he cannot win.
In the last few weeks Rudy has given several interviews and in each one he's shown himself to be an expert double-talker, master of political expediency and situational politics. A political strategy long employed by Bill Clinton, in what Dick Morris called the finer aspects of "triangulation".
If you think the NRA or any other major gun advocacy group in the US today is going to endorse Rudy Giuliani for President, you're sadly mistaken.
"It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment."
~~~ Rudy Giuliani, Interview with Sean Hannity, Feb 6 2007
"On June 20th, I was pleased to announce that the City of New York filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors."
~~~ Mayor Giuliani, 2000
"As a private citizen, as a prosecutor, as a Mayoral candidate and as Mayor, I have advocated for more regulated and more uniform gun licensing regulations, similar to those for a drivers license."
".... in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish."
I only hope 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.
~~~ Mayor Rudy Giuliani, March 6, 1997
We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones -- that exist for driving an automobile.
~~~ Mayor Rudy Giuliani, March 2, 1997
I assume you are angling for a WH invitation to Hitlerly's inaugural ball with your posts?
NOW you're objecting to spam? ROFL
Not exactly an equal opportunity spam objector, are you?
TOP 10 PRESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS - must be able to win nationally! (No indication that Rudy can win.)
1 - Strong Position on National Defense (We'll give Rudy this one.)
2 - Realistic Understanding of Global Islamo-Fascist Treat (This one too.)
3 - Effective Communicator of Ideas (Rudy's only "idea" is that we should elect him because of 9/11.)
4 - Supports Strict Constructionist Judiciary (No indication of this from his judicial appointments as mayor of NYC.)
5 - Moral Professional and Personal History (Too laughable to reply to.)
6 - Relies on Capitalism versus Socialism to Solve Problems (We can probably give him this too.)
7 - Sees People as Individuals versus Members of a Group (Can't say that I've seen any indication of this.)
8 - Support Rights of the Unborn (Certainly doesn't describe Rudy.)
9 - Supports Controlled Immigration Policy (He didn't do anything about it as mayor.)
10 - Reasonable Gun Control Position (Only if "reasonable" means taking them all away.)
So, based on your own criteria, WHY DO YOU SUPPORT RUDY?
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3605
The import of some shotguns was prohibited by President Reagan?
The 1994 "assault weapons" ban will sunset in 2004 unless Congress re-authorizes it. All those firearms that were banned because of their appearance (and because they didn't meet arbitrary, bureaucratically defined, and highly changeable "sporting purpose" criteria) are scheduled to become legal to manufacture again. All those magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds will be legal to manufacture again. It will once again be legal to import the group of shotguns administratively banned by Ronald Reagan and the group of semi-automatic rifles similarly banned by the first President Bush. (Both of these executive bans were codified in the 1994 law.)
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20021007.htm
Since the KABA poll was released, additional information has resurfaced concerning President Reagan’s support for the 1994 “assault weapon” ban: “Kenneth J. Cooper & Ann Devroy, Backers of Assault Weapons Ban Make Final Push for Undecided Votes, WASH. POST, May 5, 1994, at A5. Former Presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan announced their support of the ban in a letter.”
With this clear evidence of Mr. Reagan supporting the Brady Bill, a ban on shotguns and semiautos, and a ban on carrying firearms in public, it seems fair to ask:
Why is NRA republishing their 1983 resolution (issued, incidentally, 16 years after he signed the Mulford Act) where they proclaimed “President Reagan has forcefully stood by his convictions in support of the second amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense; and…vigorously rejects the myth that gun control is crime control…”?
http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2955
Explains the Mulford Act:
http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2004/06/16/who_can_gun_owners_trust.html
He's a gun grabber and pro abortion, so we are supposed to trust this guy with Supreme Court appointees? I think NOT!
The bigger point being, the list you supply aren't the issues that conservatives will eventually judge the candidates on in the GOP primaries. That includes Rudy Giuliani. You know it, and I know it.
