Trying to make a logical decision based on my priorities.
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?
Trying to make a logical decision based on my priorities.
ROFL!!!!
Gilmore is a cipher. It's on my to-do list to learn more about him.
I must have missed something. Did I miss where Rudy has already won the GOP nomination?
To the contrary, they seem to be downright allergic to them, considering they avoid them like poison ivy.
All right. Here's a question for you: suppose it's a race between Rudy and Hillary. Which would be a better use of $1,000?
"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.'"
If we have to choose between 2 liberals in the election, there will be no winners. I see little difference between these 2.
I suspect that AWB #1 probably didn't help matters either, though I wasn't following issues back then enough to know how much it hurt.
I like your either/or better. Mine was voting for Rudy or joining the Hari Krishnas.
Nominate Rudy and you'll end up with Hillorat.
I live in Virginia, I think Gilmore is wonderful and he is a staunch conservative in every way, but I do not see any possible way he can be elected president.
Wow! Does this mean I get that Kimber?
Hitlary will appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg/John Paul Stevens types to the Federal Judiciary.
Rudy will appoint Antonin Scalia/John Roberts types to the Federal Judiciary.
The legacy of those appointments will be with us 20 years after their presidencies have ended.
One would think that thought alone would be enough for you to focus on Nov '08 and remember Ronald W. Reagan's "11th Commandment":
"Thou Shalt Speak No Ill of Another Republican".
Its funny how people like to throw the Gipper's name along with mud at some GOP candidates while conveniently forgetting that he himself never did that.
It beats the heck out of sending money to a guy who wants to take your Kimber away from you if you get it. So the way I look at it, buy TWO of them. One because you want to. And the second because you didn't donate to a gun-grabber's campaign.
Please show ANYTHING in Rudy's past to support that. Talk is always cheap for politicians.
If I were in his shoes, I'd simply state the (legally) obvious that the 'abortion right' is nowhere in the Constitution, so the issue should be left to the individual states (as it was prior to 1973).
That's not only the legally Constitutional position, but a 'winning' one.
Pulling a 'Romney' - Opposed-In Favor-Opposed (again) is the mark of a professional politician who cannot be trusted.
Come to think of it, I think I just talked myself out of being for Mitt...
What evidence do you have to support that? His appointments while Mayor of NYCity show a strong tendency towards liberal Democrats. I'd say Rudy would appoint jurists in the mold of Lawrence Tribe, George Mitchell and even Alan Dershowitz. Not Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist.
Btw, the 11th commandment was/is a fallacy.
If they haven't learned any lessons from 1996, they will either endorse him or give him a quasi-endorsement. Unfortunately, I don't think the NRA has yet acknowledged any connection between their quasi-endorsement of Bob Dole and the passage of the Lautenberg Abomination.
Hardly. I made the case on this very thread that such is not the case. He said recently that gun laws are a state issue and wrapped himself in the cloak of federalism to deflect criticism of his gun-grabbing ways as Mayor of NYC. Ignoring for now the absurd notion that the 2nd Amendment does not apply equally to the states, I showed here how in 1997 he called for the fedgov to pass laws imposing stricter gun control laws on neighboring states.
His history belies his current statements on federalism, so why should I believe his palitudes on federalism's first cousin, strict constructionism?
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.