Skip to comments.[Fred]Thompson Brings Gun Control to the Fore (Knocks Rudy on 2nd Amendment)
Posted on 08/21/2007 9:04:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee, who has not officially declared his presidential ambitions, took a not-very-veiled swipe yesterday at the leading Republican candidate, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, for supporting gun control.
Mr. Thompson, who starred in Law & Order, wrote on his Web site: When I was working in television, I spent quite a bit of time in New York City. There are lots of things about the place I like, but New York gun laws dont fall in that category.
Then he decried a recent court ruling on a gun case, writing that the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giulianis administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again.
The critique amounted to an unusual dive into presidential politicking for a man who is barred under federal rules from acting like a candidate. Mr. Thompson is officially only testing the waters of a presidential bid, a status that limits his ability to raise money and engage in active campaigning. But his comments suggest that he is ready to come out against the other contenders in the Republican field.
In his comments, Mr. Thompson went on to suggest that high gun ownership rates may be related to the nations low violent crime rates.
The Giuliani campaign responded. Those who live in New York in the real world not on TV know that Rudy Giulianis record of making the city safe for families speaks for itself, said Katie Levinson, the Giuliani campaigns communications director. No amount of political theater will change that.
Mr. Giuliani has been leading consistently in national polls of the Republican field. But his status has also opened him up to increasing scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’m not sure who Salzberger fears more, Rudy or Fred.
Sounds like a hit piece on both.
JulieAnnie’s ‘gun grabbing’ and pro-litigation bent makes this issue a sure loser for him with the base. Let’s hope liberal Rudy keeps responding anytimg anyone brings up the Second Amendment.
Rooty is a liberal gun grabber and nothing he says can change that fact. He's always supported more gun control and a ban on assault weapons.
While I generally like Rudy...due to his position on the jihad.
However, Fred just won the south, mountain west and much of of the mid-west with that comment. Still, Rudy has a lock on the Northeast and the west coast in the primary and these guys could be slugging it out on the floor of the convention.
It's be WONDERFUL and HEALTHY theatre. Good for the party and good for the country.
I'm certain they'll both stick to the issues and avoid ALL personal attacks.
You never graduated the 7th grade? What causes you to be a shut-in?
That is a good article. John Wayne plus Ronald Reagan. Doesn’t get any better than that. I see similarities, but with those two men there will never be anyone like them. [My hero worship disclaimer.] But I’m glad that author said what he did.
I'm just not impressed, and figured most everyone knew that.
The article does a good job of portraying him as the constitutionalist and conservative hero that many conservatives want him to be. I'm just not sure whether he's really that man. Sometimes, "conservative hero" just seems to be another of his acting roles.
Regardless of what he'll really do in office, the article is encouraging. If nothing else, I'm glad to see him taking shots at Giuliani. If the race becomes Thompson versus Romney, I'll feel better about the outcome regardless of the nominee. Of course, I'd still rather see Duncan Hunter win the nomination.
Fred Thompson has had some rather spotty gun votes in his tenure. To name a few...
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home offenses as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
. Smith Anti-Brady Amendment
On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an Anti-Brady amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever. Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorneys fees. Thompson voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.
Not a major issue for me, but for others...
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I will never vote for Rudy Giuliani. Not ever.
Lots of folks in Kalifornicate, thought they were getting the Terminator — instead they got a wimpy Kennedy sperminator.
He outlawed the purchase of .50 cal BMG single shot rifles!
Who would have known he was a girly boy?
Nah. Nobody took Schwartzenneger for a Conservative. California wanted to elect a celebrity with a tough-guy image and that is what they got. They would have elected Clint Eastwood just as fast and all they would have gotten the liberal Mayor of Carmel.
Never underestimate the California electorate. They are really, really stupid. Who else would vote AGAINST a proposition requiring the State to only pass balance budgets. Only stupid people.
The “end of the Rudy campaign” has been predicted on this forum for months. Yet he remains the frontrunner. Thompson has not yet announced. I hope he does. I look forward to the contest.
Sure he has. No matter how many times they repeat this garbage, it won't come true: it ain't gonna be Julie vs. Hilly (the match-up that works best for them).
The second ammendment was written to help us identify America's traitors. Some think it has to do with individuals or state militias keeping and bearing arms. Not so.
