Rudy Giuliani on GUNS (last night on Hannity)

Pretty much already been there and done that. Got my annual call for money to support the RNC, and after listening to the nice gentleman on the other end give me his can we count on you again this year speech. I told him, no. Asked if wanted to support at a lower level. I told him no again. He got quiet and finally asked if there was a specific reason why. So I told him. I am about to do something that I never thought I would do. Vote libertarian! He asked why I would do that, and I told him that under no condition would I vote for either RG or McCain. I would vote for Leiberman before either one of them. Don't agree with him on a lot but at least he is consistent. He asked about keeping Hillary out of the WH and I told him that I didn't think either of them could beat her, and even if they did, they weren't much different. I asked him if they were recording our conversation, and he said that they did. I told him to send mine to the big wigs, and tell them that if they want to keep the support of the little man then they had better come back to us. He said that he had already had a couple of similar calls that day.

I have NEVER voted for a Democrat in either a State or National Election. Can only think of a couple of local dems I have voted for, and they are not really Dems. But if those 2 jokers are the best the RNC can field then we deserve to get 4 years of whatever the dems have to offer. SAD, SAD, SAD. I have argued, (even recently) that we should at least vote for the lesser of two evils, but at this point I am having a hard time figuring out who that would be.:banghead:

 

We already have a RINO in the White House.

 

Heard his comments re-run on Hannity's radio show - sounded exactly like all the other disinginious antis "I'm all for the 2nd, but..." All for another AWB, he supported the last one because he was trying to reduce crime in NYC, and he thought this ban would make 2000-3000 incident of crime difference, said the same about concealed carry - not a good idea when in a dense population area, not when the goal is to reduce crime, should be up to localities etc cause every area is different, "as long as regulations are according to the 2nd amendment".

WHAT A BUCH OF BULL CRAP! Who has EVER shown that gun laws reduce crime? Ever?? Where do they get this stuff from???? Screw him!

 

Conservatives will avoid him like the plague. I don't think he has what it takes to be president and he probably won't get past the primaries.

 

I is very unlikely I will support Rudy Giuliani in the primary or regular election if he is the chosen Republican candidate. Gosh, two liberal New Yorkers in the same election potentially. As far as I'm concerned, if he is nominated, it assures the Hillary win. I probably will vote Lib and waste my vote.

He may be the current favorite, but it's campaign season and things can change quickly.

 

I think he was buying the NYC voters. It's a "logic" the liberals will follow. Everyone breathe for a second. Even if he were elected he would still face immense pressure from fellow Republicans. He wouldn't sign a ban. Bush said the same thing. He won't sign a ban. Some of you need a course in legaleese. It's kind of like when you're in a bad situation with your child and tell them, "everything is going to be ok," even when you know it's not. That's what the Republicans do with the liberals. "Sure, I'll sign the ban if congress authorizes it." If you can't see that Bush was bluffing, you're blind. Congress wasn't going to authorize it. With Giuliani, he says, "oh, we won't allow it in BIG CITIES," as he pats baby NY liberals on the back.

 

Wow. This country better toughen up and FAST if we want to have any hope of survival.

What we need is more Patton and less patent leather (to quote Michael Savage.)

 

Michael Savage may be quitting radio.

 

Prince Yamamoto YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!

If you repeat a lie long enough please do not expect me to believe it!

GW said he would sign the OLD AWB the OLD one this is the second time you have needed this explained to you!
(post # 33 of this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3071208#post3071208 )

The 1994 crime bill, Clintons AWB was UP FOR RENEWAL it was not a new AWB!!!!!!
GW said he would sign the RENEWAL of the 1994 crime bill, IF IT GOT TO HIS DESK!!!!

HE NEVER ONCE SAID HE WANTED A NEW ONE, why is this so hard for you to comprehend???

The liberals howled with indignation when it expired and they thought he said he would encourage a NEW AWB ... They thought that because they are dumb liberals.

