Video: Rudy takes a phone call — during his NRA speech

posted at 2:57 pm on September 21, 2007 by Allahpundit

He played it for laughs to lighten the mood before a polite but unfavorably disposed audience.

It … did not succeed.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

tommylotto on September 21, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Honestly, if it worked in NYC, I have no problem with it. My point is, and I think we agree, is that there must be limits on the 2nd amendment. The problem is the left isn’t willing to let things alone. They want all the guns and that makes regular folks like me nervous and doesn’t make them willing to give an inch on ANY limitations. If Rudy were to say that to that audience, even the rational folks would boo him out of the room. That is why I think he cannot try to be funny, but must speak to the over whelming majority of gun owners who understand that there has to be limits and they are fine with it. It’s serious business to them and he has to be serious about it.

csdeven on September 21, 2007 at 11:56 PM

He’s got 4 bears that he shot in the attic

BadgerHawk on September 21, 2007 at 5:06 PM

Bet they’re terrible loud and noisy. Had squirrels in the attic once and they sounded huge. Can I hunt in his attic this fall? (big grin)

And just like magic, the mask drops.

Mike H on September 21, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Couldn’t have said it better myself Mike.

And finally

Serr8d on September 21, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Looking at so many of our corporate owned outsourcing specialists in Congress, fat on pork and grinning ear to ear as they plan their next amnesty for the criminal aliens among us I’m starting to think your right. Maybe we have to risk 8 years of Hillary and work hard to purge the Democrats who call themselves Republican from the party. I’m starting to wonder if I can actually hold my nose tight enough to vote for Rudy.

Buzzy on September 22, 2007 at 12:00 AM

csdeven on September 21, 2007 at 11:56 PM

If you want to talk about what is a reasonable restriction and what is not, let’s have that very important discussion. But if you come into the discussion with the unrealistic position that no restriction no matter how reasonable will ever be acceptable, then you are a loon, crazy, maniac that needs to be mocked and made fun of at every opportunity. Your nutz and crazy and need to be put into an insane assylum, not to mention your right to bear arms should be taken away!!!

I don’t give a rats a$$ about folding stocks, muzzle flash guards, or high capacity clips, but restrictions on weapons such as suitcase nuke, rpg’s, cluser bombs, fully automatic assault rifles, and concealed hand guns, or waiting periods and registration requirements must be something that can be discussed like rational adults. It might be a reasonable restriction in some areas it might not be reasonable in others. However, if you won’t participate in the conversation, you must be discounted and disregarded as a lunatic — like many who post on this site.

Excuse me, I think that’s Judy calling…

tommylotto on September 22, 2007 at 12:56 AM

tommylotto on September 22, 2007 at 12:56 AM

I’m not making my point clear. We agree on the restrictions. My only issue with Rudy’s appearance is the attempt at being funny. 2nd amendment folks, even those like me who are moderate, don’t thinking joking about it is funny, BECAUSE the left are not satisfied with those restrictions. They want them all and we are done giving any ground on the issue. I also have no problem with what Rudy did because it worked. But I don’t agree that those restrictions should be applied on a national level.

I think Rudy should explain that he did what he did in NYC because that is what his unique situation called for, but he will not support, nor does he believe that what he did in NYC should be applied nation wide. If he does that, I think he can get the support of the rank and file NRA member.

Is that more clear?

csdeven on September 22, 2007 at 6:23 AM

I sat back and watched the entire RudyAppearance on NRA TV; there were a lot of issues we agree on. Especially his hard-nosed approach to criminal justice…lock ‘em up until they are too old to trouble us any longer. And, if a person uses any gun in an attack-mode, then punish them unmercifully. In order to protect our rights to have access to guns, we have to smack down abusers.

Rudy is trying to appear somewhat Conservative, but without the innate, core sincerity that real Conservatives can recognize instantly, in another person.

