For Rudy Giuliani Fans and Girlianites Only

What we’re in the midst of, I suspect, is a pretty significant ideological realignment. The Republican party has already taken from classic liberalism (with a hefty dose of Marxism) the notion the the goal of foreign policy ought to be something akin to permanent revolution, and that the United States ought to have the altruism–indeed, that it has the moral responsibility–to be the World’s Liberator, deposing tyrants, righting wrongs, playing SuperCop, and essentially enforcing Western democracy and liberalism as a sort of One World Government rule, the standard by which all nations are judged and, if found wanting, punished or put back into line by we who have ultimate authority over them. This is no small leap from even the dominant Republican political thought circa 2000.

Example:

Bush 2000: “I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence.”

Giuliani 2007: “Part of what we have to do and we haven’t done right is take on that responsibility of nation-building.”

Bush 2000: “I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”

Giuliani 2007: “Maybe we have to start thinking about some kind of hybrid organization of our military and our civilian agencies of the government. There’s a lot here that the Justice Department can bring to bear in places like Iraq and if we have to do another Iraq in the future. There’s a lot of skills that the Commerce Department can bring to bear, the Treasury Department, and a lot of our private businesses. This nation needs to get started again. Maybe we didn’t see that because this idea of nation-building is not one you want to undertake lightly. But whether we wanted to or not, it’s now our responsibity. We’ve got to get it done right.”

http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=851
 
Well, I don't consider myself a "fan", but this is what Rudy recently stated to the NRA:

So I think it -- I believe -- and I'm sure you do -- that law enforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books, as opposed to just passing new laws or new extension of laws. I found, as United States attorney, and then later as the mayor, that in most cases the failures were in enforcing the laws that presently existed, and the more effectively we enforced those laws, the more we were able to bring down crime.

We also believe in protecting the rights of every law-abiding citizen, and we believe in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. And we believe in putting criminals behind bars when they commit crimes with guns or in any other way. And that's part of the philosophy -- that's part of the philosophy I used in New York City to take a city that was the crime capital of America and make into the safest large city in the country.
Click to expand...

And:

The Parker decision, which I'm sure you're all familiar with, was decided right here in the D.C. Circuit by Judge Larry Silberman. It struck down the laws in the District of Columbia that effectively made it illegal inside the District to own an operable handgun for self- defense in your own home.

I read the Parker decision. It seemed to me an excellent example of strict constructionism, where a judge was struggling to find out the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not necessarily what he would like it to mean. I don't know what Judge Silberman would have liked the words of the Second Amendment to mean, and Judge Silberman didn't care about what he liked it to mean. What Judge Silberman cared about is what the people who wrote those words meant. What did they mean when they wrote the Second Amendment? What did they intend when they wrote the Second Amendment? Not what would I like it to intend or what would you like it to intend. That when we appoint a strict constructionist judge, that's what we're appointing. We're appointing someone to interpret what somebody else meant, not to make it up as he or she goes along. And Judge Silberman is a strict constructionist judge.

Another reason the Parker decision should be upheld is to underscore the castle doctrine. A person's home is their castle. People have a right to protect themselves in their homes. It's a right that I believe they should have, but whether I believe they should have or they shouldn't have, the Framers of our Constitution have given it to them. And it has to be respected. After all, the Second Amendment is a freedom that is every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first 10 amendments.
Click to expand...

So it does not appear that Rudy wants to pass a law requiring the showing of a need to own a handgun. To the contrary, Rudy wants to enforce exisiting laws, rather than the enactment of new firearm laws such as a law to require a showing of need to own a handgun. He specifically approves of the Parker decision, and of the castle doctrine.
 
Great, so did you carry before you achieved basic acceptable self defense accuracy?
Click to expand...


leads to
In places where it was acceptable to carry openly? Yes. 8-10 inch groups at 40 feet and margin of paper at 75 feet is completely pathetic, and it's not something I'm particularly proud about. It'd be idiotic to use that sorta thing in an adrenaline-soaked moment.

It's also better to have the tool even if it can't be used to its full potential, than not have the tool at all. A lot of confrontations occur at very short ranges, and some handgun uses (at least for my sorta area, shotshell stuff) don't require the level of accuracy usually recognized as necessary for self-defense purposes.
Click to expand...

Right...so tell that to the shot baby or something when ya miss :cool:

Straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...

No actually legitimate question.

