Giuliani to Face the N.R.A.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matt King

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
1,151
Location
USA
September 19, 2007, 6:51 pm
Giuliani to Face the N.R.A.

By Sarah Wheaton

The sportsmen (and the politicians who love them) are set to converge on the capital this weekend as the National Rifle Association holds a “Celebration of American Values.”

Speakers include some of the movement’s best-known conservatives, both on and off the presidential ballot, including Newt Gingrich, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Fred D. Thompson and Senator John McCain. But perhaps the most-watched remarks will be those given by Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was a vocal supporter of gun control as mayor of New York.

During a 1995 appearance on PBS’s “The Charlie Rose Show,” Mr. Giuliani was critical of the influential gun group.

“I agree that it’s the person who uses the gun that is the source of the real problem, but the gun is also the source of a very big problem,” he said, referring to the classic N.R.A. slogan, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

He continued, “And the N.R.A.’s in essence defense of assault weapons, and their unwillingness to deal with some of the realities we face here in cities, is a terrible, terrible mistake.”

“This really should be an indication. Let’s have national licensing and gun control,” Mr. Giuliani says in another interview currently circulating on YouTube. “Ninety-five percent of the shootings in New York City occur with guns from outside of the city of New York, and they’re really victimizing us at this point with the craziness of this ‘you can buy any gun you want, anyplace you want, you wait five days…’”

That video also has a clip of him calling a Second Amendment objection to the gun control laws he endorses “an overstated argument.”

CNN’s John King asked Mr. Giuliani about those and other comments today:

Mr. King: On Friday, you’ll give a speech back in the States to the National Rifle Association. Back in the Clinton administration, you sat in the front row when the president signed into law the Assault Weapons Ban. That law has since expired. Back at that time in ‘95, you said the NRA was going, quote, “way overboard” in its opposition to the Assault Weapon Ban…Are you willing to now go before that group and say, There are cases where you must not go, quote, “way overboard?”

Mr. Giuliani: Well, sure, we’re at a different time, now. And we’re in a different situation. I mean, the reality is that I always believed that it made the most sense for state and local governments to deal with this, that we should do everything we can to reduce crime. The programs that I had just begun back then have now turned out to be even more successful than I thought they would be, which largely focused on people who were using guns, and to treat them in a way in which we had zero tolerance for them.

Mr. King: Wouldn’t the mayor of Baltimore or New York City today say that, if you just do this state by state, then they can bring in the assault weapon from Virginia or they can bring the assault weapon in from New Jersey?

Mr. Giuliani: You know, I think actually, if you do it state by state, you can get tremendous impact. I did it state by state; look at the impact that I had. I dealt with enforcing the laws that existed in New York, and what was the impact — 74 percent decline in shootings. And I believe that decline in shootings has continued to go on since I left office, with the ConStat program, with a tough on criminal approach, tough on criminals who use guns.

So the reality is, the proof is in the pudding. I mean, we actually made the local laws work in a way that created the safest large city in America.

Mr. Giuliani’s new approach reflects that described in an article by The Times’s Richard Pérez-Peña about the candidate’s shifting tone on guns:

“His history is of enforcing gun laws, not of gun control,” said Anthony V. Carbonetti, a senior adviser. “Rudy took over a city that averaged over 2,000 murders a year, and 90-some-odd percent were gun-related murders. It was all about taking guns out of the hands of criminals.”

The above quote is from March, and as his campaign was quick to point out to us, Mr. Giuliani’s comments as mayor are “old news.” But whether his new tone has actually been effective remains an open question, and the response to him at the N.R.A. conference could be a significant clue.

At the very least, Mr. Giuliani is likely to get credit from N.R.A. members for actually showing up. Mitt Romney, another candidate who has faced Johnny-come-lately accusations from gun rights advocates, will be addressing the group via videotape. The only Democratic presidential candidate scheduled to speak at the conference, Gov. Bill Richardson, will also use video. He has touted his gubernatorial endorsement from the N.R.A. to suggest that he would be more viable in the general election.

From: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/giuliani-to-face-the-nra/
 
I have grave reservations about Giuliani and Romney. I believe either of them would sign AWB2 into law when the Democrats send it to the Oval Office. And I have no doubts that it will be on the next president's desk. That's why it is imperative that Fred Thompson win. I believe he is the most SA friendly one of the bunch that has a realistic chance of winning.
 
It was all about taking guns out of the hands of criminals.

Why is it when politicians takes guns out of the hands of criminals it's the law abiding American that winds up losing?
 
I have grave reservations about Giuliani and Romney. I believe either of them would sign AWB2 into law when the Democrats send it to the Oval Office. And I have no doubts that it will be on the next president's desk. That's why it is imperative that Fred Thompson win.

