I assume you're referring to guliani. If we are to take each man at their word then guliani would leave gun control up to the states while Obama would actively try and ban everything.
So against Obama we have a checklist referencing a comment he made. Against that, the mobster from NYC has a very long track record not merely of anti-gun comments but of lawsuits against the gun industry, support for the most draconian anti-gun laws in the nation, consistent disregard for civil rights of any kind AND to top it all creation and support for a ruthless plainclothes anti-gun cop unit THAT ACTUALLY WENT AROUND KILLING PEOPLE they suspected of packing!
I'll put it to you bluntly. If you support that New York scum because he has an R near his name, you are a selling out the RKBA and all civil liberties for the sake of stale partisan loyalty. Giuliani would be the most dangerous President in generations. A Clinton I can live through. I've done it before, and come out alive on the other side. Obama I don't know so well but he hardly scares me. These mealy mouthed Dems are a devil we know. They're a devil we've fought before, and beaten. And we can beat them again. Guliani--a cunning, ruthless and stalwartly anti-gun east coast Republican--is not a devil any of us have had to deal with in the white house before. He's coming at sideways, hoping idiotic loyalty to the GOP and kowtowking to his superior fundraising will blind us to the fact that he's an enormous danger to us all.
Clinton and Obama will sign anything piece of Gun Control legislation a D controlled Congress will send them. Mitt or Rudy may at least think twice and listen to other R's who tell them there committing political suicide (didn't Mitt just recently become a life member of the NRA ??? Why do yoiu think he did that ??? Do you really think he'd now sign any GC legislation ???)
Don't be so sure. Mitt perhaps. He's not exactly pro RKBA but he's not Satan incarnate either. Guliani, OTOH, might as well have cloven feet. The dynamics are extremely dangerous. I've tried to explain this before, but I'll do it again becuase it's not sinking in.
Assuming the D's control both houses as they do now, the central problem for any Democratic President will be to get through the narrow gap of the Senate. This gap will work to block any legisliation that goes too far left--including any strong anti-gun legislation. In order to placate the Senate minority and get her nominees and other laws through, expect Clinton certainly and perhaps Obama to sell out their own anti-gun supporters in a heartbeat. They have bigger fish to fry.
Assuming the D's control both houses and Guliani is in the WH, the dynamics change completely. Giuliani has enough loyalty from the Senate GOP and is a cunning enough task master we cannot expect them to fight him. Certainly enough will kowtow for their own purposes to nullify their blocking power. This leaves Giuliani with a completely unfettered opportunity to move whatever anti-gun law through Congress that he wants to. His problem is going to be to placate the liberal House in order to get his anti-terror and foreign policy agenda through. In other words,
HE MUST COMPROMISE LEFT, WHILE A HC WOULD HAVE TO COMPROMISE RIGHT. And who doubts that he would would sell us down river in a heartbeat to get some Patriot III passed as a compromise with the liberal Dems in the house.
