Rudy's Currently Stated Positions on Guns

I believe Rudy's statement that he will enforce existing gun laws, and that more gun laws are not needed.

People can change their minds on issues like gun control. I believe that Rudy has changed his mind.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he does believe more gun laws are not needed... beyond those in place in NYC.

Sorry but he has not once stated opposition to a gun law that I know of. He has no problem with the many oppressive laws in his own city and state which are applied against people at the discretion of authotities with definite preference to those who are rich, famous or friends of those in high places.

If Rudy has REALLY changed his position then say something that is the opposite of his long standing positions. Say he believes "shall issue" CCW should be the standard of the land. Say he thinks the AWB in place in NY should be reversed. He could even say his lawsuits were wrong or the actions of Bloomberg are wrong. He does none of this though.

Just because he is not calling for a ban does not mean he is now pro 2A.

My position is easy to counter. Simply give me one recent statement from Rudy that opposes any current gun law or any prior action on his part against the 2A.

Without that I can see no way of believeing him any more than I would believe Hillary if she came out and said she would reduce taxes.
 
People can change their minds on issues like gun control. I believe that Rudy has changed his mind.
Click to expand...

The thread on stuff about which he says he has changed his mind is over here.

This one is about his current beliefs, specifically his belief that gun control as practiced in New York is essential and effective at fighting crime, and his belief that his lawsuit against gun makers proceeds from a valid premise. Far from changing those positions, he has been affirming them recently, and one comes straight from his own campaign website.
 
Why does a politician have to oppose a current gun law to be considered something other than Hillbama?

And if you don't believe Rudy, fine by me. Each voter will have to make his or her own judgment about Rudy.
 
And if you want to believe Rudy, despite the glaring paucity of any evidence whatsoever that he actually has changed his mind, you're free to do so, too.
 
Why does a politician have to oppose a current gun law to be considered something other than Hillbama?
Click to expand...

Fremmer, sorry but I do not know what you really know about NY state laws or NYC laws on guns. NY state is bad and NYC is outright draconian. The Ruger 10/22 is calssified as an assault weapon in NYC and is banned, seriously.

Rudy has NO PROBLEMS with those laws and has said so. His site and many appearances states he is fine with the laws currently on the books. If Rudy believes those laws are good then he HAS to be an anti.

If a politician cannot oppose something like NYC's gun laws or the bans in places like DC or Chicago then they are an anti. They may not be Hillbama but they are certainly NOT on our side.
 
Fremmer said:
Why does a politician have to oppose a current gun law to be considered something other than Hillbama?
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about just any gun law, it's about two gun issues in particular:

1. New York City has, as mentioned, draconian gun control laws, and Rudy thinks those existing laws are good. Somehow, he also thinks the Parker/Heller decision by the DC Circuit was a good ruling, though it might, if sustained by the Supreme Court, wind up undoing his "good" NYC gun control laws.

2. Rudy still stands by his decision to file a lawsuit against gun makers and gun shops, which means he stands by the underlying premise of those kinds of lawsuits.

Rudy doesn't have to oppose a current gun law to be considered something other than Hillbama, but those are two pretty objectionable positions he currently supports, IMHO. Do you have any comment on either of them?
 
Pub, you have a good point about Rudy. His 2nd Amendment philosophy is absolutely abysmal IMHO. The only person who I can think of who would be worse is Hillary Clinton.

Both Rudy and Hillary believe in police states IMHO.
 
I don't think that Rudy signed every NYC gun law that exists. I have a feeling that many (if not most) were enacted before he was Mayor. He did what he though was right at the time in an effort to control NYC's out of control crime problem.

Rudy stated that he didn't like the way the NYC lawsuit was prosecuted. Congress has passed legislation to prevent those types of lawsuits. I think that he's changed his mind about those types of lawsuits.

Once again, based on his statement to the NRA, I believe that Rudy has changed his mind about, and approves of, the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I believe him and you don't. I do understand your skepticisim, though.

Rudy can beat Hillbama. He's a fighter. :cool:
 
I don't think that Rudy signed every NYC gun law that exists. I have a feeling that many (if not most) were enacted before he was Mayor. He did what he though was right at the time in an effort to control NYC's out of control crime problem.
Click to expand...

I never said he wrote the laws, just that he continues to support them, they're draconian in nature, and despite his current belief that more enforcement of those kinds of laws is a key to reducing crime, I think that belief is incorrect. I have no doubt he thought, and continues to think, that strict enforcement of strict gun control is right, I just don't think he is right about that idea.

Rudy stated that he didn't like the way the NYC lawsuit was prosecuted. Congress has passed legislation to prevent those types of lawsuits. I think that he's changed his mind about those types of lawsuits.
Click to expand...

He did not like one (predictable) aspect of the way evidence was handled, but he continues to stand by his decision to file the suit. Can you at least provide some evidence that he has changed his mind about those types of lawsuits? His current position is that the lawsuit was right and necessary, and I have not seen any evidence at all that he has changed his mind "about those types of lawsuits."
 
What is wrong with the GOP that causes this guy to continue to lead the pack?

He thinks strict gun control is essential to fighting crime, and thinks suing gun manufacturers is the answer to the black market created by strict gun control.

Don't we already have Democrats if we want someone with those thoughts?
 
I think both CA and NY MIGHT be justified in their gun control laws. As a responsible non-criminal I would not like them if I lived in the states but I just think about the big picture.

