Guliani's gun position??

I voted for Bush twice. I felt he was the lesser of two evils. Now look at what he has done to the Constitution and our nation in general. Are you happy with this?

I am not, and embarassed that I voted for him. In my opinion he has failed as miserably as Jimmy Carter in his presidency.

So I am done with voting for lesser of two evils. If I am not happy with the Republican nominee, I will either vote for a third party, or not vote at all, but I am not going to vote for another candidate who doesn't represent my views.
 
Marko:


You're going to get one of the two. It'll probably be Hillary, but there's a very slight chance that if we all start bailing right now we might save the ship. If we fight it out until November, well, we'll get Mrs. Clinton.
 
Explain how Rudy is better than Hillary. Not how Hillary is worse, not what Hillary will do, but explain how Rudy is better. Bet you can't.
 
Easy:

Taxes, national security, ethics, gun control, respective supporters, judicial nominees, abortion, the individual vrs. "collective" right to keep and bear arms, MoveOn.Org, spending....but if you like Hillbama, vote for 'em. They have a special plan to ban all semi-auto firearms. Because hunter's don't "need" semi-auto firearms. It'll be a "sensible gun safety" law.
 
He says he is for the 2nd amendment. Yeah sure you are Rudy. The only thing you will be able to own under Rudy is a bolt action rifle and maybe a shotgun. For sure we would see another assault weapons ban. Your not fooling anyone Rudy. At least we know what Hillary will do.
 
Well, if you don't like Guiliani, you can always vote for Hillary, I suppose.
Click to expand...

You would have to look under their skirts to see the difference between them (or maybe even that wouldn't work...)

Taxes, national security, ethics, gun control, respective supporters, judicial nominees, abortion, the individual vrs. "collective" right to keep and bear arms, MoveOn.Org, spending
Click to expand...

Rudy and Hillary are both pro-choice, both pro-taxes, both anti-2ndA, neither is particularly ethical, both pay lots of lip-service to national security but do little about it....
So tell me again what's the difference, Fremmer?
 
Taxes, national security, ethics, gun control, respective supporters, judicial nominees, abortion, the individual vrs. "collective" right to keep and bear arms, MoveOn.Org, spending....
Click to expand...
The ones in bold are the ones that matter most to me. National security is a given and judges have a long-term impact. A gun ban won't matter with the right judges in place (neither will several other items listed). Given his record in NY, I think he would nominate judges who are less likely to legislate from the bench and would likely find a gun ban unconstitutional. Getting them confirmed is another issue. Unfortunately one of the major issues not listed above, immigration, they appear to be too close for comfort.

I found an article talking about Rudy's record.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI3Mzk2NzJkY2E2MDliNGI5MzEyMmYzMTZiMWMyZjM=

While he's certainly not my first choice, I see enough in here to definitely distinguish him from "Your Thighness".

NYC has a population greater than many states and a budget larger than some countries. I'd say that's considerable executive experience compared to Shillary.

another interesting link
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008/comparethem.html

As far as changing positions, I'd contend that most of us do that over time. Your view tends to change with age and experience. I'm not saying his changing positions shouldn't be scrutinized, but evolving over 10-15 years certainly shouldn't be compared to flip-flopping from one vote in the Senate to the next (and then bragging about it).
 
Last edited:
Given his record in NY, I think he would nominate judges who are less likely to legislate from the bench and would likely find a gun ban unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

What part of Giulani's record makes you think that his judges would not legislate from the bench and find gun bans unconstitutional?

Giuliani supports legislating from the bench, thats why he sued gun manufacturers when he was in NY.
 
Taxes, national security, ethics, gun control, respective supporters, judicial nominees, abortion, the individual vrs. "collective" right to keep and bear arms, MoveOn.Org, spending....but if you like Hillbama, vote for 'em. They have a special plan to ban all semi-auto firearms. Because hunter's don't "need" semi-auto firearms. It'll be a "sensible gun safety" law.
Click to expand...

You haven't researched the issues, then. Tp see his TRUE colors, you have to go back to before he had Presidential aspirations, to before 2006. Here goes:

gun control- Listen to the man himself:
When suing gun manufacturers as NYC mayor
On AWB94
On the Second Amendment
Giuliani has changed his stated views on guns when he announced he would run for President. As mayor of New York, he was a proponent of urban gun control, but, while running for President, has stated that he thinks differently about more mid-west environments. As Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on Meet the Press in late 1993. He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In 1995, Giuliani called member's of the National Rifle Association "extremists." And that anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for America."

Do you REALLY think he has changed, or is he lying?

Judicial Nominees- lets look at the ones he nominated as New York Mayor:

Most of Giuliani's 75 judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito -- much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. One, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, said he liked her ideology.

Abortion: Rudy Giuliani supports "responsible" restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake. He holds that he and his fellow Republicans can "respectfully disagree" on this issue. . During his 2000 Senate campaign he said that he would "vote to preserve the option for women.” Giuliani has also given six contributions to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s. The payments, totaling $900, were made in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

Rudy: Illegal Immigration Not a Crime, he declared NYC a "sanctuary city" while Mayor.

for the Record- you say if I don't like Rudy, I should vote for Hillary. I won't be voting for any of them. There is no difference to me, at least not on the issues that matter.
 
