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.
He was the first and only beta tester.
Why would any politician take YOUR advice? They do want to win, you know?
Not that it matters, but every politician who followed my advice in 2006 won.
"Putting Rudy in the White House will be just the same as having Hillary there,..." And you probably wonder why no one you support can gain ANY traction.
Has HIllary busted thousands of mobsters we don't know about?
Has Hillary transformed a city sinking into crime and corruption into a safe metropolitan area?
Has Hillary CUT taxes, ever?
Has Hillary taken on the filth purveyors in the "art" community? Or thrown out one of the worst terrorists in the world? No, she is too busy hugging and kissing his wife and getting her husband to PARDON others.
There is no problem with not liking Rudy or not supporting him but you won't get away with posting outrageous LIES like that.
You are dreaming. If Hillary wins everything you support will be threatened and there will be a decades long control by the Party of Treason.
And I'll bet you are one who believes Rudyphiles are "surrendering".
Now Rudy is an "anti-federalist"? Funny stuff.
Of course everything else in your post is a superficial exaggeration too.
For example, the comments he made about global warming were NOT saying that he believed it was man-made. He deftly skirted that merely mentioning that the majority of scientists believed man played a role. He then went on to say that EVEN IF man was NOT a factor we still needed to reduce the pollutants alleged to be behind GW because they were bad in themselves and were indicative of too much dependent upon oil and therefore, the Middle East.
But, EVEN BETTER, he then went on to call the hypocrites bluff by calling for more Nuclear energy which is the LAST thing they would propose. You are aware of his comments and that they are not as you portray them, why would you do that?
Hardly. Calling up Carolyn McCarthy to join him for a photo op to call for more federal gun control laws after the 1997 Empire State Building shooting is hardly the sign of a federalist. Supporting Roe v. Wade is definitely not the sign of a federalist.
Rudy must have busted you and Tessio.
"...the REAL meaning of the second amendment: to allow us to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government." What crap. Militias were barely able to defend themselves against Indians much less a modern military. And there is no "well-regulated" militia today.
The Second says precisely why it exists "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". It was not ratified to protect the people from themselves who are the power behind a representative government. It also reflected the common fear of a standing army which was a anachronism derived from looking at the European historical experience of absolutism. Our republic was established to remove the source of those fears.
You will have to come up with something better than that to make that charge stick.
Roe v Wade was the finding of the Federal courts. Federalists abide by such findings. Even if they don't necessarily agree with them.
Nice to see that even a highly intelligent, fellow alumn of the U of C can become Dr. Pangloss when it comes to the State. We all have our faults. :-)
Thanks for the great setup.
Rudy defied federal law and federal court orders to maintain NYC's sanctuary city policy.
Game, set, match. Later, and have a nice day.
"...Rudy's stands on global warming alarmism..." Now YOU are going to try and pass this LIE. He did not say what you are pretending he did. And you already know it.
How about Rudy's support of George Will (Will gave a 10 minute introduction at CPAC) and Simon of California, the Ultra Conservative that ran against The present Governor.
Does anyone have a continuous list of those who have come out to support Rudy? I notice the company that has supported Bush bumper stickers/shirts/caps, pins, has signed up with Rudy. Wow. They usually go with the winner.
http://www.spalding-group.com/
There is no need to repeal the Second. It does not say that EVERY person can possess EVERY firearm in EVERY location. It says that the right of the PEOPLE cannot be infringed. Clearly SOME people cannot be trusted with guns and as they become more powerful more training and experience is necessary in order to use them correctly.
Don't forget that when the militias existed they drilled regularly and practiced. We have nothing similiar today.
Personally I believe in Concealed Carry wherein the licensees are guaranteed not to be criminal, crazy or incompetent. But you must admit firing an AK47 on a crowded subway is dangerous to all but the holder.
Candide has some nice tunes but I am no Pangloss or a Pandetractor.
He liked Gore's movie save that it did not provide the solutions. Malkin and the entire blogosphere featured this prominently. Were they lying or just mistaken?
You are sitting on a fortune. The next Dick MOrris without the foot fetish.
You would like to think so but not quite that last shot was ruled out of bounds.
In order to deal with the rampant crimes in NYC it was necessary to create trust within the Illegal community so that there was no fear in reporting crimes to the police. Being an Illegal was a MISDEMEANOR under federal law so it was NO BIG deal according to the law Reagan signed.
Concentrating on those Illegals who were preying on their fellows and other citizens allowed the improvement of the lives of all. Prioritization of needs led to that strategy and it worked.
Anyone wanting a more serious approach to Illegals have to AT LEAST make breaking the law a felony. And since the conservatives were smashed last fall that ain't going to happen.
The quotes you boys have posted here regarding what he said have all been totally misrepresented as jumping on the GW bandwagon when any FAIR reading of them does not show that at all.
Now I don't expect any fairness from the Rudyphobes but still.
If you have some other quotes lets see them.
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.