Giuliani Pandering to the NRA!

[ConcordCowboy]

Giuliani faces tough crowd at NRA conference


Members worry about GOP candidate's track record as New York mayor

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20910632/

By Matthew E. Berger
NBC News

WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani told the National Rifle Association much of what they wanted to hear Friday about his support for Second Amendment rights, but left the conference with few converts.

“I think he is sincere; I just don’t know if he truly believes it down deep inside,” said Thomas Crum, a retired trucking executive from Scottsdale, Ariz. “I have a little difference with him just beginning to realize what his position really is.”

Most members of the gun lobby who attended Friday’s “A Celebration of American Values” conference said they were encouraged by Giuliani’s appearance and what he said about support for gun rights. But most also said they were concerned about his track record supporting gun control as mayor of New York City, and favored other candidates in the Republican presidential primary.


Bob Bell, a salesman from Clarkesville, Md., said he respected Giuliani’s leadership during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but preferred former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, a longtime supporter of second amendment rights. Bell said Giuliani’s mayoral record -- including his advocacy for the assault weapons ban and lawsuits against gun manufacturers -- weighed heavy on him.

“He was a mayor of New York City, and try and get a gun permit up there,” he said.

To garner his support, Bell said, Giuliani would have needed to espouse the right to carry weapons and make a retraction for his earlier views.

Instead, Giuliani acknowledged disagreements with much of the crowd but stressed “there are a lot of things you and I have in common.” His 20-minute speech focused largely on enforcing current gun laws and prosecuting crimes committed with a gun, rather than new gun ownership restrictions.

“The bottom line is we need to step up enforcement of gun crimes and leave law-abiding citizens alone,” Giuliani said to tepid applause.

The Republican candidate, who is among the frontrunners at this point in the 2008 race, did try to explain why, as mayor, he joined a lawsuit by several cities against the gun industry, arguing that manufacturers and distributors made it too easy for criminals to get guns.

On Friday, he said the ongoing lawsuit "has taken several turns and several twists I don't agree with."

Giuliani also said he agrees with a recent federal court ruling that overturned a 30-year-old ban on private ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. He added that he would appoint judges who take a similarly strict view of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

Check marks
Sitting next to Bell at lunch Friday, Joe Rogers was keeping a scorecard for each of the presidential candidates on the conference’s brochure. While some speakers had check marks, Giuliani was the only one with a zero next to his name. The Wilmington, N.C. salesman said even Democratic presidential candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson scored better during his taped remarks.

“I don’t think there’s anything he could have said and been truthful about to win over the crowd,” Rogers said of Giuliani. “To his credit, he spoke the truth.”

Friday’s speech to the NRA was considered an important bell-weather for how the Republican front-runner would perform among some of the party’s niche groups that have opposed positions Giuliani has taken in the past. He is likely to face other potentially hostile crowds if and when he reaches out to pro-life voters and opponents of same sex marriage.

While the NRA has never endorsed in a Republican presidential primary, officials at the lobby have left that door open this year, and are planning more forums in early primary states.

NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre said he liked what he heard from Giuliani.

“He said a lot of things that if you’re a law-abiding American firearm owner, you’re nodding and you’re saying ‘I agree with that,’” he said.

A change of heart?

Judy McQuitty, a bookkeeper from Virginia Beach, Va., said she felt Giuliani was one of the least effective speakers at the conference, which also featured Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on video.

“He spent more time campaigning than the others,” McQuitty said of Giuliani. “I think all of them said the proper things to get the backing of the crowd. They all know where this crowd stands.”

But others said they believed Giuliani has had a change of heart on gun control.

“Things change, politicians have to change,” said Vance Perry of Richmond, Va. “Politicians who don’t change can’t grow with the situation. 9/11 changed a lot of things, obviously it changed Rudy Giuliani.”

Supporters at the Capitol Hilton event said they were not casting their primary ballot solely on gun control issues, but said any candidate seeking their vote needed to say the right things about the right to bear arms to even be considered by them. Several attendees said they believed Giuliani had recently passed that litmus test, while others remained unconvinced.