I guess I could just pretend to vote for him, if I had to…

Serr8d on September 22, 2007 at 9:37 AM

I must disagree as to the support, csdeven. Rudy has not only been dismissive of 2nd amendment rights, but down right hostile to them. I do not trust him on 2nd amendment issues and I have talked to many others who do not, both online and IRL. I think that many NRA and GOA members and other staunch supporters* of the 2nd Amendment will for the most part only support him as a “what else we gonna do” candidate against a Democrat. At least Rudy will know that if he violates 2nd Amendment rights in any significant way while in office, he loses his base which isn’t true of a dem. I find it ironic that most of the politicians who don’t really want to protect America in that they won’t seal the borders and want to give amnesty to illegal aliens among whom we know are potential/likely terrorists, also want to restrict the citizens’ right (note it is a right rather than a freedom – sorry Rudy, verbiage is important) to defend themselves. Rudy proved in NYC that he is one of the politicians hostile to both the rule of law and the Bill of Rights respectively on these matters. I know I will find it nearly impossible to vote for him.

*By staunch supporters I do not mean people nutcases who want to legalize ownership of military hardware such as tommylotto listed (all of which to the best of my knowledge is already illegal) or even of fully automatic firearms (which have required special licensure for 70 some years). I’m talking about the majority of firearm owners who understand that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that shall not be infringed, most of whom keep firearms for sporting and defensive use and who would have one hell of a moral dilemma if the government ever came for our firearms.

deepdiver on September 22, 2007 at 10:21 AM

I find it ironic that most of the politicians who don’t really want to protect America in that they won’t seal the borders and want to give amnesty to illegal aliens among whom we know are potential/likely terrorists, also want to restrict the citizens’ right (note it is a right rather than a freedom – sorry Rudy, verbiage is important) to defend themselves. Rudy proved in NYC that he is one of the politicians hostile to both the rule of law and the Bill of Rights respectively on these matters.


deepdiver on September 22, 2007 at 10:21 AM

I really don’t think you know what you are talking about respective to what Rudy’s positions are on illegal immigration and what he did in New York regarding illegal immigration. Moreover, for you to say that he is “hostile to the rule of law” is either ignorance or willful propaganda.

To say that Rudy does not believe that we have a right to defend ourselves is to further mischaracterize his positions.

He was stuck with an INS and ICE that would not prosecute or deport illegals, except in pitifully small numbers, while were overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of illegals in our midst. He had to prioritize which ones to pursue, and he chose to go after the violent offenders. Where Rudy could really make gains is if he would address reforming these bureaucracies so that we can successfully enforce existing law.

His lawsuit against the gun industry was a mistake, and that is a legitimate complaint. The rest of this stuff just sounds like paranoid mutterings.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 10:46 AM

His lawsuit against the gun industry was a mistake, and that is a legitimate complaint. The rest of this stuff just sounds like paranoid mutterings.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 10:46 AM

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Moreover, for you to say that he is “hostile to the rule of law” is either ignorance or willful propaganda.

You chose to only highlight part of my statement thereby taking it out of context.

hostile to both the rule of law and the Bill of Rights respectively on these matters.

My “rule of law” comment was specifically regarding illegal aliens. I am familiar with his hard line record on the law in other many other matters and applaud him in that aspect. Actions speak louder than words and his actions lead me to not trust Rudy on 2nd Amendment and illegal alien issues. I’m not impugning his mayoral record and maybe what he did was necessary for NYC, but I’m not interested in having a peter principle president.

deepdiver on September 22, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Is that more clear?

csdeven on September 22, 2007 at 6:23 AM

Yes, you are not a loon. But it seems to me that the NRA types are sort of crazy (doriangrey, hollowpoint) or paranoid (you). I do not see any movement to take away the right to own raesonable firearms by law abiding citizens, particularly not from Rudy. From his website:

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

He’s not coming to get your guns, but the Rebubbakins are running into Freds big lovin’ arms because they think Rudy is comin’ for their guns. Its silly.

tommylotto on September 22, 2007 at 12:17 PM

tommylotto: When you move to planet Earth, give us a call.

The NRA here doesn’t promote individual suitcase nukes or artillery.

What’s it like on your planet, where this is a problem?

Merovign on September 22, 2007 at 1:53 PM

The lawsuit had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 11:31 AM

That’s correct.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2