No, this is why it is imperative that SCOTUS uphold Heller. Do that, and there can't possibly be a AWB2. We'll just hit them with the Miller test, and that will be that.
 
No, this is why it is imperative that SCOTUS uphold Heller. Do that, and there can't possibly be a AWB2. We'll just hit them with the Miller test, and that will be that.

They disregard the constitution and amendments already what makes you think they will abide SCOTUS??
 
Giuliani Il Duce. He will come make everything "right" by ruling with an ironfist. That means severely restricting civilian firearm ownership among other "excessive" liberties that "must" be reduced or eliminated. For the good of the nation of course. :rolleyes:
 
I have two thoughts here, one is that there is not a chance in that hot place that he will get the nomination, second is it will be him versus Hillary and then we will have an extreme choice to make.
 
Politics

Guys, I know it's tough, but let's eliminate the politics part of this discussion.

Yes, I know he's a candidate.

Yes, I know there's an election coming up.

Permitted topics: a) his publicly stated views on guns and the Second Amendment, b) the relevant laws and constitutional issues (except then I have to move it to Legal), c) concrete plans for exerting influence on his stance or on those who will vote (and then I move it over to Activism).

So, if you can color within those lines, we keep it open.

If we just can't resist a little more political "illumination" then I close it and we keep the information from the OP.

Your call.
 
“His history is of enforcing gun laws, not of gun control,”
Riiiight. Enforcing gun control laws whenever and however possible has nothing to do with gun control.

I'm guessing that he's just saying he's as anti as he ever was, just doesn't want to say so?

I can't tell. I can't translate New Yorkian.
 
In the end they are politicians and I think very few of them actually believe anything. So to get elected in NYC he told the people what it was thought they wanted to hear.

Now he's talking to the NRA and telling them what they want to hear.

If anything that's a credit to the power of the NRA and the underlying power of the pro-2a position.

So, since we have an audience, shouldn't we get him to commit to something like no new AWB if he is the candidate?
 
Well, sure, we’re at a different time, now. And we’re in a different situation.

Translation: The different situation is now, I'm running for President.

It was all about taking guns out of the hands of criminals.

Translation: And keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Let’s have national licensing and gun control

Translation: Let's violate the constitution. Oh, and nationalize healthcare and an identification system.

Arfin Greebly wrote: Permitted topics: a) his publicly stated views on guns and the Second Amendment,

I apologize for slightly crossing the line on my third quote.
 
Last edited:
From The Posted Article said:
“Ninety-five percent of the shootings in New York City occur with guns from outside of the city of New York,...

How many gun stores are there in New York City? Seems to me that that info would have some bearing on the 95% "outside of the city" sources. Doesn't make one iota of a difference where the criminals get their guns. The get them no matter what. The problem lies with the criminals using them illegally. It's sort'a like the Wizard of Oz. Ignore the man behind the curtain(the criminals) and focus on the "smoking head"(the gun).


Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
 
Doesn't enforcing unconstitutional laws make one a domestic enemy of the constitution? Where is everyone who took an oath to defend the constitution?
 
Mr. Giuliani: Well, sure, we’re at a different time, now. And we’re in a different situation.

The difference being that he is running for President, not that he has a change of heart.
 
I don't trust him, he is pulling a fast one on us, or attempting too. This guy has been a gun control advocate for well over a decade, was one of the first mayor's to sue the gun industry back in the 90's and now he is supposed to be our freind? I'm not buying it! If the NRA endorses Guiliani, I will be extremely dissapointed, but I believe the NRA is smarter than that. I would like to see the NRA get behind Fred Thompson, I believe he is a reliable ally.
 
I could vote for Rudy

I know its not popular here fellas, but there is more at stake than just gun rights. Obviously my vote isn't etched in stone at this point, and I would prefer a perfect candidate who is "pure".

I just think Rudy is the smartest, most eloquent, candidate that is most right on most of the issues (except gun control) and he happens to give us the best shot to win. I want someone who is going to be unabashedly tough on terrorism, and is capable of actually explaining his point of view without looking like a complete idiot (like our current Pres).

Can Fred do that? Possibly. And I will anxiously await his debate performance. From what I've seen so far, however, he just looks like another version Dubya (well he speaks better)! Another Bush-like candidate just isn't going to win again.

I am putting a lot of faith in his words, and I recognize his past record in New York isn't pretty in some respects. I can certainly understand why many here are reticent about him and I hope you guys can respect my opinion without hitting me on the head here. :)

But this is one Christian so-con who could vote for Rudy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top