Rudy Claims Evolution On Gun Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

eric.cartman

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
827
Location
Florida
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/giuliani_claims_an_evolution_o.php

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."

A humanizing moment: Giuliani's wife, Judith, called his cell phone, and the two proceeded to have a lovey-dovey chat. "Good bye, sweetheart, I love you," he said.
 
Maybe some butter and syrup for the waffle sir?

Once a waffle, always a waffle. Fear the man who changes his mind on basic rights, for he will change it again.
 
Well, I think that he knows that, if you don't evolve to fit your environment, natural selection does you in.
 
The only thing that has evolved are the words coming out of his mouth. I don't think his opinion whas changed one bit. It's called 'say anything to get elected'.
 
This is politics at its finest. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that should he get into office, he would very quickly move to legislate the 2nd amendment out of existence. IOW, he is a liar.
 
rudy said:
Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety

ya know, i coulda sworn it was based on the constitution? huh, gonna have to study that a bit more...
 
the simple counter is this: "let's talk about reasonable degree of safety and Katrina.... where there are no police, the private citizen should be legally armed just as the police would."

I would check his katrina quotes and see if we can club him over the head with his own words.
 
Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety

well, rudy's right about that. we bear arms to ensure our safety.
also, rights aren't based on the constitution, but some rights are enumerated therein
 
people do evolve, and so do their opinions on various things.

personally, i think Rudy was anti-gun when he felt it was politically convenient to be so, and he is less so now that it is not convenient to be seen as anti-gun.
 
Watching politicians talk is just like watching chameleons change colours with the seasons

:confused:
If by "chameleons" you mean "leaves," then sure... or I guess by "seasons" you could mean "physical and physiological condition of the lizards."
 
While it is nice to rant about absolutes, it is better than the GOP candidates who have a chance of winning to at least move towards an RKBA direction.

Mitt and Rudy have heard that call.

Vote for Ron and get Barack or Hillary!

Also, if the more moderate GOP folks feel it necessary to move towards guns - it may sink into the Dems (and this is been said in the political discussions of the more pragmatic Dems) that they should leave gun issues alone.

Of course, pragmatic politics aren't as much fun as tantrums about absolutes and voting in a manner to make a point AND the situation worse.
 
ya know, i coulda sworn it was based on the constitution?

No it isn't. Your right to bear arms for your own defense predates the constitution and is not dependent on it for its existence. The constitution merely enumerates it as a right so important that it is in writing but it doesn't create it.
 
A humanizing moment: Giuliani's wife, Judith, called his cell phone, and the two proceeded to have a lovey-dovey chat. "Good bye, sweetheart, I love you," he said.

This paragraph is an obvious attempt to help his image in two respects. This article may be portrayed as news, but I would consider it as propaganda.
 
"A person's home is their castle. They have the right to protect themselves in their own home."

As opposed to the right to protect themselves while in public? Like in say, oh, I don't know... NY city?
 
The phrase "perfect politician" is an oxymoron. You HAVE to vote for the person that most closely represents your views. If Rudy gets the nomination, he will have my vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top