What part of Giulani's record makes you think that his judges would not legislate from the bench
Click to expand...

I knew someone would bring that up. ;)

One of the criticisms I hear often about Rudy is when he was a prosecutor and AG, his view was too black and white. Well, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, I think that's a good thing. Those who claim "it's a living document' or "its meaning changes over time" really worry me. If those statements are true, then somebody needs to explain to me why the framers included Article V and the Tenth Amendment.

IMHO someone who sees things in black and white is more likely to nominate constructionist judges who won't try to invent or discover rights. Either the document says what is says or it doesn't. Don't like what it says, invoke Article V or let the states manage it as provided for in the Tenth Amendment. Otherwise, it's an overextension of authority and legislating from the bench. Problem is sometimes nominations are based on who can get through the confirmation process, not who you would prefer to nominate. If the dems maintain control of the Senate, any constructionist judges would have a hard time getting through.

I realize there are sometimes shades of gray when something isn't explained well or specifically not addressed. The example that comes to mind is something that exists now that didn't then—broadcasts. Should the First Amendment apply? The framers explicitly stated speech and press because those were the only forms of communication available at the time. Words like "discourse" or "communication" or "exchange of ideas" may have been less limiting. But I digress.

I also agree judges need some latitude to account for the given circumstances. There's certainly not a one-size-fits-all. But I'm hesitant to think judicial discretion is appropriate when determining the constitutionality of a law. Maybe my view is not gray enough for some. Oh well.

While Rudy may not necessarily fit this mold as well as some would like (including me), I'm quite confident Hillary won't fit it at all. (Ginsberg, anyone?)
 
I think that Rudy's version of "black and white" would be the exact opposite of what it should be, and your assessment above is completely wrong and without merit. Clearly, Rudy cannot think the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right, if the thinks its ok to sue gun companies, ban certain weapons entirely, and require someone to show a need to own others.

If someone is anti-gun, then we certainly don't want them, especially if they see things in black and white. Their black is our white. If you can read the 2nd Amendment, and then think Giuliani's record is still compatible with a strict constructional view of it, then something isn't right with the way you see reality.
 
completely wrong and without merit
Click to expand...
Well now...

If you think his judge appointments will be strictly based on the 2nd amendment, then maybe your view is correct. But I doubt that will be the case. That's reality.
 
No I dont think his judicial nominees would be based strictly on the 2nd Amendment, but I do think that given to nominees who are otherwise identical in all ways, except that one is pro-2A and the other is anti-2A (ie, interprets things as Giuliani does), that he would pick the anti.
 
Most of Giuliani's 75 judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito -- much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.
Click to expand...

Scalia is no aggressive conservative in my view. I think an aggressive conservative wants to turn back, at least partially, the judicial activism of the New Deal era. Scalia concurred with the most signficant power grab: the reconstruction of the commerce clause into a general regulatory/police power.

Thomas is the aggressive conservative. He said we should revisit the interpretation of the commerce clause.
 
Like I said before, Rudy is far from first on my list. He’s certainly a political animal and calculates how his decisions and statements will impact his candidacy. But I consider judge appoints be to be one of the most important issues and if he actually sticks to the type of judges he said he will appoint, I can live with that. The appointment of judges impacts whether laws, including gun bans, will be upheld. I still believe (maybe naively) the right or wrong types will be more likely to adhere to the constitution than to find those previously undiscovered meanings we all get the benefit of living with.

Getting some more aggressive conservatives on the bench probably wouldn't be a bad thing. But in today's environment, John Roberts types may be the best to hope for. Hopefully Parker v. District of Columbia will put this to rest before Rudy (or anyone else) has a chance to meddle.
 
I think that its naive and silly to think that a man who is obviously not a supporter of the Bill of Rights would appoint judges who would support the bill of rights.
 
Like any politician, he is telling us what he thinks we want to hear

Around a century ago, NYC began gun control, the first in the nation, outside of southern laws aimed at keeping former slaves disarmed. Many people say that these laws were aimed at restricting guns (especially handguns) among the immigrant population, who, having come mostly from Europe had no tradition (or often knowledge) of individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Sullivan Laws required registration and permits for handguns inside NYC, and have done so for a very long time. If Rudy was such a believer in the 2nd Amendment, I wonder why he never did anything that didn't support the Sullivan Laws, and all the laws passed since?

Rudy's approach a few months ago, in his public statements, was that the laws for NYC were needed, and correct, but might not be the right approach for the rest of the country. And he said he would not work to get NYC type laws for the rest of the country, that it should be up to the localities to decide which kind of gun laws were right for them. Sounds reasonable on the surface, at least compared to all the others who are pushing more gun laws. BUT, the devil is in the details. And personally, based on his past record, I believe that he is just saying what he (and his political handlers) thinks will play best to the rest of the country to get votes, and after the votes are counted, we will find that the leopard did not really change his spots.

In short, he is lying to us, just like all the rest. Look at his record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top