Here's the list of major social issues and where Rudy stands:
~ Pro-choice
~ Supports Abortion on Demand
~ Supports Partial Birth Abortion
~ Supports Roe v. Wade
~ Supports Taxpayer Funded Abortions
~ Supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research
~ Opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment
~ Supports Gay Domestic Partnership/Civil Unions
~ Supports Openly Gay Military
~ Opposes Defense of Marriage Act
~ Supports Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens
~ Opposes Tough Penalties for Employers who hire Illegal Aliens
~ Supports Sanctuary Cities/Ignoring Immigration Law
~ Supports gun control and Confiscating firearms
~ Supports an Assault Weapons Ban
~ Initiated Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers Supports
~ Supports Extensive Gun Registration/Licensing
On all these major social issues, there is really no distinction between Rudy Giuliani and other liberals like Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman and Algore.
So, in response to an attack by a presumed member of the Religion of Peace, Rudy wanted to leave people less able to defend themselves from attacks by fanatical members of the Religion of Peace?
Precisely.
BECAUSE HE CAN BEAT HILLARY!
Even though he never outpolled her in the 2000 NYC Senate Race, running as the sitting mayor of NYC against a carpetbagger.
I want to win the war...
I haven't noticed where the Rudyites seem to be hampered by anything as insignificant as FACTS.
You're entitled to post your anti-Reagan rhetoric. I happen to see things a little different then you do, when it comes to Reagan and the 2nd amendment. We've learned a lot in the last 15-40 years, about what works and what doesn't work.
Gov Reagan signed the Mulford Act in a dumb attempt to stop the radical group, the Black Panthers from carrying weapons in public. That took away everyones right to carry firearms in public, and it was the wrong decision by Reagan. But it was still legal for Californians to transport firearms, just not openly in public.
Later in 1993, Reagan was contacted about supporting the Brady Bill by Jim and Sara Brady themselves. Some Reaganites have said, The Gipper wasn't in the best frame of mind at that time. Others have said that Reagan was simply standing with his good friend who was almost killed, after being shot in the head during the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan`s life by John Hinckley. I'll accept the ladder. Jim Brady was his good friend.
As a private citizen, Reagan supported the 1994 assault weapons ban. As did Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Rudy Giuliani. George W.Bush has said he would sign an assault weapons ban extension into law, if passed by Congress back in 2004. Congress voted that extension down. No President has clean hands on this issue. But posting trashtalk about Reagan is stepping over the line in my opinion.
There are by some estimates 20,000-30,000 gun control laws on the books in America today. Most are local and state laws, but many are federal laws. The majority of those gun control measures directly infringe on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, as stated in the 2nd amendment. Rudy Giuliani enforced existing gun control laws in NYCity. Now Rudy wants to add EVEN more gun control laws to what already exists in America today. That is the problem supporters of the 2nd amendment have with Rudy.
When Reagan was awarded the lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association ---- IIRC one of only 19 people to ever be given such an honor ---- they did it because the NRA firmly believed Reagan supported the 2nd amendment. OTOH, Rudy is no friend of the 2nd amendment and has even sued gun manufacturers and distributors in an effort to stop the free market production and sales of legal firearms. Rudy is a gun grabber of the first order. If you think he will get the support of the NRA or other gun organizations, along with the millions of gun advocates in America, you're fooling yourself. Never gonna happen.
One thing pretty consistent about the Rudy bashers.
They:
Jump to conclusions
Don't present any reasonable alternative candidate
Slam Rudy and anyone else that gets caught in their spray
I have not endorsed Rudy nor anyone else.
My ranked priorities for a candidate are mine, and I think makes it sense for our country.
There is NO candidate that wins on every one.
I will use to make my decision on my primary candidate.
I will use it to compete against the DEM candidate
Use this to compare all of our alternatives, but REMEMBER... this is ultimately against Hillary/Obama.
This is not just about Rudy!
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.