Our founders were smart and tricky. They wrote it so that their descendants could, without any doubt, indentify the enemies of this great nation. I'm not a Mason, but I could have been a brick mason. My garden is plentiful, but I usually eat it all and have little use for Mason Jars. Masonry is pretty boring unless you're traveling on a cobblestone street, then it's bone-jarringly boring. But, let's face it, good streets are a foundation and our nation's foundation is no less so.
Each and every Judge, Politician, Bureaucrat, or Legislator that has ever gone against "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is unAmerican and we owe it to ourselves and our posterity to rid the landscape of such vermin.
"Suprise, b*tch!" /Dave Chapell
I concur but Hunter can’t seem to get up enough support.
The next best thing would be Thompson - Hunter ticket.
Fred has been bringing up the 2nd Amendment - even though nobody has asked him about it - with clockwork regularity.
Meanwhile, getting ANY kind of response to a firearm-related question out of the other front-runners is like getting blood out of a rock!
What does that tell you?
If it has to do something with the Constitution of the United States, don't be shy about checking the appropriate sidebar, whatever it is, in this case frontpage.
I can't tell you all of the times that I see commentaries, whether masthead editorials, i.e. staff editorials without bylines, or regular OpEd, i.e. opinion/editorial, columns for a newspaper such as David Brooks for the NY Times which were not checked off for the editorial sidebar.
Many conservative and libertarian websites write excellent commentaries and sometimes frontpage or breaking news.
Those sidebars are there for a reason. Please use them when appropriate. I find that I can add these articles to sidebars by clicking on "TOPICS" after the article. Then you can enter those terms in lower case letters, and they will appear in the appropriate sidebar.
I think the old west history buffs will tell you Earp was not a revered lawman.
not a major issue for you because you are a Romney fan, and Romney is anti Second Amendment
I’m for Hunter since Thompson hasn’t declared. That said, there are the people who cling to this idea that Guiliani is the only one who can beat hillary. Guiliani IS hillary. There are no differences except for one looks slightly better in a dress.
Guiliani’s time to beat hillary was during the senate race and he blew it. He doesn’t deserve another chance at a higher office.
Guiliani is not the conservatives choice. He’s been the media’s choice and that’s why better candidates like Hunter can’t get any attention.
I’ll take Fred over Rudy any day.
I'd like to see more focus on ALL of Guiliani's liberal positions--as Guiliani's disdain for many conservative principles and values need to be highlighted. His discomfort was highlighted in the first debate when he looked like a fool answering the abortion question.
Watching Rudy address his big government gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-Federal funding for abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-sanctuary cities, global warming, pro-litigation and gay rights crusading makes Rudy look more nervous than Bill Clinton in church!!..lol
Let's hope Fred turns up the pressure on ALL of Rudy's liberal positions!! Go Fred, Go!!
Yea, real world. This extended campaigning season is actually great for exposing the real person. Guiliani, you $***!
Fred Thompson bump!
Bingo!! It exposes Rudy's natural liberalism with his SLAM ON FRED BEING AN ACTOR!!!
It sure didn't take long for the tiresome 'ACTOR CARD' to be played against Fred,,,,just like liberals played the 'ACTOR CARD' against Ronald Reagan.
I can't believe that Rudy has ALREADY stooped to that liberal stance,,,,but then again, it's not like Rudy didn't try to distance himself from Reagan in the past.
Playing the 'ACTOR CARD' was something I expected from the democrats. Rudy is absolutely SHAMELESS to play that card, but then again, why am I surprised? He IS a LIBERAL.
know a lot of history buffs and law and order types are on Free Republic and I have a question regarding gun control 2nd Ammendment and such. History tells us in the late 1800s revered lawmen figures like Wyatt Earp banned guns within city limits of their city (Dodge) how was this accepted (legality ?) and can this be compared to Rudy and his stance on guns when he was Mayor of NYC ?
Fred Thompson has had some rather spotty gun votes in his tenure. To name a few...
Your other one is “Inside DC” trivia, and as irrelevant as all the other GOA smears you omitted (like pretending that letting a Clinton Surgeon General nomination go to a vote on the Senate floor is “anti-gun.”)
I am rabidly pro gun, and Fred impresses me most by his expression of the principle that gun-control is about authoritarianism.
