There are a lot of things I like about Rudy Giuliani. I would come close to voting for him for president if it weren’t for his stance on gun control.
A while back I wrote about Kennesaw Georgia, a town that passed a mandatory gun ownership law back in the 1980s. The murder rate there plummeted to 0.19 per year. On the other hand we can look at cities that do have gun control laws and see that they have the shameful honor of sitting at the top of the murder rates. Look at Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C. or Detroit. Nuff said.
Rudy was the right leader at the right time during and after the September 11th attacks. My admiration for him went through the roof when I saw him refuse to take $10 million from a Saudi Prince right after 9/11. It wasn’t about being bought off. Good for you, Rudy!
I like the fact that he cleaned up New York City. Big time. I know he’s taken some heat for allegedly targeting ethnic groups. I think he targeted criminals and didn’t play politically correct games. He just cleaned up the city regardless of who was doing the crime. I like that.
I think our enemies are shaking in their boots at the very thought of Rudy Giuliani being president. And THAT will be one of my main criteria when I go to the voting booth in 2008.
But, Rudy, you are wrong about gun control. You are just slap wrong.
He tried backtracking a little recently.
When pressed recently about his views on the 2nd Amendment by Sean Hannity of Fox News, Giuliani attempted to tap dance around his gun-control record without alienating the 290 million Americans who don’t live in New York City. The former mayor told Hannity that gun control was “appropriate†for the city, but that states and cities should be allowed to make those decisions locally.
“So,†Hannity continued, “you would support a state’s rights to choose on specific gun laws?â€Â
“Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem … maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules,†answered Giuliani.
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer, Rudy. Nothing scares a criminal more than a citizen who is armed. But it’s a whole lot more than that.
It’s more than just the right to defend ourselves against criminals. No government can impose it’s will on an armed population. As long as we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we will remained a well armed people.
It’s really too bad you don’t understand this basic concept. There’s a reason our founders made the right to bare arms the Second Amendment. They understood it very well. It’s a large part of the reason a bunch of farmers were able to gain independence from the mighty British Army.
Your stance on the Second Amendment will keep you out of the White House, Rudy. That’s a deal breaker as far as most of middle America is concerned.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, basil’s blog, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, third world county, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, stikNstein… has no mercy, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Planck’s Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
His positions on moral matters in general are all part and parcel of his anti-conservative agenda. I’d never trust him. Better a Hillary who will be accountable than a Rudy from our own camp! Frankly, I hope it doesn’t come to that. I hope the Republicans will get Fred Thompson or Rick Santorum (or both) on the ticket!
I think he would be an outstanding member of any administration, that he has a lot to offer, but not as president.
Hey, many of us libertarians are really upset with Rudy for his stance on prostitition laws. This is a big issue with us. We libertarians are diehard prostitution legalization advocates. For me, being an ex-Sailor, it’s a very important issue.
But I’m looking past it. I will support Rudy all the way, because there’s more important issues out there like fighting the War on Islamo-Fascism.
I hope to meet Rudy one day, to have the opportunity to explain to him why legalized prostitution would be a better stance. But it’s not critical to my support.
Eric Dondero, CEO
I appreciate your concern about gun control. But when I look at the other candidates - on both sides - for be the bigger issue than gun control or a woman’s right to choose becomes the war on terror. At this point I trust none of them but Rudy to stand up for our country and citizenry and fight this war full force. He proved that during and in the wake of 9/11. The man is selfless, loves people and loves this nation.
I have a couple of issues with Rudy, in addition to his views on gun-control already mentioned; primary his view on terror, which is similar to the views that most of the other Republican candidates have.
The idea that “we’re good, they’re evil” is too simplistic and also happens to be inaccurate. We are attacked by “terrorists” because the US has been sticking our nose around the world where it doesn’t belong since the late 19th century (and in the Middle East as far back as the 1950s, maybe earlier). We interfere with their internal affairs, we prop-up governments that oppress and kill people, and the citizens of these nations after decades of our government (the US) aiding their enemies and oppressors leaves them no choice but to attack us in the brutal ways that we do.
This is in no one condoning their actions. But with any other violent crime, be it mugging, rape, or murder, it’s always important to find a motive. To say that these people are simply bread to hate Americans for no reason is absurd (sure, they are raised to hate Americans because of how miserable American policies have made their lives, but it certainly isn’t “for no reason”).
In 1953, we assisted the British in overthrowing the government of Iran. The new dictator we put in place was instrumental in killing hundreds of thousands of people in the area. In 1979, Iranian civilians retaliated. In the 1980s, we were allies with Saddam Hussein (who was a murderous dictator). In the 90s, we placed sanctions on Iraq that lead to the death of 300,000 due to starvation.
Now put yourself in their position. If you were relatively small and weak against a powerful adversary like the United States, what would you do after decades of this? You might resort something crazy like blowing yourself up in a crowded place just to help get your message across. Of course, Rudy, with the help of the media, simply announce, “we’re good, they’re evil” and use it as an example of why our government needs to further restrict our freedoms to “protect” us from the “evil terrorists.”
I say we stop meddling; bring the troops home from the Middle East and other countries and those countries deal with their own affairs. We have enough problems in this country that we can spend our resources on without having to try and fix other countries. If the government is going to steal my money via taxation, then the least they could do is use it to improve the quality of America.
If we stop killing them, they’ll have no reason to hate us.
The only candidate, Republican or Democrat, that seems to get this is Ron Paul, so he has my vote.
If Rudy doesn’t support the 2nd admendment verbatim then he won’t get my vote. Nuff said!
Ben Bennett
What kind of name is blowback?