Here...as to the rest...Switzerland :)

Don't mind WA's attempts at distraction, he's cranky but entertaining
Click to expand...

If I add one more to the list of thinkers vis a vis parroters, I win :)

WildreallybadflutodayAlaska ™
 
Well, I don't consider myself a "fan", but this is what Rudy recently stated to the NRA:
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't click the link and listen. Rudy says you should have to show a reason you need a handgun. He also says his position has been consistent on that since the 1980's. His driver's license analogy completely overlooks the fact that no state requires licensees to show that they actually need a car.

One position has been consistent for 20 years, versus a recent campaign speech to a skeptical audience.
 
Right...so tell that to the shot baby or something when ya miss
Click to expand...

With snakeshot? They don't even break paper at 75 feet from a rifle, and the sorta situations they're useful for overwhelmingly involve aiming toward the ground.

For actual JHP, yeah, it'd be legally dangerous to go spraying it around at forty feet, but that's not exactly representative of all threats. If confrontation occurred at short ranges it'd still be a lot safer for everyone but the aggressor than messing around with knives, pepper spray, or tasers.

EDIT: By the same metric, should we block those who use .45ACP or other rounds with known over-penetration issues, in case they don't hit bone or otherwise might send a bullet through some thin-as-a-rail drug addict and into someone on the other side of a wall?
Safety isn't about what you have in your hands, or your ability to put twelve shots in one ragged hole. Those attributes certainly help, but they don't prevent you from doing something stupid. Following the four rules will. Of course, if you think the government would ever take up a test so basic, well, I've got a bridge in Minnesota to sell you.

I still don't see the relevance in regard to the Opening Post, Mr. WildAlaska.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't consider myself a "fan", but this is what Rudy recently stated to the NRA:
Click to expand...

That would be the speech in which he started to get the actual words of the second amendment wrong, then suddenly got a phone call allegedly from his wife.

A creative FReeper provided a projected transcript of the actual call:

So he confused the language and was going to go quote the 4th Amendment until an AIDE called him--not his wife!

BOTH SIDES OF THE ACTUAL PHONE CALL:

RUDY: Hello dear...

AIDE: You flippin' IDIOT! You just said “the people shall be secure...” That's the 4th Amendment! They want to hear about GUNS! Remember? The SECOND Amendment.

RUDY: I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now.

AIDE: Yeah... the wife thing--Good cover. Now, you need to pick the conversation back up and put it on topic. Cut to the part about the Parker Decision.

RUDY: Would you like to say hello? (He laughs, apparently at something she says.) I love you and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished, OK?

AIDE: You don't remember the Parker decision? Damn it! Start on Page 3. Just read the speech and quit ad libbing this thing! You are screwing up, big time!

RUDY: OK, have a safe trip, bye-bye. Talk to you later dear, I love you.
Click to expand...

He also talked about the "Parking" case (which we all knew as Parker and now know as Heller). Maybe if he cared enough to develop a passing familiarity with the 2nd amendment and the most important case about it to come along in our lifetimes, it would be easier to take his newfound appreciation for guns more seriously than the position he held for over 20 years. Getting the name of the case wrong is kind of forgivable, but the text of the amendment? Couldn't he even bother to prepare a little bit before speaking to the NRA?
 
Whether he was "lying then or lying now"? :rolleyes: Perry Mason doesn't approve.

He clearly stated his intention to enforce existing laws, not enact additional gun control, and spoke about a very important case that addressed the the individual right to possess a handgun.

Rudy's position on gun control is clear: enforce the laws we already have, and no new gun control. Not bad; I didn't really realize that until this thread.

Good thread!
 
He clearly stated his intention to enforce existing laws,
Click to expand...
Yeah, as they are in his home turf. He likes gun laws like NYC's just fine, and he put them there. Sorry, no thanks.

and spoke about a very important case that addressed the the individual right to possess a handgun.
Click to expand...
In short, the ability to be able to defend oneself against violence outside one's home. If he's in favor of open carry of rifles everwhere, then I might go with him on that, but otherwise he can keep his opinions of sidearms to himself. No way in hell does he have any right to render me or anyone helpless everywhere except my house, hunting land, and the rifle range.
 
giuliani.jpg


Here's the lib in his natural environment, along with "Sarah's drooling meal ticket" and Chuckie "Don't get between me and a news camera" Schumer.

D.
 