Prince...I know you are not a dumb liberal, so why can you not understand what RG is saying is 100% different then what GW was saying in 1999?

we WILL get a far worse AWB the Clintons with Rudy, Rudy has never ever been for shall issue, GW signed it into TX law.!!!

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RG AND GW AND RUDY IS A LEFT WING SOCIALIST WITH AN R IN FRONT OF HIS NAME...GW IS MERELY A LIBERAL WITH AN R IN FRONT OF HIS NAME

 

Whoah...

OK gunsmith, I fully understand your anger. I'm not especially pleased with the idea of Giuliani as a president. I am under no impression that this man is a conservative. I also am fully aware of his views on guns. He is presently anti. I'm also fully aware that he is more liberal than Bush. As I have said in other forums, I'm quite libertarian in my views, but I'm also practical. No libertarian candidate (whether of the actual Libertarian party or just a libertarian in view) is going to win the 2008 election. So for me, the next best thing is a Republican. Well, it looks like the front runners aren't going to be conservative Republicans. Again, I am not pleased. Yes I could vote Libertarian, but that would just make it easier for Hillary to get elected. I'm also trying to be pro-active in my views concerning potential presidential candidates. Prepare for all cases. I'm merely stating what I believe will happen if Giuliani wins. I think at best, we'll preserve the current status quo on firearms ownership. Do I like that idea? No. Is it a very close possibilty? Yes. Could he backtrack and screw us over? Quite possibly, but I still think he'd have to modify his positions on issues to tow the Republican line. So he really wouldn't be a mold breaking original thinker, would he? Yes, he is quite lousy, but he may be the best shot for a pro-2A candidate if he wins the Republican primary. Unfortunately, I think it will be he and Romney on the Pres/VP ticket. Initially, I thought he wouldn't stand a chance because of so many factors against him, but cripes, the Republican ticket just looks like it's going to suck in 2008.

 

I personally feel McCain is going to get the Republican nod, in large part because he has been pretty vocal from the start about not liking Bush. Love him or hate him, President Bush hasn't done anything great for the Republicans image-wise, and McCain might be the only Republican to have a chance at winning (at least as the sentiments are now). Plus, he has his experience as a POW to go with. Politicians being what they are, here is how I imagine he will handle any scandals that come up:

CNN: Senator McCain, there are new allegations out that say that you enjoy making out with donkeys! Any comment?
McCain: I was in the Hanoi Hilton.
CNN:... uh.... sorry about that. Back to you, Wolf!

I couldn't be less concerned about Hillary Clinton winning the presidency. A three year old could start pointing out all the skeletons in her closet, and the fact is that she doesn't have 1/3 the charm that Bill did. I think she will be in it right up until the convention, but I will be very surprised if she gets the nomination. Plus, I think that people greatly overthink her support among women. You know, there are actually women Republicans, guys! Hippies, and aging liberals will be all for her, but I think that vast ocean of space between the coasts will largely be against her. Obama? Well, I hate to say this because it sounds so damn cynical, but I just don't think this country will elect a black president. You guys can jeer me for saying that all you want, but there are plenty of closet bigots out there that would rather move to France than have a black president.

 

gunsmith:

George Bush was quoted in the Houston Chronicle in August of 1999:

"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."

This quote sounds like he would be in favor of banning assault weapons to me.


Yamato:

If it boils down to Giuliani versus Hillary, I absolutely will vote for a third party. I actually beleive Hillary would be better for the country than Giuliani, as once she takes office, and opens her mouth, she will begin to lose popularity and I do not think she would be able to get much of her agenda accomplished. Giuliani is more personable, and would be able to accomplish more of his agenda, and his agenda is only slightly worse than Hillary's.

 

I'll make another prediction.

Neither Presidential candidate in the general election will come from a state with net emigration to other states.

New York is #1
California is #2

NYC metro area (including parts of PA and NJ) is losing people faster than anywhere else in the nation.

Candidates that win have come from places where people are moving TO, not moving FROM.

When Nixon and Reagan won, everyone wanted to move TO California. No candidate from here has come anywhere close, since. I don't think that New York City has positive connotations for most Americans, at least the idea of living there or living somewhere like it.

