Rudy Claims Evolution On Gun Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of the rights in the Bill of Rights was granted by the Constitution.
They are human rights that further the advancement of the individual
and their society, the purpose of our Declaration of Independence,
and the basis of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights was written to
protect those rights from infringement by an overbearing government.
As amendments to the federal Constitution, they were originally biding
only on the federal government. The idea apparently was that the
state governments, being closer and more answerable to their citizens,
would be less likely to infringe upon their citizens' rights than the more
remote federal government. But all the rights listed in the BoR predate
the Constitution.
 
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.
Rudy Giuliani doesn't represent ANY of my views. Neither does Hillary Clinton.

There is therefore no reason for me to vote for EITHER of them.

The Hitler/Stalin choice is a false one.
 
"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety,"

Your right to bear arms is enumerated and guaranteed by the Constitution
Define "reasonable degree of safety".
Where does "hunting" or "plinking" or "hobby" fit into this scenerio? Why should it depend on "safety"? Why shouldn't it include "pest control", aka the squirrels that chew their way into the attic or the coyotes eating the dog's food?

"A person's home is their castle. They have the right to protect themselves in their own home."

Where should I NOT have the right to protect myself? What about my back yard? What about walking to my car in a dark parking deck at night? What about as I walk through the woods with no law enforcement or park service security available for hours or days? What about when I am unable to get phone service?


The problem with all of this is that he claims to have evolved, but he still qualifies his words like an anti. A anti could say the above things and still be anti.
 
Rudy is a political whore who will change his "makeup" (to the point of plastic surgery) to get you in his bed.

I'm not going there.
 
Watching politicians talk is just like watching chameleons change colours with the seasons.
When it comes to gun control, Giuliani is the proverbial "chameleon on plaid".

He's not just a liar, he's an obvious, bad liar.

The Giuliani/Clinton "choice" is a false, dishonest one.

It's like having a stranger walk up to you in the street with a toddler by the hand who says to you, "I just found this kid in the park. Should I strangle or drown him?"

In this election, the toddler represents individual liberty.

The Giuliani supporters just don't get it that you don't want to kill the child AT ALL.
 
I hate to stereotype, but I wouldn't look for any mayor of NYC to be a big proponent of gun rights, no matter what is coming out of his mouth. Trust this one as far as you could throw him, at least with regards to 2A.

edit: I don't have an axe to grind with him either. I've not made any decision with regards to who to support in the next election.
 
He cited a DC court ruling overturning the city's gun ban as instrumental to changing and "strengthening" his views on gun control.
Someone has to corner him on the issue of if he still supports Feinstien's proposed AW ban. Everything he said about new gun control laws he can claim did not mean there shouldn't be more "reasonable" gun control laws like banning guns that he thinks "no one needs or should have".
 
You have a right to defend yourself, unless you live in New York. If you live in NY you might be granted the right to defend yourself only if you pay them $500, submit to investigation, and wait a year or so.
 
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.

You don't seem to fully understand how elections work. Candidates always take positions closer to their base during the primaries with the hope that they will received enough support from them to get the nomination. Once they get the nod, they move more to the center to appeal to a wider base.

That's all that Giuliani is doing. He feels the same way about guns as he ever has, he just realizes he needs to modify what he says in public so he doesn't upset his base. Don't kid yourself into thinking that if he becomes President he won't sign all the anti-gun legislation that comes across his desk.
 
Did he repudiate his former support for banning guns the prohibitionists call "assault weapons"?

That is the ONLY relevant issue as far as the things he has said in the past. Otherwise he is just saying "trust my smile and ignore what I stand for."
 
If you trust this snake, do not complain about it when you find his fangs in your nethers. It's been said many times and locked many threads, but this man is MUY MALO. The worst of the worst.

As far as enforcing the laws on the books--you should take a close look at them. A President who really enforced them to the maximum extent and made it a high priority could make all our lives a living hell, and put many of us in prison. Rudy is the only candidate, D or R, who's death would prompt me to breath a sigh of relief and open a bottle to celebrate. He scares me like few others have. Just chew on this soundbite, which he proudly uttered a decade ago:

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

Freedom is about authority. That sums up RG in a nutshell. It's how he ruled NYC and it's how he would rule the US. And I do mean "rule." He would take the tools of power created by the GW administration and all those before and use them to beat the nation into submission, because he believes it's the right thing to do. As President I really fear he would end the Republic in all but name. And I sure hope some folks in the high ranks of the GOP are getting daggers ready for him, because this would-be Caesar needs to go away. But I'm afraid most of them are blinded by fears of terrorism and dreams of power overseas.
 
Guiliani: 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."

That's right.

And aren't we proud of the Republicans for condemning the Swift Boat Vet ads?

Oh wait...they didn't.
 
Funny how his beliefs have "evolved" into a very strong pro-gun stance ever since Fred has closed the gap in the polls to within 4 points from 12 points two weeks ago.
 
Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety

This statement is wrong. Saying that the right is BASED on (the need for) a degree of safety suggests that in an absence of the need for safety, there would be no basis for our right to keep an bear arms. It is also very important to note the use of the word "reasonable." Who interprets when the amount of safety we have is "reasonable?" In fact, one could use this very statement to argue that, when the police are able to provide us with a degree of safety they deem "reasonable," we no longer have a Constitutional basis for our right to keep an bear arms. Also, with this statement, someone could push to ban firearms they claim aren't necessary/suitable for "providing safety". For example, "you don't need an 'assault weapon' to protect yourself."

I would say that our right to bear arms is not "based" any qualifying facts. It is a God given right "without strings" and it our ability to reasonable protect ourself that is BASED on our God given right to keep and bear arms.
 
And aren't we proud of the Republicans for condemning the Swift Boat Vet ads?

The swift boat ads gave facts about a politican running for office who chose to make his military service a central point in his campaign.

Move-on spouted fabricated rhetoric to attack an apolitical member of the military, placed in command by a unanimous congress, during time of war.

Apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:
for the record, i'd rather see hilary as pres than rudy
 
Every time he sneers at Ron Paul I like him a little less.

Taking that cell phone call from his wife in the middle of his speech to the NRA was rude too. He doesn't have staffers who can hold his phone while he makes speeches? Even if not, you have to answer your phone immediately, while you're giving an important political talk?
 
"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety"

Congratulations Rudy, for just making my new signature line.

jm
 
"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said.
And under his breath he cackled as he muttered....

"Of course, I am more qualified than you to determine just what constitutes reasonable..."

I personally despise the vast majority of the oily bastards.

Reminds me of Klinton's smarmy reply to the Grand Jury, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

verbatim:
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none', that was a completely true statement," he said.

If 90% of them smothered in their own crap, the world would be a better place for it.

Rudy should borrow a shotgun from somebody and go hunting with John Kerry.

:fire:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top