Proof of Guiliani's lies about guns

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is a link to a video of then-NYC Mayor Guiliani announcing a politically motivated lawsuit against several gun manufacturers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5DxwzEXHQ

Remember this when you hear of bogus meetings with CHL's and his professed support of private citizens' rights to carry guns for self-defense.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here's another video of Guiliana on gun control and the NRA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ99sBfdqE0&NR=1

Chas.

[carlson1]

Hunting and Law Enforcement only

The more guns you take out of society the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society the more its (murder) is going up!

Excuse Me While I

[jbirds1210]

Here are his feelings of the day:


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc ... tion_o.php

[frankie_the_yankee]

I'm very skeptical of Gulianni's VERY recent "conversion" to gun rights supporter. He claims he was influenced by the Parker case. Fine. But it will take more than that to convince me he is sincere.

But keep this in mind. If he ends up being the nominee he has a good chance of being able to win. (Unlike the other Republicans, he has a good chance of peeling off a couple of blue states.)

And if the choice was between him and any of the Democrats, except Richardson who doesn't have a chance, I'd vote for Rudy any day.

Also, I think on the whole he is likely to appoint better judges than any Democrat would.

I'm not saying he is my preferred candidate. I kind of like Thompson, except for his support of McCain-Feingold. Romney might be a better choice. (I don't see Huckabee or any of the other 2nd tier guys breaking through.)

But the important thing is that whoever is nominated has to be able to win. Voting for Ron Paul might make you feel good, but get ready for an anti-gun Democrat to be elected president for the next 4 years.

God help us if Clinton/Obama or anyone like them is elected. And God help America.

[Renegade]

He will say anything to get elected. He just got done spouting his lies at NRA today....

Don't be fooled.

[fadlan12]

Fred Thompson 08!!!

[frankie_the_yankee]

He will say anything to get elected. He just got done spouting his lies at NRA today....

Don't be fooled.

So I take it you are supporting Hillary. 'Cause that's what's gonna happen if people get all stoked up over Giuliani's "lies" and sit on their hands in Nov. '08.

Don't be fooled. And don't BE a fool.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Guiliani cannot win the Presidency. At best, he would carry the northeastern states and California. He cannot carry the south and western states. Outside NY, he is recognized for what he is -- a Democrat.

That said, if he were running against Clinton, I'd vote for her. She will not be as bad on guns as Guiliani and she's a known quantity. Both Clintons have learned what an anti-gun platform or voting record did for Democratic control of the House and Senate, but Guiliani is so arrogant that he thinks his bullet-proof (no pun intended). The Parker case is relevant to the Second Amendment, but not to frivolous lawsuits by NYC against gun manufacturers and dealers. Nor is it relevant to Guiliana's anti-NRA and anti-“assault� rifel diabribes. Guiliani is a liar pure and simple. He's an anti-gun New Yorker and his attempt to convince us he's not is insulting our intelligence.

With him in the White House and the Democrats in control of the Senate, you can plan on a UN Treaty that would trump U.S. laws, unless the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Chas.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Guiliani cannot win the Presidency. At best, he would carry the northeastern states and California. He cannot carry the south and western states. Outside NY, he is recognized for what he is -- a Democrat.

That said, if he were running against Clinton, I'd vote for her. She will not be as bad on guns as Guiliani and she's a known quantity.

Do you really mean/believe that? I think that if faced with the choice, Southerners would go for Rudy rather than giving it to Clinton. Remember that she has the highest negatives of any candidate in either party.

Both Clintons have learned what an anti-gun platform or voting record did for Democratic control of the House and Senate,.....

I think those concerns would evaporate if either Clinton or Oama were elected president.

And what kind of judges do you think Hillary would appoint? Can you spell "S-T-E-V-E-N B-R-I-A-R?

As for a UN treaty, I think Clinton would be MORE likely to sign it than Rudy.

[seamusTX]

I think that if faced with the choice, Southerners would go for Rudy rather than giving it to Clinton.