“It’s a defining issue, not because it’s the only issue or the most important issue,” said Alan Riley, a lawyer from Romney, W. Va. “But I find supporters of the second amendment don’t differ with me on many other issues.”

But even Rogers said that despite Giuliani’s zero on his scorecard, he would support him if he garnered the Republican nomination.

“I don’t stay home,” Rogers said. “If he’s the nominee, I support him. But I don’t say that with any enthusiasm.”

[trickblue]

Hopefully he actually DOES come around to the fact the we, in this country, have a right to own arms...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by trickblue

Hopefully he actually DOES come around to the fact the we, in this country, have a right to own arms...

No presidential candidate will go against the 2nd amendment if they get into office.

Just as simple as that.

They may want laws and processes to be tightened up but nobody is going to undo the 2nd amendment no matter how many times the far right want to play that card into trying to scare people.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

No presidential candidate will go against the 2nd amendment if they get into office.

Just as simple as that.

They may want laws and processes to be tightened up but nobody is going to undo the 2nd amendment no matter how many times the far right want to play that card into trying to scare people.

amen to that.

I just do not understand why law abiding citizens are scared of laws that would merely make it a bigger offense to illegally sell or possess a firearm.

law abiding citizens could easily be registered and then ride around with their gun in their waistband while an idiot that is a criminal gets caught with one and does a little more time.

if we had a national registration then tank would not have been arrested. repeat he would have been fine owning those weapons anywhere in the us except on the few federal properties where carrying a weapon is forbidden.

not only that but if there is a criminal holding folks hostage or whatever the police could potentially quickly pull up what guns he has registered as part of the plan to deal with him.
....

nothing about that is anti-gun.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by jterrell

amen to that.

I just do not understand why law abiding citizens are scared of laws that would merely make it a bigger offense to illegally sell or possess a firearm.

How do you illegally sell a firearm?

Originally Posted by jterrell

law abiding citizens could easily be registered and then ride around with their gun in their waistband

Registering you weapon does not allow you to waistband your firearm, shoulder holster under a jacket, in your sock or under your hat. It must be visible or you must be CCW'd.

Originally Posted by jterrell

if we had a national registration then tank would not have been arrested. repeat he would have been fine owning those weapons anywhere in the us except on the few federal properties where carrying a weapon is forbidden.

The reason Tank probably did not register his weapons is because he wasn't supposed to have them so yes, he would have been arrested registered or not.

Originally Posted by jterrell

not only that but if there is a criminal holding folks hostage or whatever the police could potentially quickly pull up what guns he has registered as part of the plan to deal with him.

Horrible example. If the folks who were the intended target had a CCW, there would be no hostage situation. There'd be an attempt and then a criminal full of holes.

BTW.....I'd be more worried about ammo type than I would gun type.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by trickblue

Hopefully he actually DOES come around to the fact the we, in this country, have a right to own arms...

I love you, man.

[ConcordCowboy]

This isn't about the tired old gun issue.

This is about Pandering!

The Pachyderms do it and the Donkeys don't!

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by ConcordCowboy

This isn't about the tired old gun issue.

This is about Pandering!

The Pachyderms do it and the Donkeys don't!

It appears that "Yellow-Dog" dems are treasonous to you...

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by Seven

How do you illegally sell a firearm?

Pawn shop owners sell to underage kids, at least they did to me at 16... they also wink, wink and sell to those with fake ids....

How exactly do you think gangs get guns? Or terrorists? Or any average scum bag criminal with a rap sheet a mile long?

Registering you weapon does not allow you to waistband your firearm, shoulder holster under a jacket, in your sock or under your hat. It must be visible or you must be CCW'd.

I would make the concealed handgun law apply as the single vehicle for registration. EVERYONE would be under that one law, then yes all registered owners would have conceal and carry rights.

The reason Tank probably did not register his weapons is because he wasn't supposed to have them so yes, he would have been arrested registered or not.

