Found it.
Credit to laz, of course.
Posted on 02/27/2007 11:33:50 PM PST by NormsRevenge
A little-noticed oddity of the 2008 presidential election field is that the three leading candidates for the Republican nomination have, at one time or another, gone to war with the NRA and its allies on the gun issue.
After six years of thumb-twiddling boredom – the issue has been off the radar in elections and in Congress – the gun lobby must have been a bit shocked when they realized what they faced: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, all once proud champions of sensible gun laws, are the odds-on favorites to carry the GOP banner.
Consider their histories:
McCain was the lead sponsor of federal legislation to close the gun show loophole. In 2000, he appeared in television ads in Colorado urging voters to pass a ballot initiative closing the loophole there.
Romney signed a state ban on assault weapons into law as Governor of Massachusetts. And as the Boston Globe has reported, he said during a debate in 2002 that he supported his state’s tough gun laws and vowed that he would not “chip away at them” because they “protect us and provide for our safety”
Giuliani aggressively went after illegal gun traffickers when he was mayor, and he filed a lawsuit against a bunch of major gun manufactures and dealers. He’s on record supporting tougher gun laws, including the assault weapons ban.
Now, the gun lobby is not subtle in responding to perceived threats. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre gave a speech six months after 9-11 comparing our old organization, Americans for Gun Safety, to al Qaeda and our founder to Osama bin Laden. LaPierre concluded, not without some hyperbole, that we were “a far greater threat to your freedom than any foreign force”.
So it’s no surprise that the NRA responded to this problem with overwhelming firepower.
First, they attacked John McCain, slathering his caricature on their magazine covers and calling him “one of the premier flag-carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.” McCain buckled like he was gut-shot – he has stopped talking about guns (despite the fact that the gun show loophole remains open in most states), and he just brought on James Jay Baker, once the NRA’s lead man in Washington, as a strategist for his “kitchen cabinet.”
Then they took on Mitt Romney. After getting peppered with criticism for his gun positions, Romney, who does not own a gun, now calls himself a “proud” NRA member. He even toured a gun show with the NRA’s chief lobbyist Chris Cox, (the guy who took over for McCain’s kitchen-mate Baker).
Most recently, they trained their sights on Rudy Giuliani. In a press release this week, an NRA ally called the National Shooting Sports Federation warned: “Giuliani No Friend to Gun Owners.”
How Giuliani will respond is not yet clear – as the NSSF notes, there are conflicting signals out of his camp about where he stands today on guns.
But if Rudy Giuliani is anything, he’s tough. We hope that he treats these thugs the way he treated them back when he was cleaning up New York one turnstile-jumper at a time.
Our advice to Rudy: tell the NRA and its minions that you will not be cowed, and stick to your guns: you are a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. But rights come with responsibilities. And anyone who isn’t responsible about owning, selling, or using their guns should lose those rights.
Once again, the straw-man argument.
Not Voting for Rudy =/= Voting for Hillary
How in the world can you think that voting for someone other than Rudy is a vote for Hillary? The logic behind that (if you can call it logic) is befuddling to me.
Oh, I agree. Only a mean SOB would pay for his grandchild to be murdered.
Wouldn't have been so far gone if gun control hadn't been in place since 1911.
That Rudy still supports gun control, despite it's impact on crime (specifically, the RISE in crime it causes), is inexcusable.
I own and sell "assault rifles," but they've never been used in combat.
Where do I stand in your nutball calculus?
If you don't know jack crap about guns, please don't insult those of us who do by pretending.
For the third way, sensible gun laws mean confiscation.
BS. Giuliani, and the grabbers denied the rights of lawful gun owners. He denied them the right to effective self defense. All he, and his enablers did was to equate reasonable folks that choose to defend themselves with the criminals, and to equate a gun, with a badge of evil.
"Don't worry, Rudy is not going to Waco anyone. "
Of course not, just the formerly free Americans who disobey his tyranical ass, when he dictates they be handed over to his jack boots.
"Think of his approach as a localized one to communities than can not handle guns....no different than airports. "
Ridiculous! "read his book Leadership.....rather than generalizing his approach in NYC to the whole country."