Many people vote only in the Presidential elections and then only for the President, or cast a straight-ticket vote. Those who are disgusted by both major-party candidates might go fishing. In that case, it doesn't take many non-voters to throw the race to the other party. The margin is rarely above 3%. That means only 1.5% of voters from either party can change the outcome.

- Jim

[Renegade]

He will say anything to get elected. He just got done spouting his lies at NRA today....

Don't be fooled.

So I take it you are supporting Hillary. 'Cause that's what's gonna happen if people get all stoked up over Giuliani's "lies" and sit on their hands in Nov. '08.

Don't be fooled. And don't BE a fool.

Huh? Why would you think that? There are plenty of other Republican candidates that are far more pro-gun than Rudy. (And at least one Democrat too).

[Charles L. Cotton]

Guiliani cannot win the Presidency. At best, he would carry the northeastern states and California. He cannot carry the south and western states. Outside NY, he is recognized for what he is -- a Democrat.

That said, if he were running against Clinton, I'd vote for her. She will not be as bad on guns as Guiliani and she's a known quantity.

Do you really mean/believe that? I think that if faced with the choice, Southerners would go for Rudy rather than giving it to Clinton. Remember that she has the highest negatives of any candidate in either party.

I'm not in the habit of saying things I don't mean.

If the race is between Clinton and Guiliani, then it's between two Democrats and anyone that takes enough interest in the race to vote will know that. Bill Clinton has openly acknowledged that taking anti-gun positions destroyed the Democratic Party and cost it control over Congress. Hillary isn't stupid; she too knows this. I do not believe she will support gun control at least during her first term and risk re-election. We would then have a chance to get a real Republican elected in 2012.

As for Southerners, remember Guiliani is a New Yorker and the Clintons are from Arkansas. Yes, they moved to DC then to NY, but at least they have Southern roots -- Guiliani doesn't. Between two Democrats, one a New Yorker that is a rabid anti-gunner and one from Arkansas, I don't think the Republican Party can plan on a Southern stronghold. The Republican Party is already in trouble for abandoning it’s base and thumbing it’s nose at the incredibly successful concept and platform set out in the Contract with America. Nominating a Democrat-in-Republican-clothing/New Yorker will pretty much concede the White House to the Democrats for 2008.

Don't get me wrong; Hillary isn't my candidate, Thompson is. Nor do I think Guiliani can even win the Republican nomination. I'm just saying that, if I'm wrong, and the race is between Hillary and Guiliani, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils.

Both Clintons have learned what an anti-gun platform or voting record did for Democratic control of the House and Senate,.....

[I think those concerns would evaporate if either Clinton or Oama were elected president.

Obama isn't going to get the Democratic nomination, much less win the Presidency.

As I said, Hillary isn't stupid and she's not going to make the same mistake her husband did when he strong-armed Tip O'Neil and Jack Brooks to vote for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. I have no idea why you feel otherwise.

[And what kind of judges do you think Hillary would appoint? Can you spell "S-T-E-V-E-N B-R-I-A-R?

I trust you didn't mean this the way it appears.

[As for a UN treaty, I think Clinton would be MORE likely to sign it than Rudy.

Guiliani brags about suing "over two dozen gun manufacturers . . .", he'll sign a UN Treaty in a heartbeat. Hopefully, it will become a moot point with the U.S. Supreme Court's Parker decision.

Chas.

[Renegade]

Guiliani brags about suing "over two dozen gun manufacturers . . .", he'll sign a UN Treaty in a heartbeat. Hopefully, it will become a moot point with the U.S. Supreme Court's Parker decision.

Chas.

I think treaties Trump a Supreme Court opinion:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Guiliani brags about suing "over two dozen gun manufacturers . . .", he'll sign a UN Treaty in a heartbeat. Hopefully, it will become a moot point with the U.S. Supreme Court's Parker decision.

Chas.

I think treaties Trump a Supreme Court opinion:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Not as to individual constitutional rights. That's the danger we face until/unless we get a U.S. Supreme Court decision the Second Amendment creates an individual right. For example, no UN Treaty could abrogate the First Amendment right to free speech, or the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Chas.