RUDY'S GUN POLICY ON TARGET: GOPER

[gunsmith]

I didn't do the caplock, that was the NY Post

RUDY'S GUN POLICY ON TARGET: GOPER
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0130200...arget__goper_regionalnews_maggie_haberman.htm


January 30, 2007 -- The Republican leading Rudy Giuliani's New Hampshire campaign said he thinks the 2008 presidential hopeful will be an "easy sell" - and that the ex-mayor "satisfied" him that he won't support federal assault-weapons bans, as he has in the past.

"I'm satisfied that he believes there's no need for any additional gun laws, that's for sure," Wayne Semprini told The Post yesterday.

As mayor, Giuliani supported the federal ban - which expired in 2004 - and other gun-control programs.

Semprini, who lives in a state where the right to bear arms is a major issue, said, "The context that I took to his approach to guns is . . . he was running the largest city in the country, where there were upwards to 2 million illegal guns floating around in that city, and he wanted to get the crime situation under control."

Giuliani's top adviser, Anthony Carbonetti, insisted the ex-mayor's "position on this has not changed.

"People understand that Rudy had a commitment to protect New York against crime. That has no impact on hunting or gaming."

 

[gunsmith]

huh?

"People understand that Rudy had a commitment to protect New York against crime. That has no impact on hunting or gaming."

I hope he loses soundly, it's not about hunting!

 

[gc70]

Gee, maybe Rudy would turn out to be even more of a friend to RKBA than George.

 

[Henry Bowman]

He's following the Democrat playbook exactly. Did I say Democrat? I meant Republican. He's a Republican, right?

 

[cbsbyte]

If I remember correctly Giuliani was a Liberal Democrat until President Reagan. He then switched side but kept his basic core beliefs.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Bad news for Romney and Guiliani and other RINO's....


For them to win, a MAJORITY of conservatives would all of a sudden have to become liberals.


I seriously doubt the massive evangelical community is going to support pro-choice people, and then there is the fairly large gun-owner segment that will not back AWB-loving gun-grabbers either. If either one of these guys somehow wins the nomination, it will be like 1992, where the NRA will not endorse anyone. Kiss the gun vote goodbye.

And that's just 2 groups of the many conservative issues/factions that aren't going to vote for these guys.

It's just election hype. These guys are not electable. It was just like the 2004 Democratic race...all the moderate or conservative Democrats got destroyed in the primaries even though they looked good on paper. The leftists chose a hard-core liberal. It was the die-hard communists that all came out of their caves to vote in the primaries. That's why Lamont won, yet was beaten by Lieberman in the general election.

The same thing will happen in 2008. The primary will consist of more conservative types. Don't count out any conservative in the GOP race. You think that a guy like Tancredo doesn't have a chance...think again. Let the big names all tear themselves apart in 2007 with their pre-election season mudslinging. We've already seen Hillary smear Barak Hussein Obama by revealing the fact that he attended a Madrasas as a youth. There will be a lot of that happening on both sides.


You know, we just got done with the 2006 midterm, and in 1 month, we're already on the 2008 election campaign. This is ridiculous. News has nothing more to talk about than to hype the election 2 years out. This is bleeding over into THR.

 

[crazed_ss]

We've already seen Hillary smear Barak Hussein Obama by revealing the fact that he attended a Madrasas as a youth

Hillary didnt try to smear anyone. Dont believe everything they say on Fox and Friends.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/07012...gazine_and_fox_news_smear_campaign/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2819634&page=1
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/us/politics/24obama.html?ex=1170306000&en=96e0042204d186ad&ei=5070

I know you're gonna tell me that abc, cnn, and the ny times are the "liberal media", but Fox News has also backpedaled on the false report.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I mailed back the RNC donation liteerature and the premature membership card. I drew in a donation category of $0.00, checked that box and attached a note with an arrow pointing to ($0.00) stating that I was not contributing money that could possibly go to the gun grabbing McCain or Guliani and if they are stupid or insane enough to nominate those of this ilk I will not contribute or bother to vote. I would probably vote for Libertarian or Constitutionalist candidates, but not for the Neo-Communists.

 

[Prince Yamato]

So Giuliani says he WON'T go after AWs and you all start bitching. Look, we're NOT going to get an ideal pro-gun candidate in 2008. It unfortunately WILL be a matter of settling for the lesser of two evils. But if this lesser said he won't ban AWs (which is more the GW said), I say better him than Hillary.