His idea of freedom amounts to turning it over to authority to handle for ya. His approach to gun control, was to have gun ownership changed into a privilege, instead of a right nationwide.
you're right i typed that out too quickly and should have realized with such strict constructionists on this thread that there is no room for error. absolutism is the only way for you.
the fact that self professed gun experts draw no distinction between weapons of the 18th century to those of today clearly points to people too stubborn to be flexible to support someone whose ideas don't fully align with theirs. they'd rather lose everything than compromise.
i'll be blaming your types when Hillary wins and totally screws us. We need to take this fight one step at a time and right now that is a moderate.
i'd be happy to support someone else, but right now only Rudy has any track record to be competitive in 2008.
Fine. We'll know that she won, because the country club grabbers betrayed your fellows, and Freedom itself, to support a gun grabbing tyrant.
The NRA is your fellow citizens. Glad to see how much respect you have for them. Rudy is wrong.
"Rudy won't kow-tow to any lobby, IMO."
Lobby my ass. MOLON LABE.
If Rudy were to apply his gun control to the entire country that would be wrong.
I'd give Hillary better odds of trampling all of your rights.
Guns are not a problem country wide and it wouldn't be in his style to do this.
Think of NYC as an airport lobby. A crowded area with high traffic too hard to control without strict security. Because of a few bad apples, everyone has to pay the price.
You obviously don't know about guns. The so-called assault rifles your hero wants to ban are not "used in combat." They are not automatic weapons. They are merely defined as "assault weapons" by folks who want to ban all guns. Repeat: these are not military weapons!
Found it.
Credit to laz, of course.
All the polls show that the only Republican that can beat Hillary Today is Giuliani. All others come in second to Hillary. What don't you understand about POLLS????
I want to WIN. NO MORE CLINTONISTAS. They are Anti American.
In the general election I'll vote for any Republican whose name is not McCain. With that one exception, I will not sit home if my guy is not the nominee.
But so far in the primary I'm leaning toward Hunter. I was listening to him on the radio tonight, he impresses me. I've read interviews with him, and he strikes me as intelligent, and the right guy for the tasks in front of us.
So far, he's my preference. The down side is that not that many people are familiar with him, so far he has no name recognition. When I mention him to friends or family, I get blank stares. I think that will change as time goes along. But that is clearly his challenge.
I've listened to Gingrich talk about war issues and he clearly gets it. We all know about Gingrich's negatives, and he is sometimes a bit too smart for everyone's good. But I remember how he beat Clinton like a drum back during his "contract with America" days, and enacted his entire program, and left Clinton bruised and battered (and taking credit for it, you'll remember). So I like him. He's clearly flawed, but I like him.
So far Romney seems a bit weak in the knees to me, though he's a fairly attractive guy, I'll give him a chance. But I'm not high on him.
I haven't heard Thompson speak on any of the issues yet, so I'm reserving judgement. He seems like a decent guy, and one of the other FR folks has given me a list of links to read through, to get me up to speed on him, so I've got some homework to do. In fact if you run across any printed interviews, I would appreciate if you pass me the link.
Even Giuliani, who I disagree with on several rather key issues, I'll vote for him in the general, no doubt about it, if he's the nominee. But he's not my choice by any means. I will not vote for him in the primary under any circumstance.
It was wrong to institute it in NY. THere was never a problem with law abiding citizens having the property, or defending themselves effectively. There was a problem of bliss ninnies and grabbers that were more concerned with the health of the failed criminal, and their own desire to gain more power. Same is true with all the other large and small cities that instituted their draconian grabbing schemes.
"I'd give Hillary better odds of trampling all of your rights. "
I never said I was tossing a vote to justify her desires either.
"Guns are not a problem country wide and it wouldn't be in his style to do this. "
As I said, they never were a problem, even in the cities. He already attempted it. In case you misssed it, he tried to institute his grabbing scheme nationwide by judge shopping and court action. HE also lobbied for States up and down the eastern seaboard to reduce gun ownership to a may issue privilege.
"Think of NYC as an airport lobby"
It's a city, not an airport lobby. Think of the United States as a Free Country!
"Because of a few bad apples, everyone has to pay the price. "
This ain't grade school, and Giuliani's grabbing schemes, bogus justifications, and general disrespect for Freedom, doesn't warrant any respect. Hayak wrote about Giuliani's worldview in the Road to Serfdom.
I understand we're still over 10 months away from the first primary. Which is when the polls actually COUNT.
I want to WIN.
At what cost?
Really, you conservatives just retreat into your shell while we liberals happily run the government and smash that shell as a little extra bonus.
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.