Giuliani on Gun Control, 1993

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's too bad that the internet isn't going to have a bigger influence on this race.
It tips the balance when we can instantly dredge up what a candidate has stated on these topics in the past.
I think it's up to each of us to point this stuff out - NOW, before the primaries. Show this sort of thing to all of the baby boomer gunnies you know who don't use the internet.
 
I was out at lunchtime to buy some gun magazines and I heard Giuliani on the Dennis Praeger Show. He was condemning the Democrats' support for "nanny" government! Yes, THAT Rudy Giuliani, the Gauleiter of Neu Yorck Stadt!

Maybe tommorrow Dennis will have David Duke on to condemn racial prejudice...
 
Local Station 99.1 FM

We have a local station here in Western Nevada (99.1 FM) -- the only FM talk station in the region -- that regularly runs a series of PSA-style ads with the opening line, "Using the First Amendment to protect the Second."

These PSA clips are excerpted from on-air interviews with Giuliani, and catch him exaggerating and misrepresenting gun stats in support of his lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Evidently the station ownership is funding these, and they run several times a day.

I'm liking this local station.
 
You know, people DO change their minds over a period of many years.

If Hillary Clinton had a genuine conversion to limited-government conservatism, that'd be okay with me.

What I care more about is whether Guiliani has reassessed some things since 1993, or if he's just lying. Same goes for the rest.

I don't need a lifelong ideological purity test for each candidate. I want someone who will do what I want him to do, now.

That doesn't mean I am a Guiliani supporter or anything. I just think that digging up old video is only valuable if it gives an insight into what a person thinks now. Is there a good way to ferret that out?
 
It makes my blood boil every time I see someone spout such ignorance and a downright lack of common sense. Seeing him talk about gun control is no different that listening to Obama or the Clintons.
 
You know, people DO change their minds over a period of many years.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there isn't one iota of evidence that Giuliani's changed his mind about gun control. EVERY time he's been pressed on the issue during this campaign, he's shucked and jived his way through. He's no more given up his fanatical support for gun control than Lindsey Lohan has given up driving under the influence.

Giuliani is a liar. There's no way to change that.

You DON'T have to believe him.
 
Well, does anyone have evidence of what he is saying now?
I have only seen pictures and heard statements from his early years as mayor.
They are all anti.
In the absence of other evidence, the R next to his name doesn't make him pro-gun.

In any case, Kerry didn't get a free ride on guns, and Rudy ain't either.
I'm not looking for a lifelong ideological purity test either: I just want something other than Fudd photo-ops before he becomes something other than a *$&$% anti traitor in my mind.
 
Agreed, Beatnik.

I just want to get some valid and current information, instead of another daily dose of "pissed off." I can get that anywhere.
 
I just want to get some valid and current information, instead of another daily dose of "pissed off." I can get that anywhere.
Click to expand...
Just watch the cable news shows. He's been on Hannity & Combs multiple times. I recall him putting his foot in his mouth on there. He's been on Glen Beck's radio show. His answers on gun control made Beck openly skeptical of him. To get that reaction from self-confessed "rodeo clown" Beck is telling.

I imagine that a Google search on "Giuliani" and "gun control" would be very educational. There's probably a ton of stuff on YouTube.
 
That's more useful, Deanimator. I am interested in the cumulative feeling people get for him now. Thanks.
 
You know, people DO change their minds over a period of many years.
Click to expand...

You can change you mind but your principles stay the same. Now he is trying to get elected as POTUS frankly I could care less what he has to say now.
 
That's more useful, Deanimator. I am interested in the cumulative feeling people get for him now. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm MUCH more concerned about his lack of proper supervision of the NYPD when he was mayor than I am about his loathesome gun control agenda.

The NYPD ran amok when Giuliani was mayor. The thought of him in charge of the BATFE sends shivers up my spine. If he gets into the White House, he'll remove all restraints from them. If that happens, I predict major bloodshed. Everything I've seen about him indicates that he's a Ruby Ridge/Waco kind of guy.
 
As I remember, an audience member at a Q&A recently asked him point blank about his gun control stance, and his only response was that he would enforce all federal laws fully, just as he did with local and state laws in NYC. He then added that the audience member had nothing to worry about so long as he and his friends obeyed the laws. chuckle chuckle. I heard this on the radio, but I note that all the news clippings convieniently leave it out and include only his platitude about supporting the Second Amendment.

I'm telling you, if he gets nominated I'm declaring war on the GOP and working for Hillary. Hillary is a devil I know, and survived for eight years. Rudy is death incarnate for all gun owners. He'll slaughter us. And I don't mean that in a metaphorical sense! The man has actually used plainclothes units in NYC to kill people suspected of carrying. I agree with Deanimator--the thought of him with his ruthless intelligence and his complete lack of concern for civil rights at the helm of the post 9/11 federal executive branch is terrifying.
 
Everything I've seen about him indicates that he's a Ruby Ridge/Waco kind of guy.
Click to expand...

He and Hillary both. She might actually enjoy it more, though. I see no reason to think that Hillary doesn't fit this as well as Guiliani: "the thought of him with his ruthless intelligence and his complete lack of concern for civil rights at the helm of the post 9/11 federal executive branch is terrifying."

McCain, depends on which side of the bed he got up on that day.

Obama? De facto same as Guiliani. Not only a hardcore anti, but also has no way to know how to handle a real crisis.

Romney? I haven't a clue. What WOULD he do? Has he given it a thought? I think probably not. He did go hunting once when he was 8, though.:)

Thompson? I actually think he'd handle it best. I'm not sure why; maybe because of his experience in criminal justice, combined with pro-gun principles. There's also something to be said for acting experience, or similar skills, in the White House.

