The facts are on the side of gun rights, and I have little doubt that Giuliani will face a tough run in both the primaries and the general election if he doesn't have the support of the NRA and the gun rights voters. It comes as little surprise to me that he is trying to woo the NRA and the gun rights vote by claiming opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban.
(And FYI for all you uninformed retards, if the assault weapons ban expired, 'machine guns' would not be made legal suddenly - those are covered under *different* laws, and when you pull the trigger on an 'assault rifle' *ONE* bullet comes out. They are ordinary guns.)
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 15:35
The sad thing is that your average uninformed dolt thinks the 'assault weapons ban' refers to automatic weapons, and that these guns are the 'weapon of choice' of criminals, even though they are used in only 2%-3% of actual crimes. http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 15:51
Giuliani supports the 2A seemingly unconditionly sometimes, and sometimes he supports weapons bans. It depends upon his audience at the time.
Either way, he'll have a relatively tough time with this issue when running for the presidency, because the conservatives are going to look at his position and deem it liberal, and the liberals are going to look at it and deem it conservative. Giuliani really appeals to moderates, because that's what he is, and truth be told, if every American would look at his positions and decide for themselves wether or not to support him, he'd gain quite a lot. Sadly, however, the majority of Americans let various news channels (I'm looking at you FOX) decide for them.
Giuliani's said he supports the 2A, just not uncondtionally in heavily populated areas (such as NYC, and other urban areas). The best thing for everyone to do is look at what he's said and decide for themselves whether or not he's a "Friend or Foe to the 2A."
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 18:40
>>3
"Giuliani supports the 2A seemingly unconditionly sometimes, and sometimes he supports weapons bans. It depends upon his audience at the time."
Yeah, I think you more or less hit the nail on the head. I hate how politicians tend to flex and bend with the wind. A politician with a sturdy spine seems so rare :(
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 18:55
It was Giuliani's policing that helped tame New York; while the gun ban might not have played as big a role, it probably played a role nonetheless. Also, the idiots getting doped on crack cocaine and their neighbors realized it was a Bad Thing and moved to squash the practice (at least their neighbors and relatives did) - thus cutting down on said drug's destructiveness to black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Giuliani, for better or for worse, also cut down greatly the crime (and the porn) in Times Square, leading to a rebirth of the tawdry red-light district as a family friendly Disneyland (although there are still peep shows and strippers to be found near the Port Authority).
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 18:57
Candidates I Like: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (sorta), Rudy Giuliani
w00t for NYC and fuck the South in politics!
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 21:59
>>5
"while the gun ban might not have played as big a role, it probably played a role nonetheless."
Since you are advocating a significant infringement of the 2nd amendment, I expect to see, at the very least, significant proof of your assertions, especially when you take into account the large body of statistics and findings leading most reasonable academics to the conclusion that the private ownership of firearms empowers victims, saves lives, reduces crime, and apparently deters it as well.
"Giuliani, for better or for worse, also cut down greatly the crime (and the porn) in Times Square, leading to a rebirth of the tawdry red-light district as a family friendly Disneyland (although there are still peep shows and strippers to be found near the Port Authority)."
Good thing we have them good ol' conservatives willing to step all over our individual rights in the name of promoting bullshit "family values."
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 10:33
>>7
Family values? What do they have to do with this?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 16:48
This is >>7. I just wanted to clarify what most of you likely already know. In my post I was referring to *social conservatives.* Fiscal conservatives are fine by me.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 17:02
>>9
I like fiscal democrats and fiscal conservatives, but don't like social conservatives and social democrats.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-14 18:59
>>10
Aren't fiscal democrats and fiscal conservatives different? ...
Giuliani is an East Coast left-wing lunatic fringe liberal kook who brings the FAIL when he tries to impersonate a Republican. All the way up and down the line, there's not a policy where he has any significant disagreement with Ted Kennedy or Charles Schumer, from gay marriage to abortion to taxes to guns.
