Jackson Free Press

So now the man who ran an entire crime-fighting plan with gun control at its base is now a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Second Amendment. You know what I always say: Never trust anyboddy who brags about being a strict constructionist. That's second only to: Never trust a mind who tells his wife he's divorcing her on TV. Link.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a strong proponent of gun control during his years as New York mayor, told a Southern audience Friday that he supports the constitutional right to bear arms.

During a town-hall style meeting, Giuliani focused on combatting terrorism, cutting taxes and ending illegal immigration. Several in the audience of some 200 raised questions about issues at the forefront for some conservative Southerners: gun rights and embryonic stem-cell research.

"It doesn't matter if I believe in it or not - and I do - it is the Second Amendment," Giuliani said. "I'm a strict constructionist. The Second Amendment says you have an individual right to bear arms." Giuliani earned a reputation for strictly enforcing gun laws while New York mayor.

Boy, did he. The disturbing part is how.

Previous Comments

ID

113386

Comment

Of course, all the gun fanatics who touted Rudy as a crime-fighting panacea will probably believe him. Go figger.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-07-06T20:41:07-06:00

ID

113387

Comment

Ladd, Actions speak louder than words. I will vote for Hillary or Obama before Giuliani. At least I know where they stand as anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-citizen, and I know what they will do. Giuliani, Hillary, and Obama are in the same camp on the 2nd Amendment. And don't for one second believe that Hillary or Obama will bring any freedoms to the table. They are both taxers and banners, both of which destroy freedom. Remember that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If loving freedom makes me a fanatic, then I'm guilty as charged.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-07-06T21:22:30-06:00

ID

113388

Comment

I'm fanatical about freedom, too, and don't mind if people call me that about something I believe in, either. However, I suspect you and I might define "freedom" slightly differently. I personally would love to live in a country that was "free" from being such a violent gun culture. But I also realize that we're too deep in now to make that happen anytime soon. Therefore, I don't find debates over the 2nd Amendment the highest priority. The "right to bear arms" is not going anywhere anytime soon, regardless of all the hype. The right to choose to have a child, however, or the right to live without the government spying on you is already on the chopping block. I certainly can't imagine gun debates somehow more important than, say, the need to protect our covert agents. See other thread. I pretty much define "gun fanatic" as someone who votes and thinks based more on someone's record on gun control than anything else. That's why the Rudy stuff is so ironic, which I can see that we agree on. And it kills me now that he is pandering like that for votes, considering his strong gun-control stance in the past. He probably just hopes that enough conservative southerners are dumb, or uninformed, enough to not check him out on it. I remember quite a few gun types on here in past years singing Rudy's praises, until we threw a few easily found gun-control statements from him their way. (Hint: That's one reason several people stalked off this site in anger, claiming that we were "censoring" them. It rather tickled us because, you know, we know the truth. But I digress. )

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-07-06T21:33:00-06:00

ID

113389

Comment

Gee, a politician telling an audience what they want to hear. Who'd have thought it'd come to this. Not that I'd vote for Rudy. I didn't find how he ran NY before 9/11 comforting at all.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-07-06T22:02:45-06:00

ID

113390

Comment

Donna, There are no strict constructionists. I heard the other day on the History Channel that George Washington loved beer so much he wanted a National Brewery. I am sure that is not in the Constitution. When you hear folks talk about being a strict constructionists, why would you listen to them anyway? If the Constitution was a devinely inspired document like the Bible, it would not need ammendments. It is a great document, but it obviously had its flaws, but within it, was the potential to correct ommisions and mistakes. So, anyone that wants to be a strick constructionists wants to limit the greatness of the Constitution. As for Rudy, Republicans have to be joking. I applaud Dems for being quiet about him, but I know they are excited about him potentially being the nominee. Can you imagine how all the pics of Rudy in drag will be used? And can you imagine what people will think of him when they find out he was an serial adulterer and that he married his cousin?

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-07-11T13:12:43-06:00

ID

113391

Comment

I will never vote for Rudy; EVER.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-07-11T13:18:35-06:00

ID

113392

Comment

Cliff, You all would get a lot farther with your cause if you would get behind the common sense gun control points. I see where blind people can get guns in some states. Its just too easy to get a gun. I grew up with guns, all kinds, they were not a fascination to me. But you can tell that some folks get too caught up in TV and want to have guns that can shoot a million rounds or threw bank vaults, etc. And lastly, the NRA should not have aligned itself with any political party.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-07-11T13:27:03-06:00

ID

113393

Comment

What gun shoots "a million rounds through bank vaults" Gold?

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-07-11T13:33:48-06:00

ID

113394

Comment

Also, what is "common sense gun control points" do you mean? Be specific, please.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-07-11T13:35:27-06:00

ID

113395

Comment

The NRA will endorse any canidate that has a proven record regarding pro-gun legislation. For example: The NRA endorsed Gov. Ronnie Musgrove in the last gubernatorial race.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-07-11T13:38:07-06:00

ID

113396

Comment

And. the fact that so many NRA members won't support an anti-gun republican disproves your assertion that the NRA aligns itself with one party. I'll vote for a pro-gun democrat any day of the week over Rudy.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-07-11T13:40:12-06:00

ID

113397

Comment

Cliff: I was joking. I was referring to the high capacity magazines. Its hard to believe that Constitution envisioned the types of weapons we have today. If that is the case, why can't I have a bazooka? One example of common sense gun control is that a blind person should not be able to get one. Another should be that it should be harder to get a gun than a driver's license.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-07-11T13:46:26-06:00

ID

113398

Comment

Cliff, The NRA was pretty quiet on Cheney shooting that guy in the face without a license. You are being a little disengenious if you want to make the point that the NRA is not a big GOP supporter.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-07-11T13:48:10-06:00

ID

113399

Comment

Gold, not being "disengenious" at all. The fact is, the NRA supports canidates regardless of party if they support us. The GOP happens to support us more than the democrats. As for Cheney, as with Frank Melton...horrible gun handling on both their parts I freely admit. As for hi-cap mags; that's a right I will not give up. No, the founding fathers didn't envision these when they wrote the second amendment, but, nor did they forsee the internet either.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2007-07-11T14:31:31-06:00

ID

113400

Comment

Interesting Cliff. From that last statement, it does not sound like you are a strict constructionist. I've always thought that when you mentioned the 2nd Amendment, you were trying to make the assertion that you were speaking for the Founding Fathers. I personally think it is a stretch to assert that the 2nd Amendment was anything more than the Founding Fathers desire to assure that an individual had a right to protect themselves and their property. It seems like you want to have it both ways. When its convenient you want to act like its a strict constitutional right. But when it comes to other aspects like high capacity mags, assault weapons, etc. you take a more liberal interpretation. Also, the existence of the internet has no relevance at all because its not a right enumerated in the Constitution.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-07-11T19:26:51-06:00