New York. Small state with an ungodly huge population. Cost of living so high you have to make 6 figures to be above poverty level (maybe an exaggeration...but still pretty expensive just to live there). Huge disparity of income, either you're an executive or you're living in poverty...unfortunately that poverty often breeds drug related crime....people robbing to get money for drugs and those peddling the drugs tend to fight each other for turf. Making a Hi-Point easily available to anyone on the streets and that adds to the problem...honest people are understandably paranoid and ready to shoot while the dishonest people have an even larger AND cheaper selection of weapons to choose from. These laws will not stop the firearms black market...it will actually make that market thrive BUT will greatly increase prices so not EVERYONE can get one. Concealed handguns in this urban jungle plus other problems that exist probably equal a bad thing waiting to happen.

California. I have admonished the use of the word gang banger on this forum because it's often used improperly, but CA is the home of the gang banger...there are gangs everywhere but the most dangerous, notorious, and prolific gangs originated from here. There is literally a gang for every street in some neighborhoods, throw in the same disparity of income in NY and you have a problem. Assault weapons are a legitimate concern as are high cap guns as I believe they are favorites of these gangs when pulling drive by's and turf battles. Again, that actually promotes the black market in CA but it makes prices so high that not everyone can use this black market.

What other states have the same issues, relatively small, huge populations, huge disparity of income that breeds the social issues that arise? Michigan, Florida, and DC are the ones that come to my mind.

Many other states simply do not have the same problems...some will argue that less gun control equals a more scared criminal thus lower crime rates. I agree with that to an extent but I think probably 47 states do not have the same issues driving crime and social disparity (couldn't think of a better word) as a select few BOOMING states and don't have a need for that legislation.

All that's just my opinion obviously. Other than a handful of far lefties who think all guns are evil I don't think there are many politicians who would support those "draconian" gun laws across the board in the US because there's just not a problem to solve as there was in those states.

It would be interesting to see what happened if NY eased up on it's laws and what the results would be...I'm not in favor of experimenting with people's lives but that study would be an interesting one too see how effective gun control is against violent crime et al.
 
He did what he though was right at the time in an effort to control NYC's out of control crime problem.
Click to expand...

Yup, and the problem is that he's the kind of guy who is going to think that what's right is gun control. And that says worlds about, not just his view of guns, but of life in general.
 
Sigma40 said:
It would be interesting to see what happened if NY eased up on it's laws and what the results would be...I'm not in favor of experimenting with people's lives but that study would be an interesting one too see how effective gun control is against violent crime et al.
Click to expand...

Strict gun control IS experimenting with people's lives, and we have seen what has happened as gun control laws have been relaxed in Florida: no explosion of violent crime. Miami is not so different from New York.
 
I don't know what's wrong with the GOP - certainly not like it was under Reagan back in my USAF days.

I got a questionaire (request for money) from the GOP ????? Committee - THEY GOT AN EAR FULL - not that they'll read it.


To stay on topic I put in red sharpie where the donation info goes that I will not under any circumstances vote for Rudy (or McCain).

Don't care who they are running against - I'll vote for Lindon LaRouch first !!!!
 
Strict gun control IS experimenting with people's lives, and we have seen what has happened as gun control laws have been relaxed in Florida: no explosion of violent crime. Miami is not so different from New York.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point. It looks to me like NY and CA are safer places now than they were 10 years ago...or at least crime seems to be down. Again, I'm not an anti or a gun control advocate but I do think common sense tells everyone that what works well in one place might not work too well in another or even be needed for that matter.

Gun control should be a temporary measure aimed at specific problematic areas IF it is used at all to try and reduce NEW illegal weapons/violence with those weapons on the street in the cases of the two states that I mentioned in particular. If there's not a problem you don't need a solution right?

I also believe that there are underlying social issues that cause crime and violence that only time will help curb, but never eradicate. So the perceived success of that gun control is most likely false, more jobs, more money, and more education are better long term solutions for solving crime and poverty and I think we're getting better in that area.

All I mean to say is that maybe measures were necessary to get a slightly better grip on things where the gun problems are at their worst...I do not believe that what's going on in a handful of states will spread across the country. I work with a guy from TX who moved to IL and moved back a few years later because of the culture shock (gun laws included).

The problem as I, and all of you probably, see it is that these gun control measures in these states will likely only be strengthened because of the perceived success. At the end of the day we do have a lot of politicians on our sides AND the other side realizes that if they were to abolish guns they would be losing millions of dollars a year in lobbying money, which is what all of this political crap is about in the first place.
 
The perception that gun control is responsible for lower crime rates in the big cities can be overcome by providing alternative explanations of the lower crime rates, and by providing examples of big cities with lax gun control which do not have resulting crime problems. I mentioned Miami as one of those.

As for alternative explanations, Dinkins was a doofus on many levels, and Rudy was obsessed with stopping crime. Rudy did lots of things that worked. He hired thousands more police officers, and he started a kind of zero tolerance program, to combat every crime, make everyone fix broken windows, and generally civilize New York. It more or less worked! Yes, there was some wackiness and some grabbing credit for anything that happened, but overall I think Rudy was a pretty darn good Mayor of New York. Best you could expect that city to elect, anyway.

I just don't agree that his inclusion of gun control in that strict crime enforcement plan was necessary, helpful, or right. He thinks it was all of those things. I think I'll vote for someone else if he gets nominated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top