The NRA isn't totally against gun grabbers
Posted on 09/20/2007 1:24:55 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rudolph W. Giuliani will go before the rank and file of the National Rifle Association on Friday, seeking support for his Republican presidential campaign from a group he once likened to "extremists" for its efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons.
But even as the former New York mayor strives to burnish his Second Amendment credentials at the gathering in Washington, a panel of federal judges in his home town will be hearing arguments on the lawsuit that Giuliani filed seven years ago aimed at punishing the nation's gun manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms.
Announcing the lawsuit in 2000, then-Mayor Giuliani wrote in his weekly column about issues facing the city that "this is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths."
He called the lawsuit "an aggressive step towards restoring accountability to an industry that profits from the suffering of others." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit will decide whether the lawsuit -- against Colt, Glock, Smith & Wesson and others -- can move forward despite federal legislation that attempted to grant immunity to the companies.
A spokeswoman for Giuliani's presidential campaign yesterday declined to say whether he still supports the lawsuit or the goals he laid out in 2000.
"Mayor Giuliani successfully worked to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals in order to transform a city out of control," said spokeswoman Maria Comella. "By being tough on gun crimes and enforcing the laws on the books, New York City's murder rate was cut by 66 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Know every candidate's major financial backers, and inner circle as well as closest campaign and policy advisors. This more than anything else will speak VOLUMES about where he is going to eventually end up on these issues in the White House, more so than ANY campaigning, soundbites and position papers right now which is nothing more than Madison Avenue selling soap in a box.
It is sad but I see a lot of good conservatives be seduced by the latter, stampeding into supporting some viewed as "saviors", but failing to do this key work of DUE DILIGENCE on the men who would be The President, much as we would do a background check, look at references, and not just go on how a candidate did in a job interview for a critical team position we in business would hire them for.
I would think we have had our fill of being tricked by RINOs running for President. We need a "real deal" as the nominee of the G.O.P. this time around. There is not much time left for our country.
I don’t know... I don’t get that he’s as fast and loose with the truth as a Clinton. I think he’ll probably try to be Catholic about it... you know ... go in there confess his sins, and promise to not push us overboard first just to see if there is something other than absolute condemntaion that might be available for him.
As it stands though, we get nothing from not speaking to him.
The NRA isn't totally against gun grabbers
be assured THEY ARE NOT.
STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON
Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.
In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.
As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.
But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.
Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.
I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.
I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.
In the Republican Primaries the NRA endorsement of Guiliani will be in the negative numbers, no way will they say anything positive about Rudy.
You can’t possibly be that stupid to think the NRA is going to support him.
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms.
I dunno about you, but this is not any different. Semi-autos are OK for the peasants, but only the police and military are allowed full auto? His position still sucks, and he is still a gun grabber, but he just shifted his position to a different class of firearm.
One guy spouts off out of seventy five members of the board and he won’t be elected the next time around.
What has your gun group done lately except join you on the sidelines while you do nothing?
You have to realize these guys are voted in every April by the members.
He will be voted out next time around....
....guaranteed.
He should be dropped for stupidity if nothing else.But just because he said something idiotic doesn't mean it's NRA policy.
The GOA better wake up to the fact if they damage the NRA, the GOA’s membership doesn’t go up. People who are turned off by organizations don’t rush to the competition. They simply quit.
Without the NRA, the GOA still can’t accomplish anything. They haven’t done a thing by themselves since I started asking five years ago.
*****************
Here's my concern with what he said in your post: he mentions hunting, but not self-defence. Hunting is great, but the true meaning of the Second Amendment is not about hunting.
Personally I think there is always a place for the “no compromise” view. When you sit down to negotiate with someone, having a wild eyed maniac at the table on your side lets you seem reasonable without giving anything back. But personally I agree, the GOA spends too much time and money attacking their own. They don’t criticize our mutual enemies nearly as much as they criticize the NRA. from that perspective, they might as well be on the other side.
There is no way on earth he gets an endorsement. This is a no win situation for Guliani, he has way too much track record on this issue. If he now begins to back pedal and pander he’ll look the complete fool.
Agreed.
Its too early in the morning for that :) But your assessment is right on; The NRA can be trusted.
I've answered that question repeatedly for you in the past and don't care do waste my time again. Kind of like Will Rogers in reverse, the NRA has never found an anti-gun law it couldn't compromise with. The NRA's answer to the BRADY law - make it faster with "instant background checks" Make the pain go away so there won't be any chance of repeal. You and the other NRA uber alles cheerleaders, empty headed ignoramuses, who see nothing wrong in working with the enemy disgust me. I've done more to work against gun control that you ever dreamed of. I organized the protest against Sara Brady at the MLK center in Atlanta while you were sucking on your NRA membership card patting yourself on the back for paying up a membership. Funny I didn't see any NRA memebrs then. My group and I lead the fight to keep gun grabber Sam Nunn from getting reelected - worked too. Funny I didn't see the NRA there. I testified against a number of anti-gun bills in the GA legislature when the gun grabbers brought in their criers for hire, and the few times I did see the NRA guy he was usually saying "this is a bill we can live with" or something to that effect.
Well, he says that full auto is only for the polce and military. In my definition that makes him a gun grabber. Where do you draw the line where some guns are OK and other aren't?
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.