Rudy Giuliani, Guns, and Federalism

P

publius42

New member
I think I'll take WildAlaska's suggestion from a week ago and put this question in a separate thread:

Rudy wants Congress to pass a law saying that we must prove a need for it before being allowed to own a handgun. Scanning around Article 1, Section 8 for where they might find the power to do that, I come once again to the commerce clause.

My question is: Do you believe that Congress has the power to pass the law Rudy proposes under the commerce clause, or some other part of the Constitution?
 
Last edited:
He heard a bunch of meaningless lip service at the NRA meeting, which he apparanetly bought into hook line and sinker. Rudy is about as diametrically opposed to second amendment rights and 10th amendment states' rights as a politician can get.

And even if he DID change, what should we believe?

a) What he said for 20 years?

or

b) What he abrubtly changes to in the last 6 months to pander to R's base to win primarys?

Not complicated. Smoke & Mirrors. He looked nervous as a whore in church at those meetings, as well he should have. Talk about a fly in your ointment!
 
Rudy wants Congress to pass a law saying that we must prove a need for it before being allowed to own a handgun
Click to expand...

Here's a few reasons:

1. Because I want to.
2. Because I can.
3. Because I am granted that right by the 2nd amendment.
4. Because there are jackasses in the world.

Next question Guliani?
 
Not complicated. Smoke & Mirrors. He looked nervous as a whore in church at those meetings, as well he should have. Talk about a fly in your ointment!
Click to expand...

Is that why he repeated his earlier staged "My wife is calling" thing? YouTube has the earlier version of it as well. I love YouTube. Political snakes can't escape their own video...
 
WildAlaska said:
Precision: Rudy wantED. His position is different now, yes?
Click to expand...

He hasn't stated his position is different on that point. He has stated he wants to be President though and needs the votes of more than just NYC residents to do so.

Actions speak louder than words and Rudy's actions have been completely in opposition to the 2A. Until recently so were his words.

If Feinstein said she now supports the 2A while not recanting her specific former statements would you believe her too? Even if she did say "I changed my mind on banning handguns" would you believe her?

It is sad that the desperation to keep Hilbama out of the OVal Office is so great that otherwise rational people are incapable of seeing the truth about Rudy when there are years of evidence lying right in front of them.
 
Rudy is a typical big city Mayor - He does not like guns, especially handguns, and doesn't think citizens should be able to own or possess them.

He's not the right candidate for anyone who wants to own a firearm - period.
 
My question is: Do you believe that Congress has the power to pass the law Rudy proposes under the commerce clause, or some other part of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

As it stands? Yeah, you could probably shoehorn such a law into the commerce clause. Is there really anything you can't?

However, if we actually establish the second amendment as an individual right? Not a chance.
 
So lets see...

The question was....

His position is different now, yes?
Click to expand...

We have had the usual dancing, so here let me try again:

His STATED position is different now, yes?:D

I assume we dont need to churn bandwidth about that anymore do we....s everyone knows a certain coterie is gonna not believe him, but at least we know what he says...

As it stands? Yeah, you could probably shoehorn such a law into the commerce clause. Is there really anything you can't?
Click to expand...

That is a tough one, I would argue no, too attentuated.

However, if we actually establish the second amendment as an individual right? Not a chance.
Click to expand...

Now on the other hand, I could argue the opposite.....anybody know anyhting about Swiss gun laws by the way?

WildasanacademicexcersizeAlaska TM
 
Wild, are you stating his position has changed because I have not heard him say that yet. Rudy stated we should have to show cause to the gov't to own a handgun. While he has waxed poetic as of late about the COTUS, 2A and spoken of constructionist judges he has not once said his previous statements on the issue no longer apply. I don't see how he has even claimed to have changed positions aside from saying "I support the 2A". Plenty of politicians have said those exact words and gone on to explain how it is a collective right and has no bearing on the individual. Rudy needs to be specific if he expects to even be listenned to let alone believed on this issue.

Now on the other hand, I could argue the opposite.....anybody know anyhting about Swiss gun laws by the way?
Click to expand...

Males from 18-42 are part of the reserve and keep their automatic weapons at home. If they muster out at 42 (or I heard it is lowerring) they can keep the weapon if full auto is disabled and by attenting one rifle competetion a year. Our factory in Switzerland hosts one that most of the employees show up for. Handguns can also be owned with no problems. Concealed carry is rare and a permit is required from the Canton authorities. Call it "May Issue" with the "May" being a not likely unless significant cause is shown (diamond dealers or threats...).
 