Ron Paul? What WOULD he do? (I'm thinking Waco, not Ruby Ridge. Those were different situations. Ruby Ridge wouldn't happen under Paul. But what to do with an odd group like the Branch Davidians?)
 
But what to do with an odd group like the Branch Davidians?)
Click to expand...

Leave them alone in the first place? There's a novel idea.

I see no reason to think that Hillary doesn't fit this as well as Guiliani:
Click to expand...

The political dynamics with HC in the White House are considerably different. She's going to be governing to the center, and to the extent she heads left it will be for her major hobby horse of health care. Guiliani, on the other hand, will be a Republican facing probably both D dominated Senate and House. So gun control for him becomes a way of getting his hobby horses of tough foreign policy and anti-crime through. Heck, it could even be part of getting some nominations through the senate. He'll sell us out in a HEARTBEAT to get what he wants. Hillary won't be faced with having to sign anti-gun legislation to get her stuff through. For her it will work the other way. She will need to offer bits to the R minority in the Senate in order to get her legislation passed. So to the extent she compromises, it will be to the center or right.

Besides, I've survived eight years of Clinton and went from being a dedicated anti to a serious gun owner. During Clinton's reign we saw one piece of major anti-gun legislation passed at the federal level which has since gone away and another (NICS) that has ironically served as a barrier to further control. At the same time, he spurred an enormous grassroots counter insurgency that saw a majority of states adopt shall issue CCW legislation. In a perverse way, he was GOOD for gun control. He was a good enemy to have, and his snooty wife was even better. Rudy will come at us sideways, stab us with a dagger and leave us dying, wondering what happened.
 
Leave them alone in the first place? There's a novel idea.
Click to expand...

Uh, the cult leader was deflowering all the underage girls. Would have had to come to a head at some point, I'm afraid.

She's going to be governing to the center,
Click to expand...

Why? With a Democratic Congress? She could make herself LOOK centrist pretty easily, without having to actually be centrist.

What about the SCOTUS judges she'd pick and they'd approve?

Have you really thought this through?

I mean, there's validity in some of what you wrote, but I'd have to accept a lot of assumptions to buy into the end result.
 
I think you meant in a "perverted way" that man disgraced our country. He issued a major ban with absolutely no ryhm or reason and you think he was good for the second amendment? I think if there is another Clinton in office I will be moving to start my own country. Lets not even get into his mysterouis trips to China or the 50 million he spent sending all his buddies there. The man does nothing but cheat on his wife who BTW hilary is hated by the New York times meaning your wasting your ballot. Your absolutely wrong about Hilary not needing to push gun legislation through its a known fact she has an anti-gun agenda. It just means it will be that much easier she will also raise taxes to such an extent you will be hard pressed to support your hobby. If your going to vote for Hilary do us all a favor and cast all your firearms into the incinerator so at least your not involantarily donating them to some Neo-Commie
 
I mean, there's validity in some of what you wrote, but I'd have to accept a lot of assumptions to buy into the end result.
Click to expand...

There's no way to know any of this for sure. But Rudy gives me the jitters like few candidates ever have. His track record in NYC is enough for me to reject him. Now if he came out and admitted he was WRONG before, and would never pass a new gun law, that might be different. But he hasn't said anything of the kind.

It comes down to this. If we've got to have an anti in office, I want that anit on the OTHER side of the fence, where we can keep her in sight(s) in a political sense. The idea of a ruthless, cunning anti on OUR side of the fence, behind our lines, scares me a lot more.

Nomad--see, at the very THOUGHT of HC you're already up in arms! She's a major energizer for the right. Much more so than her husband. I can't think of a better way to get out the GOP vote than nominating HC for the D's. And I can't think of a worse way to keep every gun owner at home than nominating Rudy.
 
"According to any honest reading of the Constitution, a pistol has at least as much civil rights protection as a book."
 
AB,
Uh, the cult leader was deflowering all the underage girls. Would have had to come to a head at some point, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
You might want to research that a bit.

Both Waco and Ruby Ridge were examples of the Feds making a case out of nuthin'. No ATF, no Ruby Ridge and no Waco.
Neither would happen under Paul's watch.
 
Uh, the cult leader was deflowering all the underage girls. Would have had to come to a head at some point, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Show me where that's the business of the federal government. There is no federal criminal law against child abuse. It's a state matter. It should have been left to the Rangers. Besides, the BATF didn't give a wetslap about kids when they first cowboy'd up and charged in there.
 
Show me where that's the business of the federal government. There is no federal criminal law against child abuse. It's a state matter. It should have been left to the Rangers. Besides, the BATF didn't give a wetslap about kids when they first cowboy'd up and charged in there.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that the local Texas officials determined that child abuse was NOT going on, AND the fact that the BATFE appologists' "star witness", Kiri Jewell, was NOT where she claimed to be when this abuse was alleged to happen.
 
Rudy? I'd rather have Hillary.

No, seriously--Hillary is so incredibly polarizing that at least the Republicans would fight her. Rudy would get the same lapdog support that Bush is getting.

$DEITY forbid that either of them win the Oval Office, but if it has to be one, I'd prefer it be the Hillary-Gridlock ticket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
A Reminder For Those Supporting Giuliani
Replies
6
Views
458
ravnew
R
L
  • Locked
Will Giuliani consider the 2nd Amendment an individual right?
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
RealGun
RealGun
G
  • Locked
Giuliani is an idiot
Replies
16
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Ron Paul PWNS! Wolf And Giuliani On CNN
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
173
Views
6K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Rudy's Gun-Control Agenda
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Mongo the Mutterer
M
Back
Top