Guliani's gun position??

Re Rudi's position on firearms, from his own statements, as I understand. "The NRA is an extremist group" or words to that effect. Then there was his bit about gun owner licensing.

BTW, if NRA is an "extremist group/organization", what does that say of American citizens who are members thereof, and his view regarding same?
 
National Security ?

What exactly is National Security? From what I've seen it means using our military to invade other countries to steal that counties natural resourses and build military bases in that country. We protect BIG business interest abroad as we sellout the working class of this country.

Every politician and every person in the military takes an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION from ALL enemies foreign and domestic. Not national security.
By defending national security our government ends up crapping on the constitution. Do you want freedom or security? Can't have both.

If anybody in the military that actually believed it that oath then the military should have overthrown our current government years ago. But they know who butters their bread.

Because of the campaign financing, or bribery, we can't trust any politician. If there were any honest politician they wouldn't stand a chance. The big money flowing into Washington D.C. would smear them so bad they wouldn't serve one term. And if you take more money in bribes then the job pays you are a criminal by law. So we end up with the best government money can buy.
Not one person in the military or government is interested in defending the constitution but in their own career.:barf:
 
im no fan of Rudy,but i would still prefer him to Hillary when it comes to 2A rights.

if for no other reason that if he wanted the gun vote for any possible re-election,he would need to watch his step at least for the first term.

....maybe?:(
 
Unregistered wrote [qoute]

But Rudy was for gun control before he was against it, and no one seems to care.

[/quote]

This may actually reflect a change of perspective rather than a change of position.

As mayor of NYC, Rudy may not have been sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, and was - perhaps - perfectly free to pander to the anti-gun crowd to his (and their) hearts' content. I don't know what the oath of office he swore to the citizens of NYC, and honestly, as it's one of my life goals to never live there, I don't really care.

OK, I was wrong, I cared enough to look it up and here's the oath Rudy took upon being sworn in as mayor

"I, Rudolph W. Giuliani," he repeated, "do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of New York, the Charter of the City of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Mayor of the City of New York, according to the best of my ability."
Click to expand...

So, it's quite evident that he had no interest in upholding the Constitution of the US as Mayor of NYC (his first sworn obligation), so now we're supposed to believe he'll do it as pres?

Why doesn't this give me warm fuzzies?

All the best,
Rob
 
Since it is now obvious that we are getting an anti gun President to go with our anti gun Congress, I decided in October to buy one gun every month from now until the new President is sworn in. That means that I need to buy 15 guns from October 2007 to January 19, 2009.

October 2007 Colt Combat Commander
November 2007 to be announced

Who is with me?
 
divemedic writes:

Since it is now obvious that we are getting an anti gun President to go with our anti gun Congress, I decided in October to buy one gun every month from now until the new President is sworn in. That means that I need to buy 15 guns from October 2007 to January 19, 2009.

October 2007 Colt Combat Commander
November 2007 to be announced

-----------------------

The above are, in large part, expressions of opinion. Fair enough, but is the expressed opinion correct, and might it be wrong to presume that nominations, let along election results are an accomplished fact, and therefore known or pre-ordained?

Secondly, if the writer is so sure of what he predicts, then possibly "unwanted" by gun owners, legislation might well be enacted by the "anti gun congress", and signed into law by the "anti gun president" presupposed. Given this possibility, how wise is it to, on an open forum, publish a listing of guns owned, given that laws precluding their ownership might be created. Perhaps the ownership of guns could be discovered in other ways, but why make it easy for the bastards?
 
Rudy's position on gun control is like John Kerry's position on Irag-or Vietnam
-he was for it before he was against it. He's a lefty who's trying to win the
nomination of what is the more conservative party and he's trying to tack right and he's had his epiphany and is now a "born again" 2A supporter. No
different than Obama trying to drum up support among black churches and evangelicals while trying to appease the homosexuals.
As for Rudy's talk about appointing "strict" constructionists" to the Supreme
Court, we must remember Eisenhower's comment that he made two big mistake as President and they were both sitting on the Supreme Court. Reagan's legacy is tarnished by his appointment of O'connor and Kennedy and Bush 41's is tarnished by Souter. My vote will go to the candidate who says that if the Supreme Court makes a decision he opposes orm finds offensive, he will work with Congress to overturn it.
 
Alan:

It doesn't matter who wins, all of the front running candidates (except Thompson) are antigun.

Among Democrats:

Clinton 47%
Obama 25%
Edwards 11%

Among Republicans:
Giuliani 33%
McCain 16%
Thompson 15%


Given this possibility, how wise is it to, on an open forum, publish a listing of guns owned, given that laws precluding their ownership might be created.
Click to expand...

I have a CWP, and I am a member of the NRA, the GOA, the SAF, and many of my weapons were bought at an FFL dealer, meaning that there are 4473's on file. When the time comes, (assuming it is that bad)the police will be stopping at my home pretty early in the process.
 
divemedic:

Personally speaking, I do not believe that Fred Thompson has the proverbial "Chinaman's Chance". I could of course be wrong. As to others, how about the possibility of Bill Richardson of New Mexico, admittedly a long shot or possibly Ron Paul, though you did mention "front runners". Stranger things have happened.

As to the other aspect, i.e. things one might own as legal personal property, what you say is likely correct. That being said, I suppose I prefer to keep personal matters personal. Of course, what my presence on this site might say to that is, or certainly be, open to question.

Finally, re primary elections and the poor pool that you describe, I wonder as to what might happen if large masses of both Democrats and Republicans wrote in their own names in or offered "none of the above".
 
I agree with all of the above. My personal reasons for buying a gun a month from now until the inauguration is that I am giving the gun industry funds to build a war chest, while getting objects of value in exchange.

Win-win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top