Possibly in the People's Republic of New York City he is right of center, but that means nothing to voters in Flyover Country.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 22:50
Giuliani is only slighly better than Bloomy on 2A. If he gets the nomination, your only chance to vote for a pro-2A candidate will be the Libertarian.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-15 22:59
There aren't ANY pro-gun democratic candidates? What the fuck?
The Democratic Party at their 1968 convention moved so far to the left that they fell off the edge of the earth.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-16 15:04
>>17
Howard Dean was at least moderately pro-gun. He had an "A" rating from the NRA (National Rifle Association), and said any further gun control laws should be executed at the state level, rather than the Federal level. Maybe he was just an anomaly? A lot of the democrats who got elected this past election cycle were also pro-gun, from what I've heard.
The strange thing is, when I talk to most democrats in person (not the big-shot career politician democrats like Hillary Clinton or other democratic senators or reps), but like democrats who are running locally, or just people off the street who claim to be democrats, I haven't encountered many of them who are exactly enthusiastic gun-control advocates, and most of them agreed the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, and said they were "for the right to bear arms."
There is clearly a disconnect between the dems you meet on the street, and the dems sitting up in their ivory towers in the senate. Maybe democrats just have a tendency to turn bitchy when they gain power. I have a democrat governor in my state with a B- rating from the NRA. That's not *too* bad..
I think the problem is mostly just the democrats from big cities (Detroit, chicago, new york, etc), and the democrats holding high offices.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-18 2:46
Giuliani- would create a police state. We'll all talk about how we're better off, but we won't have any freedoms after he's done. Expect Waco/Ruby Ridge events monthly. Also, the economy will tank because of his Reganesque policies and the government will lose any effectiveness due to him filling it with his mobster friends.
Clinton- would make everything illegal, but real criminals won't care. America will be stratified between a psychologically-oppressed citizenry that is unable to do anything except go to work and spend their money on useless junk (not dangerous junk, though, of course), and a 'criminal' underclass of people who value freedom. After her single term, these freedoms will not return to the people.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-18 5:22
You guys are retarded, gun control hasn't been an issue for like 10 years, no politicians ever talk about it, nothing is going to change. It's like asking what a candidates views are on women's rights or the vietnam war. Pay attention, the issues are illegal immigration, the war, terrorism/defense, gay rights, abortion, health care, and social security. There are a few others but that's the gist of it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-18 12:16
I hate punishing everyone for the bad few. There seems to be guns everywhere and not everywhere is as bad as New York City. Taking guns away seems to be a knee jerk reaction by socialists/democrats. The government can't help you if someone breaks into your house or if theres a major natural disaster (New Orleans for proof). I wish democrats would relize this, but they want to take away power from the individual and give it to the government (which is what they are all really about anyways). The way the government deals with simple things like illegal immigration and spending our money should be a big clue that you shouldn't rely on them. Socialist democrats suck my balls.(not that republicans are much better now a days)
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-19 14:56
yeah man, >>21 is right, the government can't do shit if there's a disaster, then our only option is to grab our guns and secure ourselves of as many resources we can, then shoot anyone who comes near.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-19 20:55
>>21 New Orleans for proof not that republicans are much better now a days
There's something fundamentally wrong with your head. Democrats have real issues, but saying Republicans are still better than Democrats in the same paragraph as New Orleans...
If Bush raped your sister, you'd probably blame Clinton.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-20 1:34
Hey 23... are you fucking retarded? I said the republicans aren't much better then democrats. I don't know if you have any ability to read inbetween the lines or to keep the previous sentence in your head and relate it to other worldly information, but with republicans in power we had the same shit (horrible illegal immigration and spending as the paragraph brought up as subjects) going on. I wasn't talking about how the democrats or republicans handled New Orleans, Im saying a situation like that is the reason why you have guns and people like Guiliani who want to take them away are fucking stupid idiots.
For your information I think Bush is a piece of shit and Clinton is a bigger piece of shit. (A decision I made unrelated to your simplistic bipartician politics) You are a moron #23.