Tell me whether you agree or disagree with Rudy's idea that Congress should pass a law saying we should show a need for a handgun before being allowed to own one?
Click to expand...

I disagree.


Or, if you're going to tell me that Rudy does not hold that position any longer, tell me where is the evidence to support your contention?
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, I try and not hold people accountable today for what was said SEVEN years ago. I can't remember the stats exactly but gun sales rose dramatically after 9/11. No doubt plenty of soccer moms put their safety over the usual cocktail demagoguery once they realized that bad things can happen. Its not inconcievable that Guliani could have changed his mind as well.

But the question isn't really whether he has changed his mind. He's on record saying that he doesn't believe in an AWB or federal gun control at all, and wouldn't sign such a bill if presented with it. He thinks gun control should be a state or city issue. While I can't say I'm thrilled with that viewpoint, its alot easier to fight for the "cause" if you don't have to deal with the juggernaut thats the federal government.

So the question really is, do you or do you not believe Guliani when he says he doesn't believe in federal gun control.

Well, my answer is I don't know. What I do know however is that Guliani understands that the gun owner voting bloc is big enough to where it would prevent him from being elected, or should he win, re-elected if he did something to piss up off. I also know that as a politician he's aware of what happened to the democrats when they decided to stick it to gun owners.

Since the inevitable comparison here is to Hillary, she has no such ties or restraints. People who own guns aren't going to vote for her anyways. However she does have a bunch of ravenous kooks that would love to see firearms illegal to placate.

And therein lies the object lesson. Whether someone does something (or doesn't in this case) because they want to or because they fear a reprisal doesn't matter. All that matters is what is done.
 
Well, for starters, I try and not hold people accountable today for what was said SEVEN years ago. I can't remember the stats exactly but gun sales rose dramatically after 9/11. No doubt plenty of soccer moms put their safety over the usual cocktail demagoguery once they realized that bad things can happen. Its not inconcievable that Guliani could have changed his mind as well.
Click to expand...

That would be 27 years ago and consistently straight on through 7 years ago. I'm assuming you watched the video this time, so you can see he repeated his position like a mantra, like he had said those very words in that order into a camera many, many times before. It was in stark contrast to his inability to say the 2nd amendment in front of the NRA.

Rudy says he changed his mind about guns on 9/11, but he is on record with anti-gun comments in 2002 and 2004.

But the question isn't really whether he has changed his mind. He's on record saying that he doesn't believe in an AWB or federal gun control at all, and wouldn't sign such a bill if presented with it. He thinks gun control should be a state or city issue.
Click to expand...

I doubt he has changed his mind, but I'll bite. On record where? He obviously thought for 20 plus years that Congress should pass a law saying we must show a need for a handgun before owning one, which seems like federal gun control to me. When did he change his mind? Your source?

So the question really is, do you or do you not believe Guliani when he says he doesn't believe in federal gun control.
Click to expand...

My questions are, when exactly did he start saying that, and can you provide a source?

Since the inevitable comparison here is to Hillary, she has no such ties or restraints.
Click to expand...

Actually, the original comparison was about their respective views of the constitution as it relates to gun control. Rudy apparently believes Congress has the authority (presumably under the commerce power) to pass a law saying we must show a need for a handgun before owning one. I assume he would appoint judges who share that view. No doubt Hillary also believes Congress has the authority (presumably under the commerce power) to pass a law saying we must show a need for a handgun before owning one. I assume she would appoint judges who share that view. Either way, we get an expansive view of federal power under the commerce clause. I'm still a Clarence Thomas kind of guy on that question.
 
Why, why, WHY do we even have to gamble with the possibility of finding out??? It ticks me off on a minute to minute basis that the Republican party didn't disallow him from running under their name in the first place.
 
Well, I don't consider myself a "fan", but this is what Rudy recently stated to the NRA:


So I think it -- I believe -- and I'm sure you do -- that law enforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books, as opposed to just passing new laws or new extension of laws. I found, as United States attorney, and then later as the mayor, that in most cases the failures were in enforcing the laws that presently existed, and the more effectively we enforced those laws, the more we were able to bring down crime.

We also believe in protecting the rights of every law-abiding citizen, and we believe in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. And we believe in putting criminals behind bars when they commit crimes with guns or in any other way. And that's part of the philosophy -- that's part of the philosophy I used in New York City to take a city that was the crime capital of America and make into the safest large city in the country.


