Posted on 09/21/2007 9:21:31 AM PDT by Froufrou
Glossing over the less appealing line items on his gun control resume, ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani presented himself as sympathetic to the aims of the National Rifle Association and pledged, as president, to protect gun rights.
"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said. He indicated that he would oppose new efforts to tighten national gun laws. "I believe that law endforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books as opposed to passing new extensions of laws," he said.
"A person's home is their castle. They have the right to protect themselves in their own home." Giulaini explained the lawsuit he initiated in 2000 against gun manufacturers by saying that he was "excessive in everyway that I could think of in order to reduce crime" but said that "intervening events" like September 11th had caused his views to evolve. "I think that lawsuit has gone in the direction that I don't agree it."
He cited a DC court ruling overturning the city's gun ban as instrumental to changing and "strengthening" his views on gun control. That ruling, Parker vs. the Distict of Columbia, was handed down just as Giuliani was beginning his presidential bid. Giuliani said that MoveOn.org's ad criticizing Gen. Petreaus was out of bounds and hinted that the group should face some sort of sanction.
"They passed a line that we should not allow an American political organizations to pass," he said. "We are at war right now, whether some people want to recognize it or not."
(Excerpt) Read more at marcambinder.theatlantic.com ...
No
Please explain why the NRA will do this.
Gosh, how could a serious wanna be President have it so wrong?
RINO Cards?
That is hysterical.
LOL!
“My positions are mostly the same as Mrs Clinton’s” Rudolf Julie Annie said this before his prostate cancer took him out of the race against Hitlery.
Questions are easy, even good ones aren't too terribly hard.
Answers, good ones, are hard, very hard.
We're all imperfect. Rooty's a RINO sack of sh**.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
If criminal gangs wanted SAWs, M-16, M-249s, etc, they'd have 'em. I imagine more than a few do have M-16s. However when they have intermediate power carbines, their weapon of choice seems to be the AK-47 type, usually but not exclusively semiautomatic variants, or the SKS type. AK-47s, real ones, are a drug on the international market. If there is much demand at all, they'd find their way here and into the hands of the gangs, as some have. We can't stop drugs from coming in, and we can't (or won't) stop people from coming in, what makes anyone think we can stop guns from coming in? They are much less bulky and more easily hidden, than Marijuana. They can even be broken down and smuggled in as parts, or sub assemblies.
Only indirectly. The General has more than enough grounds to sue for defamation of character, libel and/or slander. They out and out called him a liar because he said it was his report and he did not show to anyone above him in the chain of command until he also showed it to Congress. But they said it was Bush's report and basically that he was lying for Bush. Not so long ago, those were considered "fighting words". Still are I guess, only now we fight with writs and lawyers instead of pistols at 10 paces.
The governments only role would be to supply the judge, the courtroom, and perhaps serve the papers. Oh and enforce the judgment, which could get "interesting".
I had my 20 ga JC Higgens for a mite longer than that. It was the only gun I had from the time I was 15 until I was about 30-35, and I had it for a few years after that as well, until I traded it in on a 12 ga Browning BPS. (Dumb move!, should have just paid the extra $$ and kept the 20 for my daughters).
To keep Hillary or Barak out of the White House, should Rudy win the Republican nomination.
Historically the NRA doesn't endorse candidates in the primaries.
Rudy says a lot of things that are debatable...This article and statement he made is full of things to pick at from here to Christmas...
Rudy actually does things that make him un-electable to 1600 Pennsylvania...
He’s certainly a very personable guy, and likable, but I am simply not going to vote for him...Never was, and never will...
But if not, is he seriously suggesting that calling a general some peurile name ought be punished by the government?"
Only indirectly. The General has more than enough grounds to sue for defamation of character, libel and/or slander....
The governments only role would be to supply the judge, the courtroom, and perhaps serve the papers. Oh and enforce the judgment, which could get "interesting".
Sounds reasonable. The problem is that's not what Rudy actually said:
Giuliani said that MoveOn.org's ad criticizing Gen. Petreaus was out of bounds and hinted that the group should face some sort of sanction.
"They passed a line that we should not allow an American political organizations to pass," he said. "We are at war right now, whether some people want to recognize it or not."
Libel doesn't have anything to do with whether we are at war. The General has an equal claim in peacetime, so that's not what Rudy was talking about.
He said "we should not allow" such speech. I'm very curious as to what Rudy thinks "we" should do with childish free speech that we don't like.
The man is dangerous. He has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't love freedom, only authority. We see that once again.
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.