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.
To be fair, it was just a matter of time before this happened. The NYT and WP will be doing it daily if he gets the nod in the primary.
It's not a choice between Rudy and Hillary. Rudy is not the only person who can beat her. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.
Who then do you suggest, along with all you strict 2nd constructionists here, can beat her?
Obama is a hand puppet picked by the Clintons and pumped up by their media engine so that she can conserve as much cash as possible leading up to her primary. Notice the amount of media on Dodd, Biden, and Edwards, who have combined 10x the congressional experience, if you don't think this is true.
Once the primary ends they will all out focus on Rudy's personal life and his authoritarian point solutions for NYC to paint him as unfit....some of you are already comparing him to Nazi Germany.
And sadly, it looks like the early media assault has already pursuaded some of the more easily fooled on this board. You can still keep all types of pistols and rifles despite what the paranoid hill people claim. You just can't carry them around the 5 boroughs unless you get special permit.
Fortunately they won't be able to change peoples minds on 3 important things that no other candidate has demonstrated in whole.
1. Excellent Debate/Speech skills - CIC needs to speak.
2. Excellent Leadership Skills - 9/11 emergency.
3. Proven Track record of success - NYC.
Hillary hasn't even gotten the nod on her end yet, and that won't be without a little drama as well.
My feeling is that we should still be worrying about what we actually stand for and a little less willing to sell our souls for a victory. I want a candidate who supports my issues. Rudy's supporters on the other hand only have one issue, and that's winning. There is a time for focusing on that. And that time starts in about 10 months.
Personally I don't think that's a good idea. Part of the reason for the second amendment is to make our government afraid of us in some small way. The authors intended that ultimately, the people are the ones with the power, not the government, and the best way to keep that dynamic in place was to make sure the people were the ones with the guns.
For that reason I think the idea of proving "need" is fallacious, and the actual effect of the NYC policy backs that up. Once the power to decide which person can have a gun or not rests with a politician, the process is no longer about the law, it's about (not surprisingly) politics.
And that's precisely the situation in NYC. You can have all the need in the world, but unless you have strong political connections, no permit will be issued.
That's simply wrong in my view. It's better to have one rule that respects everyone's right, than to leave it up to a politician to pick and choose.
Now if you are maintaining that there should be some controls codified into law like "felons shouldn't be allowed to own guns" it's really a separate debate in my mind. but leaving a question of policy rather than law, as is done in NYC and NJ, is just a cheap politicians trick to be able to say that it's not illegal, and then to never allow it.
I don't necessarily agree with the means, but the ends nearly justifies it.
I'd say I for one feel much safer going to Yankee games even if it does compromise my 2nd rights. The same way I feel in an airport.
The DC ruling is interesting and Rudy's 'gun grab' may prove unconstitutional after its all said and done.
All I maintain is that the man will do whatever to achieve a common sense goal. A safer NYC in this instance.
His uncanny ability to knock down status quo beauracracy and his methods for achieving that get him heat, but life is about compromises and until the GOP puts up a better alternative to fixing Washington and killing terrorists he's the pick.
BTW....gun control is not preventing Iraqis from opposing its government....lets hope it would never to get to that here
You forgot one.
Rudy is a liberal.:<)
bump
And your feeling of safety at yankee stadium was fallacious as well. In fact because of the gun ban you can most certainly say that the only people with guns in that part of the city were criminals. Not a particularly safe situation if you ask me.
I don't dispute that everything Rudy will do will be with his honest intent to make America a safer and better place. I think the one thing he has proven is that he is absolutely going to do what he believes is the right thing no matter what the press, or his political opponents or the people that elected him actually think. He'll be the anti-Clinton in that respect, since Bubba never did a thing without looking at the polls first.
My problem with that is, many of the things he thinks will help, wioll actually make us less safe...like the gun ban. It's a quantifiable fact that firearms ownership by law abiding civilians reduces crime. But Rudy takes the generally liberal view that he knows better what people want and need than they do... and he wasn't the least bit shy about implementing policies to that effect.
So what if he's wrong? What if he decides that in the name of fighting terrorism we have to ban all civilian firearms? It won't matter to him that it's unpopular.... or that it's unconstitutional for that matter either. (his gun company lawsuit was on pretty thin ice too and that didn't slow him down)
My point is, I don't think someone who does things in such a liberal (change the world from the ground up to support my new view of things) way can be trusted to do what's right. I don't want to so empower my politicians. I think that's it's impossible for one person, any person, to know what everyone wants and needs so the best way to handle it is to codify into law the right of everyone to decide for themselves.
And THAT is something Rudy absolutely disagrees with. It's called conservatism, and it's what I want to see in my presidential candidate.
No, you just don't know anything about guns, and apparently nothing about the gun control debate.
LOL, wtf?!
False assumption - that Rudy taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners had anything to do with the drop in crime.
Elsewhere, whenever concealed carry has been expanded, crime has gone down.
You're just a liberal pretending to be a conservative. You're no 2nd-Amendment supporter - unless you're like Rudy in thinking that the 2nd protects your right to go duck hunting.
