A Rudy Awakening for the NRA

Third Way ^ | 2/8/07 | Matt Bennett

[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.

[dirtboy]

I am still against weapons like the AK-47.

Even when owned by a law-abiding citizen?

Every citizen has a right to have guns for protection or for hunting (or collecting).

So everyone has a right.

I just can't see the need for a "killing machine."

Except when you decide they don't have a right. Which means it is not a right any longer.

[airborne]

I'd like an AK-47 in my collection.

[KATIE-O]

I've been trying to figure out how you can say the things you do and still try to pawn yourself off as a conservative. I decided to go to your FR home page--yep, that pretty much explains it. You are from the Northwest! So yeah, if you are comparing yourself to the ultra-liberals of the NW, then I can understand how you might *think* you are a conservative. But guess what Katie-o? The NW isn't the real world, and the views you've expressed here on this thread are not those of a conservative. Supporting a gun grabbing liberal, who supports women killing their babies, is not consistent with what a conservative believes. I suggest you smoke another joint, and go visit the kiddies over at DU--who you have much more in common with.





And I suggest you kiss my Royal Irish Republican CONSERVATIVE A**!!!! And that goes for any goofball who tries to label me as a LIBERAL!

[KATIE-O]

What the anti-Giuliani posters on here fail to understand is that Rudy has a micromanagement style, where his specific attack against gun laws was aimed at a critical situation.

The number of gun point robberies, especially in the outer boroughs of NYC justified this action, and I for one feel safe traveling through these areas where 15 years ago only would if you were crazy.

Don't worry, Rudy is not going to Waco anyone.

Think of his approach as a localized one to communities than can not handle guns....no different than airports.

Bottom line if you don't know enough about Rudy, read his book Leadership.....rather than generalizing his approach in NYC to the whole country.




I think you are talking above the heads of some of the idiots who try to call you a LIBERAL if you support Rudy Giuliani.

[KATIE-O]

Damn, we have a had an influx of libs here crawling out of the woodwork.






I don't see any LIBERALS here, but I sure see a few idiot's who try to label people because they disagree with their choice of candidate!

[Oberon]

Guiliani's remarks, actions, and policies all mark him as a socialist and a statist. Perhaps it's true that some situations demand just such a man...but I don't believe that makes such a one a good choice for the presidency.

[pissant]

If you support Rudy's stands on global warming alarmism, the life of the unborn, the 2nd amendment, "hate crimes" legislation, gays in the military, the 4th amendment, and supporting democrats for office, than you are a liberal or an idiot.

If you are willing to overlook all of these, because "he can beat Hillary", that's your burden, not mine.

[KATIE-O]

Thanks for sharing this list. It's awesome. There are many issues that Rudy and I don't agree on but he's tough on the most important issue of the day. You can be conservative and be for Rudy. They DO go together. Look at the CPAC straw poll. Rudy came in FIRST when adding the 1st and 2nd place choices.... by 4 points. You won't find a more conservative group of 6,000 people.

Can I ask where you got this list as I wish to give to a group discussing their potential candidate. Just like to have a reference. You can send to personal mail if you wish.





If you are supporting Rudy, be prepared to take a lot of abuse from a few radical, foaming, nutballs who will call you a Liberal.

Thanks, but the piece was sent to me in an email and I think they said they got it HERE at Free Republic. I thought it was a great list of his achievements. They are all on record and would be easy to check out for the non-believers.

[KATIE-O]

Leave the Federal government out of social issues. The President, first and foremost is responsible for the safety and security of our country. That's why I'm for Rudy, as he's the meanest SOB around in times like this.



My sentiments exactly. The President's primary responsibility is exactly as you stated.

[pissant]

The presidents job is to uphold the constitution, not wipe his rear end with it.

[KATIE-O]

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.




I notice you didn't try to trash Ted Olson. That's a big surprise!

[dirtboy]

I notice you didn't try to trash Ted Olson. That's a big surprise!

Sorry I denied you one of your stock talking points. Maybe you could try thinking as a replacement for it.

[AFreeBird]

so you want to compare a ball and musket to a fully automated 10mm armor piercing 16 magazine clip......

Well a musket is a "long gun". And I can get "Ball Ammo" for any weapon I own.

Just what the heck is an "armor piercing 16 magazine clip"?

Let me guess: you're a city boy.

[KATIE-O]

Thanks for the insult. Thanks for outing yourself too.

Duncan Hunter for President '08




Thanks for showing us your mentality as well. Duncan Hunter?? pfffffft!

[HonestConservative]

Very interesting and important post, thank you.

[dirtboy]

Just what the heck is an "armor piercing 16 magazine clip"?

It's a newfangled extra feature - if you're out of ammo and the perp is still standing, you can point the bottom of the grip at the perp and eject it. A super-powerful spring launches the clip at the perp at speeds sufficient to penetrate Kevlar body armor.

Just make sure you don't hit that button by accident under normal use, given what direction the bottom of the grip normally points in.

[AFreeBird]

Lets make this simple for you.

A gun grabbing, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro illegal immigration, micro manager "conservative" might be just fine for liberal NYC, but he ain't gonna cut it out here in fly-over country.

How's that work for you?

[AFreeBird]

Dang, that must be a Lazmataz inspired design feature.

[Element187]

The 2nd Ammendment is a pretty good litmus test for where a man stands on the Constitution, and on the notions of limited government, the sovereign citizen, and all of that.

2000 and 2004 has proved this statement incorrect. President Bush supports gun ownership and less restrictions.. yet grew the size of the federal government and spending faster than FDR.

[dmw]

"And I suggest you kiss my Royal Irish Republican CONSERVATIVE A**!!!!"

OK Katie-O....here you go!

http://www.geocities.com/~cowpokinfun/kiss.wav