The guns he had were legal in another state and registered where required in that other state. We live in a global society yet have an odd collection of individual laws by state. Gun law should be nationalized. What tank does or not do should be consistently legal or illegal. Illinois has far stricter gun laws than Arizona.

Horrible example. If the folks who were the intended target had a CCW, there would be no hostage situation. There'd be an attempt and then a criminal full of holes.

I love this type of tough talk because it amuses me. There has never been anything to proof this to be the case. There have been plenty of armed folks
held hostage. The criminals are not only armed but aiming their weapons and looking for any hostile response. There's a good likelihood some wanna be Jack Bauer gets himself shot trying to draw down on a hostage taker unless he does have military or law enforcement experience. But I am a supporter of conceal and carry all the way just the same.

BTW.....I'd be more worried about ammo type than I would gun type.

6 to 1 half a dozen to the other.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by jterrell

Pawn shop owners sell to underage kids, at least they did to me at 16... they also wink, wink and sell to those with fake ids....

One of a possible million ways to get a weapon. I asked because when you institue new laws on "illegally" obtaining a weapon it burdens the rest of the population who are responsible gun, knife, battan, numb-chuck, etc. owners.

So when you comment :

"I just do not understand why law abiding citizens are scared of laws that would merely make it a bigger offense to illegally sell or possess a firearm."

You understand that it diectly affects the law abiders.

Originally Posted by jterrell

How exactly do you think gangs get guns? Or terrorists? Or any average scum bag criminal with a rap sheet a mile long?

Again, about a million different ways a gang can get a weapon. If you really want to know about the terrorists acquisitions............ask our military. A scumbag with a rap sheet has a ton of avenues. Making more laws never helps, rather it creates gray areas that noone fully understands and makes it easier for the crooks and harder for the honest Joe's. We need to enforce the ones in the books we currently have.

Originally Posted by jterrell

I would make the concealed handgun law apply as the single vehicle for registration. EVERYONE would be under that one law, then yes all registered owners would have conceal and carry rights.

Careful what you wish for. Quantum leap we as a society will not be prepared for. I know of at least 10 guys I target shoot with and I pray they do not get a CCW. One of them is my dad. Some people do NOT have the temperment to be allowed to pack. The slighest scurmish would result in idiots brandishing weapons.

Originally Posted by jterrell

The guns he had were legal in another state and registered where required in that other state.

So? If he had federal offense(s) he's to give up the guns. He shouldn't of had them. Period.

Originally Posted by jterrell

We live in a global society

The global reference doesn't even exist when discussing guns. Say goodbye to it now because it's ridiculous. The US is one of the last countries to even allow the freedom to own a weapopn, by individual choice.

Originally Posted by jterrell

I love this type of tough talk because it amuses me

There has never been anything to proof this to be the case. There have been plenty of armed folks
held hostage. The criminals are not only armed but aiming their weapons and looking for any hostile response. There's a good likelihood some wanna be Jack Bauer gets himself shot trying to draw down on a hostage taker unless he does have military or law enforcement experience. But I am a supporter of conceal and carry all the way just the same.

It amused me as well since you chose a "hostage " situation as your scenairo. Why so dramatized? Good Lord, why not just pick a toddler going on a rampage to prove your point since that's about as often as a "hostage" situation.


BTW - There's plenty of proof, if you want it start by reading an American Riflemen and get back to me.

You missed the point. if the citizens were armed......there'd be no hostage situation. There'd be no "drawing down" on a hostage taker and BTW......what the hell does military or law enforcement trainig have to do with it? if you have a weapon and plan on using it for self defense, you'd better practice with it other wise save yourself the money on ammo and just throw your weapon at the offender.

Originally Posted by jterrell

6 to 1 half a dozen to the other.

Yeah. Right. Tell that to the slaughtered Officers in CA, that couldn't even take cover behind their cars because the bullets were going thru them and their vests. But I see you'd rather see how fast they shoot or how many they had.