They all go through basic and a rotating service requirement every year. I am not certain of the amount of time per years spent on manuevers but there is always some group going out or returning. Seeing sleeping troops with their rifles propped up on seats on the train is a normal. Their national train system makes moving them from one area to another very easy. As my coworkers their tell me the mountains are "like the cheese with holes" and the holes are filled with guns, ammo, tanks, artillery and everything else needed to turn the passes from other nations into deathtraps. Their concern is not taking the fight down the mountains to a neighbor but making the cost so obscenely high to enter Switzerland that it is not worth it when they are more than happy to just sell you watches, cheese and chocolate!

Now also understand they are very Germanic in their view of respect for authority. Their is little futzing around their with the police by natives, immigrants are becoming a problem and some of the younger generation but by and large they have a very conforming and "docile" (with respect to the gov't) society. At the same time they require a national referendum for almost anything major to pass. The result is it is almost impossible to get anything passed of significance and that is probably very good. No law was ever passed that didn't take away some freedom and if you do not have enough laws on the books already after a couple hundred years to cover the basics of what are needed to keep a functioning society then you are doing something wrong.

FYI, the Swiss Army Knife used by the enlisted men is silver and dimpled. It has no corckscrew and if you aska German Swiss about it they will tell you it is the French Officer's Knife... the only way to get the French Swiss Officers to do anything was to remove their ability to open a wine bottle!
 
Thanks...

Having spent sometime in Switzerland myself, the ownership of firearms, as pointed out, is deeply tied up with the concept of training.

Think about it.

WilkdthebastionoffreeedomAlaska TM
 
... and unquestioning obedience to the government.

The conformance attitude also spills over to the rest of the culture. Getting a Swiss to think "outside the box" is damn near impossible. We did get them to start using email for prints 2 years ago, before then they would only take faxes since they had dinky mail servers and didn't see the benefit of email.

You don't get to pick just one part of a culture. You are stuck with it all, the good and the bad. The Swiss have many good qualities and their share of bad ones. Lack of hubris is something they have never been accused of. The attitude of being able to be isolated from the world is another. The concept of unfetterred free speach is a little different there I believe , especially when speaking out about the gov't and public figures (if I remember right). Finally it is a nation of people conditioned to think "If the government (company, boss, etc.) does not tell me I can do it then I can't." As I pointed out CCW is a very rare thing there. As their crime problems increase thanks to the influx of Eastern Europeans (sorry, its true) it will be interesting to see how they react. I do not think it will be by allowing people to effectively defend themselves in public and expect there to be more efforts to clamp down on gun ownership. This was already pushed by some French Swiss and shot down but it is a trend that will continue.

I like the nation and enjoy the time I spend there. I am going back for almsot two weeks in November for work. At the same time I prefer living here.
 
Yes, yes, yes, hot chocolate and blonde people. All very wonderful, but getting back to the topics at hand...

WildAlaska said:
We have had the usual dancing, so here let me try again:

His STATED position is different now, yes?

I assume we dont need to churn bandwidth about that anymore do we....s everyone knows a certain coterie is gonna not believe him, but at least we know what he says...
Click to expand...

No, we don't know what he says. What is it he said to contradict his longstanding view that we should get permission before owning a handgun?

When I first asked that question, you derisively asked,
as long as you can show where Rudy said that (let me guess years ago during a mayoral election as reported by some blog?
Click to expand...

OK, I showed where Rudy said it, and I haven't made any derisive comments about your source, just asked what it was. Show me where he has said something different.

WildrespondingtoJuanCarlosAlaska said:
That is a tough one, I would argue no, too attentuated.
Click to expand...

Thanks to you two guys for answering the question about commerce. I think handguns are only an instant away from the interstate commercial market, and Congress might choose to regulate comprehensively in that area, and it would be within their power.

No, wait! I actually disagree with the Raich decision and want to pull down the whole commerce clause house of cards. :D
 
My question is: Do you believe that Congress has the power to pass the law Rudy proposes under the commerce clause, or some other part of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's a shame people have such little respect for federal boundaries. I bet if NY wanted to pass a law which said that Virginians couldn't buy a handgun in Virginia without permission from NY, people would respect that NY has no such power ... but when the feds do it, people seem to think it's different somehow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top