Absolutism? There are already 20,000 some-odd gun laws in this country. We, however, oppose efforts to restrict gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. History has shown where that path leads.
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.
No, we'd rather keep our guns than push a gun-grabber for the GOP nomination. And back in the days of the founders, just about ALL firearms double as military weapons, so you're full of it. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting - it is about self-defense - both against criminal elements and against the final act of usurpation by a corrupt government. If you don't understand that, you are pathetically ignorant of the terms of debate over the 2nd Amendment.
i never said the 2nd was about hunting.
just that it was written before the nypd was 50,000 strong at a time when national sovereignty was questionable, and yes for you gun experts before a handgun could fire off 16 lethal rounds in under 5 seconds.
and that it was necessary, some felt, at the time in NYC to suspend certain civil liberties for the greater good.
if you think NYC is less safe now for some other reason, that is your opinion....but the fact is it is much safer than it used to be with unchecked gun traffic.
and you can still own a handgun in NYC limits, you just can't bring them on the subway, to the airport, or general concealment without permits.
All this doesn't change the fact that we still don't have a more conservative candidate that can challenge nationally.
BTW...the 10th recognizes the difference in states to govern themselves differently....also part of the BOR...so you don't have to live in NY.
More to the point, Rudy's cheif interest as CIC will be gun control and weapons control in the Middle East not in Paducah.
So tell me, then - what does ANY of that have to do with the right to bear arms? Criminals will not obey gun laws, so they will have the powerful guns. Governments have powerful guns. All gun laws do is deprive law-abiding citizens the right to have the firepower required to defend themselves against criminals and against a usurping government.
And I really don't care how many cops NYC has. They still cannot defend against all crimes. An armed citizen is the best defender of himself.
and that it was necessary, some felt, at the time in NYC to suspend certain civil liberties for the greater good.
A lot of evil has been done in the name of the greater good - that is the core foundation of liberalism itself - that government knows better than private citizens what is good for them.
if you think NYC is less safe now for some other reason, that is your opinion....but the fact is it is much safer than it used to be with unchecked gun traffic.
Unchecked? That's nonsense. NY had highly restrictive gun laws BEFORE Rudy arrived. He made them more restrictive, but that had no impact on crime. In states where concealed-carry is expanded, crime goes down.
and you can still own a handgun in NYC limits, you just can't bring them on the subway, to the airport, or general concealment without permits.
Sorry, but Rudy severele cracked down on legal concealed carry. And tried to push for federal gun control laws as well.
All this doesn't change the fact that we still don't have a more conservative candidate that can challenge nationally.
Horsecrap. Rudy couldn't even outpoll Hillary for the NY Senate race in 2000.
BTW...the 10th recognizes the difference in states to govern themselves differently....also part of the BOR...so you don't have to live in NY.
The 10th does not allow the states to override the BOR once the 14th was ratified. And once again, Rudy had no problem pushing for federal gun laws to override the 10th.
More to the point, Rudy's cheif interest as CIC will be gun control and weapons control in the Middle East not in Paducah.
Sorry, but given his history, I do not trust him to refrain from signing gun-control legislation if he became president.
I don't support the suspension of rights.
But I do see the situation Rudy had to deal with and trust me NYC is a different kind of animal than the rest of the country. 95% supermajority liberal council and borough heads.
What do you expect Rudy to do. He did what he could to pushed to put statutes in place that when they did find a criminal with a handgun they could really slam him and get him off the streets.
They didn't enforce the safe areas, just the ones that needed problem solving. Same will happen at a global level and this time instead of the Bronx it will be Mesopotamia.
The charges that he will impose his personal life decisions as policy are trumped up by the Democrats, something I would think people on this board would realize.
Cutting taxes and enforcing crime are the traits that they don't want you to see.
Not restrict gun ownership of legal gun owners? Rudy wasn't just reactionary here - he proactively called up Carloyn McCarthy for a photo op to call for federal gun control laws after the 1997 Empire State Building shootings. And sued gun manufacturers. All the while cracking down on legal permit holders.
If he had said he was wrong for those things, I could overlook them. But he hasn't. So I don't trust him at all on 2nd Amendment issues.
We'll before you don't vote next fall, please consider the alternatives.
Look I don't subscribe to Rudy 100%, but if he can land someone like Hunter we can build back the conservative position.
But I have a hard time seeing how the country will elect a hard conservative given the state of our media and the recent congressional failures.
I think we need to moderate to gain back what we can't afford to lose.
If Hillary is elected you might as well trade in all your guns for a radiation suit.
Your own words belie you.
I am a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FOR RUDY '08!
Republican, yes. Conservative, no.
You just can't handle the fact that there a are millions of us.
Neither can the health of the Republic.
Are you going to call Ted Olson and David Vitter LIBERALS too, ya dingbat!!
If they expressed the same views as you towards the 2nd Amendment, I might be inclined to do such. Vitter, BTW, made a poke at Bush about the federal Katrina response, so he's trashing Bush to try and build Rudy up - hardly a surprise.
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.