Giuliani Promises No New Gun Legislation

[Lupinus]

And I promise to turn in all my guns at the next buy back

 

[Kim]

IF Gulliani said " I have been wrong about gun control. It does not decrease crime. The Second Amendment is an individual right just like those rights listend in the rest of the BOR and should be protected as strongly by the Congress and the USSC. I will not support any legislation that in anyway would infringe on any citizens right to individually keep and bear arms. I will only appoint USSC Judges who respect the rights of each person to individually keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is just as important to a free person and society as is the First and it is tiime this goverment in its entirety including me stand up and say it and demand it. I also will personally make the protection of the Second Amendment part of the civil rights comissions duty to protect with the force of law and the AG office. It is time for ALL Jim Crow laws to be abolished" For that he would get my vote. Otherwise I do not believe anything he says.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Time to quit being cowardly defeatists and put our backs into getting Dr. Paul on the ticket. Or, if you prefer a Democrat, Bill Richardson.

 

[Art Eatman]

I think a lot of these guys are gonna be like those who get arrested for a serious crime and while being held in jail, find Jesus.

Or like the dude who killed his parents and wanted mercy because he was an orphan...

Anyhow, it's occurring to them that they need to court the gun-owning community. Maybe they're paying attention to the fact that state legislatures have been passing CHL laws, in spite of the rhetoric of Schumer, et al.

I'll bet the campaign advisors are.

But they can't be trusted, generally, given their past records.

Art

 

[Waitone]

I pay no attention to what a politician says he will do.

I only pay attention to what a politician did. On that basis Ruddy is a risk to the second amendment, at a minimum.

 

[tbtrout]

Politician

Bold Faced Liar


Each is 4 sylabols

 

[nico]

if it does come down to those three, i'm voting libertarian.

that makes two of us. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for clinton, mccain, or guiliani in the general election.

Time to quit being cowardly defeatists and put our backs into getting Dr. Paul on the ticket. Or, if you prefer a Democrat, Bill Richardson.

why can't it be both?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

You know, I had no idea who Ron Paul was until I started getting political as well as frequenting gun boards about a year ago. And now, the more I read about him, the more I like. He sounds like a candidate I could vote for. As opposed to Rudy or McCain who I would only vote for against Hillary or Obama.


I don't agree with Paul on everything, such as the war with Iraq, but he seems to be genuinely against the war for the right reasons: small government, America first. The same with other issues, he seems to be against some stuff I'm for, or for stuff I'm against, but in it all his motivations appear to be as a proponent of smaller federal government and better state governments. And that's something I can get behind no matter what the actual issues are.

 

[SoCalShooter]

re:ryoushi

As to Rudy, sure I'm skepticle. But when it comes down to McCain, Rudy or...forgive me...Hillary? I'd love to hear your choices between those three.

I trust no politician. I hope your guy is trustworthy and not gullible. I was reffering to Guiliani when I said a wolf in wolfs clothing.

 

[JWarren]

if it does come down to those three, i'm voting libertarian.

Ditto.

I just don't think I could do it. I'd probably spend the rest of the day scrubbing in the bath tub and sobbing quietly.

Besides, historically the Republicans have counted on the NRA/gun owners support. If the Republicans choose not to support gun owners by running someone like this, I will not let them get a free vote from me. I want them to KNOW that abandoning us has consequences.

By the same token, if they pull it off without our support, our political capital will have been diminished going forward. I don't see that happening.


John

 

[saltydog]

I don't trust any republican presidential canadate when it comes to gun control. I heard it from Reagan and Bush Sr. on how we don't need any new gun control legislation. I did watch the GOP conventions in the 80's so I know what I'm talking about.

Both are no worse than Clinton on the ugly rifle issue.

Ain't going to buy that B.S. again. At least the Dems are honest about the situation. Ask them. They want to take them. If only the Republic-***** were just as honest.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Besides, historically the Republicans have counted on the NRA/gun owners support. If the Republicans choose not to support gun owners by running someone like this, I will not let them get a free vote from me. I want them to KNOW that abandoning us has consequences.

And if Klinton or Obama get elected, you can count on AWB II, and III, and IV, and as many other socialist big government laws getting whisked right through. And then you'll KNOW that letting the Dems win has consequence. Consequences that will take decades to get reversed, if they even do at all.

The Republicans will cater to gun-owners in elections years. And they will at least push gun control slower in order to appeal to both the gun grabbing libs, and their conservative base. Republicans will probably make a big show of blocking gun control when they think it will get them votes.

But Dems...Dems will try to take away all of our guns, and they won't stop trying. They won't do it slowly, or try to water it down to appear more centrist. Their base wants them to do it. And they're more than happy to oblige.

Republicans may only believe in power, votes, and looking good.

But the Dems truly believe that you should not have firearms.

 

[Selfdfenz]

I think a lot of these guys are gonna be like those who get arrested for a serious crime and while being held in jail, find Jesus.

