Posted on 09/19/2007 5:52:12 AM PDT by NapkinUser
The 2007 version of Rudy Giuliani defends his past support of gun control as a necessary evil to fight crime in a big city.
When pressed about his views of the Second Amendment by Sean Hannity of Fox News, Giuliani attempted to tap dance around his gun control record without alienating the 290 million people who don't live in New York City.
The former mayor told Hannity that gun control was "appropriate" for the city, but that states and cities should be allowed to make those decisions locally.
"So," Hannity continued, "you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?"
"Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, … maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules."
Apparently, in Giuliani's America law-abiding citizens in large cities would not enjoy the same constitutional liberties as the rest of the country. Why? Are city dwellers not as trustworthy as country folks? Are metro-Americans not deserving of the right to self-protection?
Disarming citizens because they live in a high crime area is taking away the most effective means of self-defense from the people who need it most. Creating mandatory victims is no way to fight a crime problem.1
If Giuliani's gun control agenda was really limited 'only' to big cities, that would be disturbing enough. But the record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation.
The new Giuliani of state's rights simply does not square with the Mayor of the '90s.
In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss national gun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but argued that it didn't go far enough.
The President, largely crediting Giuliani for the idea, enthusiastically sent Attorney General Janet Reno off to develop a gun licensing and registration system.2
The Clinton-Giuliani scheme was slowed only by the Republican Revolution of 1994.
In May of 1994, as the battle over the ban on certain semi-automatic firearms reached its height, Giuliani threw his support behind the ban. On the eve of the final vote, he noted that so-called assault weapons "have no legitimate purpose."3
When the ban passed, Giuliani commented that, "This is an important step towards curtailing the indiscriminate proliferation of guns across the nation."4 [emphasis added]
When a lunatic attacked innocent civilians at the Empire State Building in 1997, Mayor Giuliani used the tragedy to again push for gun control beyond his city's limits.
"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones -- that exist for driving an automobile," the Mayor said.
"The United States Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun."5
When the Mayor did focus on City gun laws, which already were among the most stringent in the country, his effort was only to further disarm the law-abiding.
In 1998, Giuliani pushed a proposal that would require gun owners to use "trigger locks" on all firearms, thus rendering the guns useless in the even of an emergency. Such a law would be enforced, said the Mayor, through "criminal penalties and the revocation of gun permits."6
If Giuliani had a federalist conversion, it did not occur in his first six years as mayor, for in 2000, he again took his gun control show on the road.
In becoming the first Republican mayor to launch a city lawsuit against gun makers, Giuliani complained that "less restrictive gun laws in other parts of the country" exacerbated the crime problem in New York City.7
Giuliani is not only a long-time supporter of gun control, but his support was convenient to leading anti-gun Democrats eager for the appearance of bipartisanship.
A big-city mayor supporting gun control is hardly newsworthy. The fact that Giuliani is a Republican gave the story its man-bites-dog angle.
In the midst of the fight over the 1994 crime bill and semi-auto gun ban, Giuliani escorted President Clinton to Minnesota to stump for the bill. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune noted that, "Clinton seemed especially proud that New York's Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, as well as Philadelphia's Democratic Mayor Edward Rendell, agreed to accompany him on his trip."8
New York Senator Chuck Schumer also gleefully accepted Giuliani's support of the semi-auto ban. According to a Newsday article, Schumer hoped Giuliani would "sway some skittish Republicans."9
The following year, when the Republican controlled Congress tried to repeal the gun ban, Giuliani made the trip to Washington to testify against the repeal effort.
So, if the new Rudy Giuliani in fact supports state's rights in the area of gun control, it is a dramatic shift from the policies he has been advocating for over a decade.
This flirtation with federalism is merely a facade, however, for in the recent interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani assured gun owners that he supports only gun control laws that are "reasonable and sensible." He then went on to defend his support of the Brady bill and the semi-auto ban, which are neither. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Interestingly, when Giuliani addressed the conservative CPAC group in March of this year, he credited the decline in New York's crime rate, which was significant, not to gun control but to the implementation of certain policing strategies based on James Q. Wilson's Broken Windows theory. Though not without controversy, New York police officials took petty crime more seriously, based on the belief that petty criminals would eventually turn into more dangerous and violent criminals.