Certainly, he is better than any President in my lifetime on the gun issue, and he is miles better than any current contender.
Huckabee and Hunter might take solid pro-gun stands, but only Freed has the talent to express the position in a way that can win over people in the middle, making gun rights sound reasonable and non-threatening.
Let’s not forget Mittens Romney when he talk about gungrabbers.
It’s great to see Fred take some political shots at Rudy liberal positions.
Run against Rudy now. Ignore Mitt (his real competition) and merely demonstrate that he is more conservative. (Mitt would just say “but I agree with you Fred” anyway, so others can remind voters about Mitt’s expeditious conversion.)
It will demonstrate his capability to run against Hillary.
“...The second ammendment was written to help us identify America’s traitors...”
Well hit! Outta the park!
He needs to get well defined position papers/speechs out there. To the extent that Rudy's his target, there's no shortage of issues Thompson can differentiate himself with, including gun control.
Fred is the best shot at a conservative winner we have.
I like Hunter and Huckabee too but they have no chance...so let’s all get behind the one conservative that can win.....Fred Thompson.
From what I’ve seen so far, Thompson looks like someone who’s not afraid of playing the publicity-wars game - and may even have the gumption to be pro-active rather than reactive.
Absolutely. The bottom line is this.
The Republican Party (and even the Rudy-Apologists) WILL rally and unite behind a conservative.
The Party will NOT rally and unite (because the conservative base will NOT abandon its traditional values and principles) behind a liberal like Guiliani.
Considering your candidate is gung ho for banning "assault weapons" and says the people don't have the right to own guns made for shooting people --
best you just slink away to your little Mitt fan club.
I did--because it WASN'T a proposition requiring a balanced budget (that is already in the State Constitution). The proposition you are probably referring to was being sold as a "spending cap." Unfortunately, it did nothing to curb spending for at least a decade and actually authorized more debt. (You gotta read the fine print--not the Arnold propaganda machine headlines!)
Before labeling all California voters as stupid, perhaps you should become more familiar with the issues.
That's because they ALL agree with him. Rudy, Mitt, McLAME .... so far all the so called TOP TIER candidates are gun grabbers of the highest order.
A few, like Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment, too bad they've got a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected. Fred is both a true conservative AND he's totally electable.
Especially in light of the front running RAT'S negatives. Hillary is the annoited one for their nomination and I'll bet a ton of Dems would vote against her just for who she is and what she represents! Same for Barack and even more so for HIM.
OTOH, if the 'Pubbie nominee is anybody BUT Fred Thompson, I wouldn't give a Hoot in Hell for the chances of victory. I for one will switch my Party affiliation from "R" to "I" and I won't vote. I refuse to vote to cut my own throat. It will mean that the mainstream of my own party to which I've been so loyal for the past 32 years will have literally walked away from my core values and beliefs.
Here is the propostion. You might want to read it again...
Look who opposed this legislation. They were all big labor unions including the California Teachers Association, the California Nurses Association, California Professional Firefighters, California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations. All wanted to keep the river of debt money flowing into their pockets.
Which are you? Teacher, Nurse, Firefighter or LEO?
I am constantly confused by the machinations of this State of California but I have come to feel that Tom McClintock is one of the very, very few California politicians who sincerely wants to see a return to sane budgetary and spending practices in California.
This is what Tom McClintock had to say about Proposition 76, the "live within our means act"...
"Restoring the authority of the governor to halt this states chronic deficit spending is at the heart of the Live Within Our Means Act, and with the adoption of this budget, it is now about the only thing that stands between our state and financial insolvency. We would be well advised to adopt that measure right here as an adjunct to this budget."
The measure even went beyond a mere spending cap and would have attempted to reform problems with the current budget, problems such as education having guaranteed minimum spending levels regardless of revenue (by % of budget), and problems such as Politicians continued raid on transportation money that should go to fixing bridges and highway potholes, despite a PREVIOUS proposition that was passed and that was supposed to prevent future raids on transportation money.
I'm no genius and maybe you are and I'm wrong. But between my reading of the proposition, knowing who supported and who opposed it, and knowing that Tom McClintock felt it was a mandatory piece of legislation -- well, I'll take his opinion over yours any day. Yes, you and others voting against Prop 76 were just plain stupid to do so.