 

[Mr.V.]

So Giuliani says he WON'T go after AWs and you all start bitching.

that's not what the mouth of Sauron said...

Giuliani's top adviser, Anthony Carbonetti, insisted the ex-mayor's "position on this has not changed."

 

[gunsmith]

banning AW's

The problem with him saying he wouldn't ban AW's is he will say anything to get elected.

If you think he wouldn't sign every anti gun law that came across his desk then you really do not know anything about ghoulianni.

Rudy is a very pro active anti gunner, he can lie in NH all he likes but his record speaks for it self...

 

[S&W 910]

Politics

Rudy will try to abolish guns in the US the same way he did in New York

 

[illspirit]

So Giuliani says he WON'T go after AWs and you all start bitching. Look, we're NOT going to get an ideal pro-gun candidate in 2008. It unfortunately WILL be a matter of settling for the lesser of two evils. But if this lesser said he won't ban AWs (which is more the GW said), I say better him than Hillary.

He instantly switched his position now out of political convenience, what's to say he won't switch back again the second he gets elected? Especially if there's a media-hyped shooting of some sort with anything resembling an "assault weapon" and a media-driven demand to do "something."

Or, like the old saying goes, leopards don't change their spots. Friends who lived in NYC under his reign tell me he ran the place like a despot. Apologists like to remind everybody about how he "cleaned up" the city, but they want you to forget he turned it into a virtual police state to do so. It doesn't take much imagination to picture someone with such totalitarian urges waking up one day and deciding they want to disarm the populace. Again. Or still. If not in the name of being "tough on crime," maybe he'd do it to protect an attempt to continue his stay in office after his term is up like he tried as Mayor...

And speaking of "cleaning up" the city, he'll no doubt also try to paint himself some social conservative credentials for driving the peep/burlesque shows out of Times Square. What he won't mention is how he used predatory and selective government regulation and zoning practices to drive them out of business and/or real estate. Nor will he likely mention how he used such tactics to crush small businesses for corporate buddies. Or how he used them to run out artistic venues/shops with politics he didn't like or were otherwise not 'thinking of the children.' That doesn't sound very conservative to me. In fact, it stinks of big-government, nanny-state tyranny.

As such, maybe he won't go directly for an AWB. Perhaps he'll just get his anti-gun friends in the Congress to create wacky taxes and regulations to force all gun shops out of business?

If you get right down to it, even Queen Hillary is probably "less evil" than him. But I doubt he'll make it past the primaries, so it probably doesn't matter much.

 

[Cosmoline]

I would sooner vote for Hillary, seriously.

 

[the pistolero]

I would sooner vote for Hillary, seriously.

Can't say I'd argue with that, even though personally I'd sooner stay home or cast a write-in vote for Dr. Paul. The last thing we need is for the antis to have even a single shred more of evidence that they have a "bipartisan mandate" for more infringements on our rights, and with someone like Giuliani in the White House, that's exactly what they'd have. And even if he does believe we don't need any more gun laws, I surely don't see him supporting the repeal of any of the 20,000-some odd gun laws that are now on the books.
And if there's anyone who really thinks the statement that Giuliani would not support a renewed federal-level AWB has any validity whatsoever, there's only one thing to say to that:
"Read my lips. No. New. Taxes."

 

[pacodelahoya]

How do you know when a ploitician is lying?

His lips are moving

 

[vito]

Any pro gun reader out there knows that what is said on this forum is just "preaching to the choir". There are pro-gun Republicans in the race, but they will not have even a small chance without financial support. Right now I don't think Tancredo has much of a chance, but I have sent him a donation to try to change that. Money talks and if enough of us focused on the pro-gun candidate or candidates we could make a real difference in this process. Don't forget that in 1976 the media joked about "Jimmie who?" and in 1992 most experts thought that the young ex-governor of Arkansas was not a serious contender for the Democrat nomination. Early support of Tancredo could galvanize the conservative block of voters into action. Not only is he pro 2nd Amendment, but his aggressive stand on illegal immigration makes him someone that I can relate to.

 

[Deanimator]

He's following the Democrat playbook exactly. Did I say Democrat? I meant Republican. He's a Republican, right?

