Ammo For Sale

« « Gun Porn | Home | H.R. 2640 » »

Giuliani

Point.

Counter point.

Update: Bitter says no pass for Giuliani:

I was talking to Cam Edwards last night, and we discussed the fact that Giuliani would be trying to win over NRA on the same day that the lawsuit he filed would be in court.

12 Responses to “Giuliani”

  1. countertop Says:

    Touche

    September 21, 2007
    Editorial
    Oh, That Past

    One of the divertissements and disillusions of the primary season is watching the presidential contenders double back in denial of their own local political roots as they play to the biases of their parties’ national nominating base. A prime example occurs today when Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York — where the murder rate made him a chief advocate of banning assault weapons on the home front — seeks the blessing of the National Rifle Association.

    As he approaches his speech in Washington before the N.R.A.’s lock-n-load zealots, the Giuliani campaign denies that its contender is trying to revise and amend his well-documented past as a fervid City Hall lobbyist for federal gun controls.

    “What works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana,” the Giuliani campaign now declares, presenting the candidate as a true adherent of states’ rights when it comes to the gun mayhem taking 30,000 American lives a year. (We’re sure he’d rather not remember that President Bill Clinton lauded him for helping pass the now-defunct national ban on assault weapons.)

    Better not look for Mr. Giuliani, so sensitized to the red-state G.O.P. base, to repeat any of his past warnings that 60 percent of the crime-making guns in his city came from southern states brandishing porous gun controls. In a politically eerie coincidence, the multicity lawsuit previously led by then-Mayor Giuliani, accusing the gun industry of liability for the runaway gun culture, is being argued this week in federal court.

    The Giuliani campaign is silent on whether he still supports his angry complaint as mayor that the gun industry “profits from the suffering of innocent people.”

    No surprise, perhaps. But if he truly wants to keep America safe — like he once promised to keep New York safe — Mr. Giuliani should take this day’s occasion to tell the N.R.A. the truth about the gun carnage in America and why gun control is the only way to stop it.

    Never before has the NY Times been so on point about a Republican candidate.

  2. chris Says:

    President Bill Clinton lauded him for helping pass the now-defunct national ban on assault weapons.

    Since when does the mayor of New York help the President pass a bill in Congress?

    The NRA should never let this guy in the building, and certainly not on the stage.

    I suspect that he will likely be Fred’s VP candidate, which would be a formidable contender against Hillary and her likely running mate, Bill Richardson.

    And yes, I will make book on those predictions.

  3. Bitter Says:

    Why shouldn’t NRA allow him to speak, Chris? Why do you want to shut down opportunities for politicians to save or damn themselves? NRA isn’t endorsing anyone, and the coverage I’ve heard all morning around DC made clear that just because these guys were speaking didn’t mean they were endorsing anyone. If you didn’t want them to endorse someone, that’s one thing. But why are you opposed to allowing more statements on the record that can give us a clearer picture, especially if they screw up or decide to account for their records?

  4. TD Says:

    Should he be given the chance to speak? Sure.

    Should anyone believe a single word from his mouth? Hell no.

  5. Bitter Says:

    I didn’t say people needed to believe him. I am just shocked that some pro-gun rights people would be so quick to shut down his other rights to address us. I’d like to believe that people are generally intelligent enough to make up their own minds. It makes me wonder how little people like chris must think of others if he doesn’t even want the words to be spoken to allow people to make up their own minds.

  6. John Hardin Says:

    Bitter:

    What “right to address us”? The First Amendment means the *government* can’t shut someone up. It does *not* mean that a private group has to give anyone who wishes it a forum and polite attention.

    The Right to Freedom of Speech does not carry with it the Right to Force Others to Listen.

    It’s not that we don’t want the words to be spoken, it’s that we’re tired of listening to the lies.

  7. Bitter Says:

    I never said a private group has to allow it, but we’re about freedom, so why not? What’s the incentive to leave him out since he’s polling so well? And shouldn’t the organization allow members the opportunity to hear him?

    There’s no enforceable right, but there’s a right in terms of doing what’s right. I’m going to assume you haven’t read enough of my comments to understand that I do comprehend the distinction, and that when talking about NRA, sometimes it’s more about doing what’s right as opposed to an enforceable right. Believe it or not, some people still believe you should do the right thing without the threat of a gun or handcuffs.

  8. chris Says:

    It makes me wonder how little people like chris must think of others if he doesn’t even want the words to be spoken to allow people to make up their own minds.

    Rudy has a 20 year track of opposing the positions of the NRA.

    His actions, like the filing of the frivolous lawsuit against firearms manufacturers – from which he now, apparently, seeks to disassociate himself – speak volumes.

    I don’t think that the NRA needs to give him the microphone for 20 minutes

    to allow people to make up their own minds.

    The issue is to whom the NRA gives podium time at its annual meeting.

    Bitter thinks that we should give podium time to self-described opponents of the NRA, while I think that podium time should be reserved for supporters of the right to keep and bear arms.

    Rudy thinks we are extremists and said earlier this year that the 2A may mean one thing in rural areas and yet another thing in large cities.

    If our members want to hear what Rudy has to say about the right to keep and bear arms, they can tune in to television news or read today’s article in the NYT about Rudy’s historical position on guns.

    Rudy is a poster boy for the gun control movement, and I don’t think that the NRA should pretend that we owe him podium time, and respect for his anti-freedom positions, because he is polling well.

    Hillary is polling well, and she shares Rudy’s feelings about the right to keep and bear arms.

    Perhaps the NRA should give her air time as well.

  9. Bitter Says:

    The issue is to whom the NRA gives podium time at its annual meeting.

    Except they didn’t invite him to speak at their annual meeting. Devil is in the damn details…

    The event was nothing more than a press event with industry folks to promote NRA membership. The political arm of it was nothing more than to give candidates a chance to come and grovel before the gun industry and NRA. If anything, it was more telling in who did and did not accept the open invite as opposed to who said what.

    Jesus, get your facts right before you come into the argument. When you’re arguing over who should be allowed to hear what, make sure you actually know the audience. It can very quickly change the frame of the debate.

  10. Xrlq Says:

    Rudy is a poster boy for the gun control movement, and I don’t think that the NRA should pretend that we owe him podium time, and respect for his anti-freedom positions, because he is polling well.

    Even if you think he is still the poster boy for the gun control movement, as he clearly was in the 1990s, there’s something to be said for getting him to publicly renounce his past views. If for no other reason, then so the gun-grabbers won’t trust him anymore, either.

  11. chris Says:

    The event was nothing more than a press event with industry folks to promote NRA membership. The political arm of it was nothing more than to give candidates a chance to come and grovel before the gun industry and NRA. If anything, it was more telling in who did and did not accept the open invite as opposed to who said what.

    My apologies.

    That puts things in a different perspective.

  12. chris Says:

    He spoke at a “Celebration of Values” conference at a NRA podium. At least, that is what the Star Tribune reported. http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1438625.html

    The WaPo also reported that he spoke at the NRA Convention.

    I thought that that is what I had previously read.