HA! So true Art.

So, Rudy is pro 2A. Who woulda thinked it?

We can expect a pro-2A press release from the Imperial Office of Her Royal Highness any minute. I'm also looking forward to Hilly's pro-forma photo op of her duck hunting, just like Bill. . What would clinch it for me is Hilly holding Ann Richard's shotgun. That way I would know it's all true.

I will give Rudy one thing, unlike W, he has yet to affirm if AWB legislation crosses his desk he will sign it......then again it's early in the game.

I love politics.

S-

 

[Duncan223]

I support "reasonable" and "common sense" gun legislation....

as noted in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution - "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[highlander 5]

How much does Rudy weigh? Cause I'd trust him about as far as I could throw him

 

[Bubbles]

Vote the record, not the rhetoric!

How much does Rudy weigh? Cause I'd trust him about as far as I could throw him

Many New Yawkers have stated that Guiliani will say anything to get elected, then revert to his RINO self once in office. No way will I support him.

 

[thegriz]

I want new gun legislation

How about promising pro-gun legislation?

No promise, no vote.

 

[1 old 0311]

Rudi is a slick N.Y. politician. He will say what needs to be said to get votes. BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Igloodude]

And if Klinton or Obama get elected, you can count on AWB II, and III, and IV, and as many other socialist big government laws getting whisked right through. And then you'll KNOW that letting the Dems win has consequence. Consequences that will take decades to get reversed, if they even do at all.

I've heard this more than a few times - roughly "if you let a Dem get elected, it'll take years, decades, to undo the damage". It perplexes me that a Dem getting elected causes "years of damage" whereas a Rep getting elected... does pretty much nothing. Okay, if Republican control of the White House, House, Senate, and arguably SCOTUS hasn't resulted in "decades of damage" to the anti-gun cause, why the hell are we bothering to vote for them at all?

It would seem that witholding pro-RKBA votes from the Republican Party out of disgust (making sure the votes go to pro-gun third parties, lest the lesson get lost in the clutter) and letting them get beaten by Dems in an election would reasonably result in a Republican Party doing more to court pro-RKBA votes the next time around, and voting in Reps that will undo that Dem "decades of damage" and create some decades for damage for the pro-RKBA side. We're fighting this for the long haul, right? Why do we keep settling for ties and avoiding losses when we can take a loss and then start going for wins?

And we don't even need a loss to prove our point. National-level politicians have pollsters that will show our impending departure like it was written in fire across the clear blue sky, and they may well react to it even before the election that they're racing toward. But those pollsters right now are just reading polls that say "join the NRA, apply another coat of 'evil liberal gun-banner' paint to my opponent, make vague pro-gun promises, and majority of pro-RKBA conservatives will show up and vote for LesserOfTwoEvils (R)."

 

[wolf]

I'll vote independent..again..as usual...never voted for dumb or dumber...for you to have rights in this country you have to be a citizen..right?? well...lets not get carried away...you will have to define citizen and rights in the not too distant future...after the mass amnesty is granted ( any bets it wont be...??) being a citizen will take on a new meaning...its not something you and the country agree...it will be more like ... hey...guess what your a citizen..want to be or not..then it will be taken for granted how you will vote .. the Reps can't out pander the Dems...and from my point of view...what difference does it make...once the border is gone..and it will be a la European union style...you wont even need to cross over anything to be a citizen and have all the benefits of being a citizen...but...for that to work you cant have roving bands of armed thugs with guns spouting revolution and civil rights and having a silly citizen based constitution...

can it happen...for many of us its happened already...Los Angeles is as close to Mexico as you can get...its not uncommon to see in a modest middle class income neighborhood...makeshift fruit & vegetable stands set up in front of a HOUSE...no its not the home owner selling...don't you need a license or inspection certificate to sell food to the public wolf?...well...not if your an illegal alien..in fact..you don't need: any paperwork at all...because the LA is a sanctuary city..and soon it will be a sanctuary country...

will it be easy to get all these new citizens to vote as a block...it wont be hard...and will they vote for the second (or any) amendment as it or amending it in any .. yeah its that easy...

another way of seeing the dynamic of taking rights away vs giving citizenship (rights) to illegals...

In April illegal rights groups are planning another mass multi city/media marches/rallies are being planned. There may be thousands in the streets of major cities waving mexican and other third world countries flags DEMANDING amnesty...(try that in mexico...i dare ya)

What you will NOT see...is mass marches of US citizens DEMANDING closed borders..why..because we already are citizens...and we are happy...and we bitch..but its pretty much business as usual for us...Hillary be dammed..

 

[Sam Adams]

He's a politician and his mouth is moving - guess what that means?

Besides, he's a proven anti-gun activist - he'll never get my vote in the primaries...which is EXACTLY what he's trying to do with statements like this one. I ain't buying.