That factor is about the only thing in Edwards' favor, really.

Look to the places seen as desirable and successful, where people want to move, not has-been states and cities full of bums on the streets, for potential leaders.

 

GW gave lip sevice to the AWB

but that is all he did, he may or may not have helped the cause with his Judicial picks...only time will tell that.

GW compared to Rudy? GW looks like TED Nugent/Barry Goldwater compared to
a NY Rino like RG.

So GW made noise that he didn't like AR15's? The real test is making policy to back up that noise.

Rudy will do worse then Clinton did, you can take that to the bank.

I hope Hannity took a long shower after his so called interview!

 

FYI... prior to becoming "America's Mayor," Giuliani was considered an unlikeable authoritan bully even by many NY'ers, and his approval numbers were not all that great.

It's only the attacks on 9/11 that allowed him to rehab his public persona.

Make no mistake... he is a pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, pro-gun control, pro-radical gay agenda big city autocrat, with a taste for the police state.

That "R" after his name is about as valid as the one after Mayor Bloomberg's.

 

In Giuliani's NY, that wasn't too far from the truth.

 

Playing a game of "political chicken" with the second amendment, and hoping the other guy blinks first, is more than lip service, it is dereliction of duty.

It worked out ok for Bush this time with the assault weapons ban. But he did something similar with Campaign Finance Reform, and lost big on that one. As a result, the first amendment took a hit.

 

Macho? Testosterone-driven? Sheesh, I'm not exactly John Wayne myself, but c'mon! A quick search on google images brings up some real 'macho' photos of Giulliani. How often does this guy dress like a ugly woman? Who in the world would vote for this anti-gun nutjob?

 

Jeb for 2008!

 

Because the Second Amendment says: ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be regulated by the States."

 

A third Bush? God I hope not. Two of them so far have given us two wars. We can't afford a third. I think GW has seen to it that Jeb will never get elected President.

 

I honestly can't see ANY of the major contenders right now except Richardson going very far.

Have any of you actually SEEN Hillary speak? She's cold, fake, and has only a little more charisma than Lieberman. Obama is a stuffed suit who offers nothing but platitudes, and I have confidence that enough of the stupid sheeple who swoon over him won't even know when primary day is, to say nothing of the general election should he pull off some sort of miracle. Edwards stands a chance in my view, he came second in the primary last time, but he shares the same weakness with the others in this paragraph, he's a SENATOR! The road to the White house leads through a governor's mansion!

As for Romney (who is the only Republican getting major airtime right now that has gubernatorial experience), he's from MASSACHUSETTS! Come on, do you people REALLY see him winning primaries in the south or the west? To say nothing of NEW HAMPSHIRE??? We HATE MA$$holes up here, guys! And before you bring up how Kerry took the state in '04, the dems here don't count, because they're typically FROM MA! I just can't see Romney winning NH, or any of the southern or western states.

I'm rooting for Ron Paul, if for nothing more than to get his name out there. I think he should go for the Texas governor's seat sometime SOON, in order to springboard into an actual shot at President, but I also think (perhaps this is wishful thinking) that he has a chance of reframing the context of the Republican primary if he can get the message out there effectively and attract lots of grassroots conservative and libertarian support in the primaries.

 

I'd like to see Richardson take the Democratic nomination and Ron Paul take the Republican nomination. Dr. Paul is a long shot, but Richardson has a fighting chance because Clinton and Obama could very likely implode between now and 2008, but it seems to me that the political establishment has already annointed Clinton as our next president. Even the Republican leadership seems resigned to another Clinton for president.

Let's prove them wrong and take back control of this country. Let's put some effort into having two decent candidates like Paul and Richardson instead of once again having to select from the least repulsive of two evils.

 

The antis all support the Second Amendment, meaning THEIR interpretation of the Second Amendment. In other words, the "militia" (meaning the military) has the right to keep and bear arms but it is not an individual right.

All dictators and would-be dictators would support that meaning, and some have.

Jim