Posted on 02/06/2007 12:08:48 PM PST by 300magnum
NEWTOWN, Conn.—In response to New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's filing of a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission yesterday, indicating that he would enter the 2008 presidential race as a Republican, the firearms industry's trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), reminded America's sportsmen and gun-enthusiasts of the former mayor's record of hostility toward firearms and gun-owners.
"Recent remarks indicate the mayor is attempting to camouflage his record on guns – a political maneuver now common for politicians seeking national office," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
In June of 2000, then New York City Mayor Giuliani became the lone Republican mayor to sue members of the firearms industry as part of a wave of lawsuits that began in the late 1990's by major metropolitan cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Philadelphia and San Francisco that sought to hold firearms manufactures responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. The Giuliani lawsuit is still pending and being aggressively pursued by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Giuliani strongly opposed legislation blocking suits like the one he filed against members of the firearms industry. In 2005, President Bush signed legislation into law that barred such lawsuits after Congress, by a broad bipartisan margin, passed the bill. During the debate in Congress the Giuliani lawsuit was specifically referred to as an example of the kind of "junk" lawsuit the law is intended to stop.
"Giuliani's lawsuit may have gained him praise in Gotham, but will surely handicap him in the rest of the country, particularly during the southern primaries," predicted Keane.
More recently Giuliani's campaign has flipped-flopped on whether he continues his longstanding support for restoring the Clinton-era federal ban on some semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic appearance. The so-called "assault weapons" ban sunset in 2004. Several studies including those by the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control showed the ban had no impact on crime largely because the banned firearms were very rarely if ever used in crime. The ban had nothing to do with machine guns, which have remained heavily regulated since the early part of the last century.
According to the New York Post, Giuliani's political operative in New Hampshire, Wayne Semprini, "has been telling voters that the mayor 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." All the while Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani's top advisor, has been telling New Yorkers "the mayor's position on this [the assault weapons ban] has not changed."
Commenting on this equivocation, Keane added, "You can't pretend to be a supporter of sportsmen and gun-owners in New Hampshire when you tried to sue the firearms industry out of existence in New York. Other politicians learned the hard way that sportsmen and gun-owners are a well-informed and highly motivated voting bloc. Former President Clinton in his memoirs admitted the gun issue cost Al Gore the White House, and Senator Kerry's ill-fated goose hunt cooked his presidential aspirations in 2004."
Formed in 1961, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is the trade association for the firearms industry. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.
I would venture to suggest that every Democratic candidate disagrees with you (and me) even more than Rudy does, on every one of these issues. He would also try to do more about his views on these issues -- another important question to consider. In addition, you cannot veto Rudy and still be a responsible conservative if there is no viable alternative in the GOP. Is Newt viable? I don't think so, though I could be proven wrong in the primaries in the unlikely event that he runs? Is Romney viable? Politically, yes, but overall, how does he stack up against Rudy on the conservative issues AND the likelihood of walking the walk, not just talking the talk? I'm unconvinced. MeCain? Don't get me started. Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee? Not viable. And, to put it a little crudely, I think Brownback is a wuss -- and probably not very bright.
So, what's your alternative?
Only the extreemists will refuse to back him on gays and abortion.
I think this is gonna be an easy one, for him.
Maybe a plurality of reps like Rudy. They have their own self serving purposes. They certainly aren't interested in freedom, which means they could care less about their fellows. I'll stick with freedom and my brothers that love it. Rudy and the country clubbers can go take a flying leap off a cliff.
Remember RINO's are democrats in denial. Always blame someone else. They want Rudy but it will be the Conservatives fault that he loses not their wrong choice.
I always interpret "squid ink" in the worst possible way. If the politician is trying to obscure his position, I have to assume that he means to do something bad. Therefore, I have to assume that Rudi is just fine with "Ban 'em all".
He's a 'Contract with America' conservative. Like most of us.
He's a tough manager, hard on crime, defense, budgets, etc.
The 'socials' who won't vote for anyone who doesn't think exactly like them will be his only opponents, and all but the fanatics will vote for him in the end.
He's a good manager, has a great resume running a large, complicated govt, is tough, a great speaker.
We could do worse for Prez.
And the "must think exactly like I do" crowd will mostly vote R at crunch time. The only ones who won't are the fanatics who are so homophobic there's no hope with them.
"Where was Megan Marshak when Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller Died?"
Hey Rudy is their kind of Guy. They probably were secret admirers of Bill and Monica.
See that is what scares me. I am not so sure he can hold up. I am still undecided.
How can you be so sure?
There was a lot more than gun crackdowns going on in those years: increasing general prosperity, changes in the age distribution of the population, changes in the way drugs were dealt and gangs were organized, more criminals being locked up for longer terms, and changes in many other facets of community policing (remember the broken-window theory?)
It's far too simplistic to say that gun controls lowered New York's crime rate, when the crime rates also went down in dozens of states that were EXPANDING gun rights at the same time.
-ccm
If you care about the second amendment, you just can't support him.
It's very easy for me to imagine him disarming us all in an attempt to get guns away from "terrorists".
I'm not buying it.
Except those 'Contract with America' conservatives elected in 1994 sent two partial-birth abortion bans to Clinton. And one to Bush.
Clinton vetoed both. Bush signed his.
Now we have Dems in Congress and an alleged Republican saying he is opposed to a ban on PBA. Can he be trusted to veto a recall of the ban if the Dems send him one?
IMO, no, given his history.
He's a tough manager, hard on crime, defense, budgets, etc.
I don't want just a manager. I want someone who will use the bully pulpit to promote a conservative agenda.
The 'socials' who won't vote for anyone who doesn't think exactly like them will be his only opponents, and all but the fanatics will vote for him in the end.
Straight out of the Rockefeller Republican self-help manual labelled "How to Stay Out of Power ... But Still Keep Your Self-Esteem".
Gore and Kerry made it clear they wouldn't go after our guns. But we didn't believe them because of their past actions. Same thing here.
"In any case, we cannot expect perfection from our politicians on any issue."
Its NOT just one issue! Rudy is far left on many of the issues that matter to conservative Republicans.
On God, Guns, and Gays he is to the left of most of even the RAT party.
The Rat candidates are, I'd bet, to the left of him on EVERY issue. And again, they would do more about it.
This is definitely an important issue that must be watched.
How can a candidate jettison his past positions on issues so that he can be trusted if he adopts a new position? I don't have an answer to that.
The most important issue is life. The right to defend oneself is part and parcel of the right to life.
The 2d amendment recognizes that God-given right.
Hello
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.