If you look at how he handled the NYPD while he was mayor of New York City, "Fascist" is the more accurate answer.

Imagine him in control of the BATFE...

 

[hksw]

"I'm satisfied that he believes there's no need for any additional gun laws, that's for sure," Wayne Semprini told The Post yesterday.

Hahahaha. I had to laugh at that.

But if this lesser said he won't ban AWs (which is more the GW said), I say better him than Hillary.

So what if Hillary said she would pass an AW ban? Would you believe her then?

 

[Smurfslayer]

for a lie to be accepted as the truth...

it has to be repeated often enough. The 1st step is to get that out there (the lie). The next step is to repeat it.

Sorry, but his previous conduct excuses him from the office of the presidency among serious and intelligent voters.

He's not my mayor, he's not America's mayor and he's not fit for asking if I'd like fries with that. He's sure enough not qualified for the presidency.

 

[Bubbles]

I'd sooner stay home or cast a write-in vote for Dr. Paul.

Huh? Ron Paul will be on the ballot in the primary. No need for a write-in.

Seriously, the conservatives contenders need to get together prior to the first primary (which is less than a year away) and agree to weed out all but one. If there is one conservative running against Guiliani, McCain, Romney, etc. in the race then the others can split the RINO vote.

On the flip side, if the Repubs come into that primary with four conservatives and one RINO in the race then the conservatives are screwed.

 

[Henry Bowman]

among serious and intelligent voters.

A minority indeed.

Ron Paul will be on the ballot in the primary. No need for a write-in.

Not likely in Ohio. The two big parties spend $$$ challenging the signatures of any real third party contender. They let the crack pots (commies, labor, etc.) stay on because it makes a nice contrast.

 

[the pistolero]

Ron Paul will be on the ballot in the primary. No need for a write-in.

I know. I was referring to the possibility that he doesn't eventually become the GOP nominee. Call it wasting my vote if you wish (not you personally, Bubbles, just in general), but a choice consisting of Giuliani/McCain/Romney vs. Clinton/Obama is really no choice at all.

 

[DonP]

I'll put on my "Karnak The Magnifcent" turban and see 2009 and the Republicans, having lost the Senate, House and the White House, wondering out loud "what happened?"

- Let's see, they have forsaken every one of the Conservative principles Reagan ever stood for.

- Ran a crop of "gun grabbing RINO's" in the Republican primaries in 2008.

- Ignored years of a majority of Americans calling for securing our borders.

- Continued to spend like drunken sailors and earmark pet projects for their districts.

- Didn't have the guts to oppose the (future) tax increases, with a filibuster threat if needed.

- Allowed John Bolton to be run out of town on a rail for calling the UN out for its blatant corruption, coddling of dictators and tyrants, and its socialist leanings.

- Ignored the conservative base, and gun owners along with it, assuming they will vote "R" no matter what they do.

- Still can't understand why we all stayed home in 2008 and how Hillary/Obama could have won the White House with more than 40 states.

Then, in 2010, they'll hire consultants to the tune of $1 million or three to do a study on why they lost.

They can send me $20 now and I'll save them the consulting and research fees.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

The problem I see with Guillianni, is that he was the head pig (Animal Farm) in a city that thrives on big government, big brother, big spending, etc. It's a liberal's ideal kingdom crying out loud. I can't see how Guillianni wouldn't try to run the country in a manner he has experience at. He is either a Democrat at worst (he used to be one), a Rhino, which is bad enough, or GOP light at best. Not someone I can get too excited about to vote for. I like Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Duncan Hunter looks good at first glance, but I'll have to do some more research. He is from liberal la la land after all. A person who is labeled a conservative from California can actually be slightly liberal when you look at the volume of kooks on the left within that state. Mike Huckabee might be another one to watch, but again, was he a Democrat at one time? He apparently loved tax increases for the schools. I'm about schooled out with property tax increases, school levies, and federal spending on no child left behind. When do we start to see an improvement in the product? I haven't seen it yet.

I'm not going to worry about this just yet. It's a long time from now. I will be paying attention, just not worrying about it. I won't send in any early donations to the RNC or the GOP party, until I see them pushing some of these more conservative folks up the ladder, instead of annointing Rudy or McCain because they think they can capture the right wing of the liberals and moderates.