2. Washington Times, December 8, 1993
3. Newsday, May 3, 1994
4. Newsday, May 6, 1994
5.http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html
6. Mayor Proposes a Law Requiring Trigger Locks on All Guns; The New York Times, May 19, 1998
7. http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000a/weekly/wkly0626.html
8. Minneapolis Star-Tribune, August 13, 1994
9. Rudy used by Dems to push gun control; Newsday 5/3/1994
10. Hannity and Colmes, February 5, 2007
Those of us in the know about Rudy’s anti-gun stances, know not to trust him. On this issue, or anything else.
This rates pretty highly among the reasons I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Giuliani.
More “non-answers” from the “non-candidate”
"Rudy Giuliani is a just Democrat who’s willing to blow stuff up."
I'd like to use that as a tagline but it's copyrighted :-(
Oh and that quote came from a ten year old kid. (that boy will be going places)
Rudy is irrelevant, he is unelectable. What gun owners MUST worry about is President Hillary.
the alternative would most likely plunge the U.S. into a socialist hell-hole where there is a shortage of everything...except misery.
I don’t rust him much, but I trust him a whole lot more than any Communist with fat legs. And, in the end, that is likely to be the choice.
hahah, ‘Communist with fat legs.’ very funny.
His stances on the big 3, abortion, guns, gays, put him off a lot of people in the conservative base. Anyone wondering why the money hasn't appeared for Rudy or Mitt only have to look at the mistrust a lot of people have for these two.
Good ‘ol rooooty. Keep kicking conservatives away from the Republican party. That’ll work
You may change, but your haven't the time, nor office to gain my trust between now and the general election of 2008.
If it can not be shown that a politician trusts us with firearms, there is no way we should give that politician the combination to our gun safe.
I believe that the risk Rudy poses on RKBA issues is grossly exaggerated here on FR. The RATS are not going to send any gun control legislation to the President's desk. They have concluded that they willl lose control of Congress if they do.
You must be kidding me. The combination of Rudy Giuliani in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress would destroy this country faster than any other scenario I can envision.
See California and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Exhibit A in support of this point.
Hopefully the primaries will show Tooty that the rest of the country doesn’t revolve around NYC.
Just keep telling yourself that and maybe wishing will make it happen.
Once the Rats have any Democrat or Democrat disguised as a Republican (Guiliani) installed in the White House along with holding Congress, they will wipe the 2nd Amendment off the table once and for all. Remember that UN Small Arms Treaty that we haven't ratified YET?
The reason I don’t agree with you is that the RATS want to stay in power. They are convinced (especially on the House side) that they will be voted out of office at the next election if they do that kind of thing.
They have done a lot of research over the past eight years about why the voters don’t like them, and gotten an earful about their attitudes on guns. They have heard the message. Look at who they ran against incumbents—guys like Jim Webb who has a concealed carry permit.
You do realize that most of the elected Democrats and the majority of the people who support them (minus the brain dead who have no idea why they're perpetually voting Democrat, but nevertheless do, and minus the voters who are bought with goodies) HATE this country and can't wait for the day when they can finally do away with the Constitution and everything the country was built on, don't you?
When pressed about his views of the Second Amendment by Sean Hannity of Fox News, Giuliani attempted to tap dance around his gun control record without alienating the 290 million people who don't live in New York City.
The former mayor told Hannity that gun control was "appropriate" for the city, but that states and cities should be allowed to make those decisions locally.
"So," Hannity continued, "you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?"
"Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, … maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules."
I know that Hannity is more interested in celebrity than actual conservative principle, but come on. Somebody tell me he didn't actually let Rudy get away with that dance.
Since when is it "the state's right to choose" which parts of the Constitution it will follow?
Which states have the right to eliminate the First Amendment? The Fifth? That old Fourth Amendment is pretty pesky - I'm sure a lot of municipalities would like to "have a different set of rules" about that one.
Pathetic, both of them.
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.