And:


The Parker decision, which I'm sure you're all familiar with, was decided right here in the D.C. Circuit by Judge Larry Silberman. It struck down the laws in the District of Columbia that effectively made it illegal inside the District to own an operable handgun for self- defense in your own home.

I read the Parker decision. It seemed to me an excellent example of strict constructionism, where a judge was struggling to find out the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not necessarily what he would like it to mean. I don't know what Judge Silberman would have liked the words of the Second Amendment to mean, and Judge Silberman didn't care about what he liked it to mean. What Judge Silberman cared about is what the people who wrote those words meant. What did they mean when they wrote the Second Amendment? What did they intend when they wrote the Second Amendment? Not what would I like it to intend or what would you like it to intend. That when we appoint a strict constructionist judge, that's what we're appointing. We're appointing someone to interpret what somebody else meant, not to make it up as he or she goes along. And Judge Silberman is a strict constructionist judge.

Another reason the Parker decision should be upheld is to underscore the castle doctrine. A person's home is their castle. People have a right to protect themselves in their homes. It's a right that I believe they should have, but whether I believe they should have or they shouldn't have, the Framers of our Constitution have given it to them. And it has to be respected. After all, the Second Amendment is a freedom that is every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first 10 amendments.
Click to expand...

So it does not appear that Rudy wants to pass a law requiring the showing of a need to own a handgun. To the contrary, Rudy wants to enforce exisiting laws, rather than the enactment of new firearm laws such as a law to require a showing of need to own a handgun. He specifically approves of the Parker decision, and of the castle doctrine.
Click to expand...

Wow, Fremmer, there is just so much that's wrong with that; it's truly hard to believe that gun owners would buy that bait n switch, smoke & mirrors routine:

1. As mentioned, one thing he's been saying for 20 years, and the other he JUST recently made up to use in a speech to those from whom he needs support to get past a primary to make it into a general where candidates are known for having reversals, errrm, modifications to their positions (between primaries & generals).
2. You stated: "So it does not appear that Rudy wants to pass a law requiring the showing of a need to own a handgun. To the contrary, Rudy wants to enforce exisiting laws, rather than the enactment of new firearm laws such as a law to require a showing of need to own a handgun." That is incorrect on its face. Those two things are NOT mutually exclusive, and if you analyze exactly what he said, you can see that he squeaks in just enough ambiguity to allow him some wiggle room down the road. Take note - he said (from your quote): "So I think it -- I believe -- and I'm sure you do -- that law enforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books, as opposed to just passing new laws or new extension of laws." That "JUST" is an extremely key word, and is sliding that in there is how slick politicians like him can claim later on that they're NOT changing their position. He is saying what I said - that the two ideas of focusing primarily on enforcing existing laws, AND - AND passing a few new ones (remember, not JUST passing new laws allows for SOME new laws), are not mutually exclusive. Clearly, I think, he still believes in passing some new laws. Try to guess which one he thinks would be a good idea? Perhaps that awesome idea he's been talking about for 20 years?
 
Hmmmm... okay, let's expand the question a bit.

Here's the scenario: It's November 2008 and you are at the voting booth. On the ballot you see: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliana, and some weak, "James Dobson" 3rd party candidate (who is polling around 6 per cent)

What button do you push? That is something you need to start considering, because that is probably going to be whats on your ballot. Rudy is NOT my first choice - not at all. But come November, 2008 and I have the choice between him, Hillary and some 3rd party person, there is no doubt in my mind who I'll be voting for. For those expressing such disdain for Rudy, how would YOU vote in that situation?

At the end of the day, you sometimes have to chose the "lessor of the evils" And Rudy is a far cry from Hillary, IMHO.
 
Here's the bottom line for me. I can live with an expansive definition of the commerce clause. I don't like it or agree with it, but I can live with it. (Of course arguing whether a president prefers a narrowly construed CC is irrelevant since its the court that gets to decide the scope, and given Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts, I don't think we are going to get sweeping expanses any time soon).

What I cannot live with is a federal AWB, permanent or temporary. I cannot live with a dirty bomb going off in an american city. I can't live with liberal judicial appointees, nor can I live with higher taxes, socialized medicine, or the fairness doctrine.

Life and politics are about compromise. Since I'm not running there are going to be disagreements between myself and any candidate. As such, I need to find the guy that 1) can win (which excludes Paul) and 2) best represents my views. I'm hoping its Fred, but if not then Guliani will get my vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top