Video: Rudy confuses the Second Amendment with the Fourth — in front of the NRA; Update: Or does he? Update: Flashback Rudy cell phone video added!

posted at 4:10 pm on September 22, 2007 by Allahpundit

I was so focused on the phone call yesterday that I missed this completely. The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Watch for the quotation. The faux pas of taking that call may have averted political disaster.

Update: In fact, he (slightly) misquotes the Fourth Amendment too, doesn’t he? What the hell was he reading from?

Update: One of our commenters thinks Rudy’s getting a bad rap because the Second Amendment also refers to “people” and “security.” Admittedly, he’d have to be awfully stupid to confuse the two provisions, and Rudy may be many things but stupid he isn’t. The fact that he wasn’t directly quoting either amendment — his exact words before he gets cut off are, “the people shall be secure” — also tends to acquit him since if he’s only paraphrasing then he might have been on his way to saying something like, “the people shall be secure in their right to bear arms to protect their state.” That’s not what the amendment says, but creative interpretation is a far cry from being so ignorant of the Constitution that you’d mistake two core freedoms. What probably happened is that he reached for some words from memory to paraphrase the language and stumbled into a phrase he recalled as being near the beginning of the bill of rights but which wasn’t from the actual amendment he was looking for. Still embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as it may at first seem.

Update: This wasn’t the first time Rudy’s been interrupted by a call during a campaign event. Here’s the first instance, from June. It went a little better that time.


Related Posts:

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

When he first declared himself a candidate, I was really excited, now Ive lost the feeling…when Fred made us wait and wait…i was excited, now im not. Now I look to Romney, if he stumbles we’re all screwed with 8 years of Hillary..Im depressed.

malkinmania on September 22, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Run Newt RUN!!!!!!

Romeo13 on September 22, 2007 at 4:21 PM

malkinmania on September 22, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Whoever wins in 2008; this race will be the most intellectually devoid race ever. Neither party has anyone who stands out. It’s all going to come down to to 40% for D, 40% for R, and 20% idgits. Idgits will decide our fate.

lorien1973 on September 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Rudy just showed up to be able to say that he showed up. He cares nothing for gun rights.

Not only did he trample on the second amendment in NYC, but then he abused the legal system by suing dozens of gun manufacturers.

Too bad he’s not as zealous an advocate for conservative issues as he is for liberal issues.

jaime on September 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Oh what a tangled web we weave once we practice to deceive.

MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Im trying to like Romney..really…but he keeps reminding me of the polished politicians you’d see in a Rodney Dangerfield movie.

malkinmania on September 22, 2007 at 4:25 PM

I was for Fred. I think I’ll just throw my vote away on Duncan Hunter or Tancredo. I can’t stand these vacuous liberals attempting to pull the wool over our eyes.

PRCalDude on September 22, 2007 at 4:27 PM

It’s all going to come down to to 40% for D, 40% for R, and 20% idgits. Idgits will decide our fate.

lorien1973 on September 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM

I’ve been registered as an independent since I was 18. I’m happy to be the idjit that’ll decide your fate. [sotto voce]If only it were true.

jaime on September 22, 2007 at 4:28 PM

You guys just don’t do nuance. You see, this is all code.

Code for “I’m an ignorant idiot and I don’t give a damn about you or the Constitution.”

What a depressing turd this “shining light” is turning out to be.

Back in my early Libertarian days, we used to have a saying. “The two main parties in the US are the stupid party and the evil party – the trouble is telling which is which.”

I guess now we know. (Slaps forehead.)

I really wish we could field a good candidate. It’s probably too late for this race, but hopefully Shrillary will self-destruct as badly as Edwards and Obama are doing.

I’m a little sick of voting for the less bad candidate.

Merovign on September 22, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Can you imagine if this were Fred and not Rudy? It would be all over the blogosphere by now. Dick Morris Hollowpoint, Watcher, VolMagic, Gregor, et al would be racing to pump out a new “Fred Sucks” column,

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM

The Second Amendment types are eventually gonna pick that up, and Rudy’s gonna have some serious splainin’ to do.

Bad Candy on September 22, 2007 at 4:35 PM

malkinmania on September 22, 2007 at 4:17 PM

I’m not so crazy about Mitt, either – he endorsed RU-486, and said he was committed to keeping abortion legal in Mass – yet he wants us all to think he’s this great pro-lifer. He just comes across as too plastic and oily for me. As for Rudy, well, I’m not voting for him, either, for a variety of reasons, and this is just one of them.

jdawg on September 22, 2007 at 4:36 PM

I saw people saying this yesterday. They’re idiots, and so are you for thinking that he was directly quoting fourth amendment. Both speak of security and the rights of the people. This is the lamest attempt at a “gotcha” I’ve heard in a while.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 4:50 PM

World won’t end, nor will Rudy crumble over this – still pretty ignorant for any candidate. Will be forgotten soon.

Idgits will decide our fate.

lorien1973 on September 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Mostly do, and might not be so bad. We need a stronger 3rd party in this country as the two are hardly superior to each other, for a variety of different reasons.

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 4:53 PM

None of the GOP candidates have me excited. Given Ronald Reagan’s current condition, he’d still be the better candidate.

.

GT on September 22, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Actually, way back when, I was hoping Condi would run..but could you imagine the wack-left,they’d destroy her and how long would it be before Sharpton called her white? But she’s actually brilliant, its a shame dirty politics keeps genuine smart people from running.

malkinmania on September 22, 2007 at 5:09 PM

What in Hell is wrong with these dolts . . . are they really as out of it as they appear. I’m beginning to think we’re screwed.

rplat on September 22, 2007 at 5:13 PM

I saw people saying this yesterday. They’re idiots, and so are you for thinking that he was directly quoting fourth amendment. Both speak of security and the rights of the people. This is the lamest attempt at a “gotcha” I’ve heard in a while.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 4:50 PM

You just dont get it. Not only was he very specifically speaking about the second amendment but when he tried to quote the a section of the second amendment he misquoted part of the forth.

To quote Rudy…

After all the second amendment is a freedom that is every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first ten amendments. Just think of the language of it, the language of it is the people shall be secure…

That’s not the language of the second amendment, not even close…

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Allahpundit Watch for the quotation. The faux pas of taking that call may have averted political disaster.

Ha ha ha, no AP, it wasnt a faux pas at all Rudy realized that he had screwed up so pretended to be receiving a call. Watch the video clip carefully, he starts reaching in his pocket for his phone, but it doesn’t actually start ringing until it is in his hand.

Even if his phone were on vibrate it wouldn’t start ringing just because he took it out of his pocket. They either vibrate or ring, the whole point of the vibrate mode is so that you know a call is coming in but the ringing does interrupt what ever else you might be doing.

On the other hand most of the newer phones have a ring test feature that allows you to test the ring just by pushing a button on the side of the phone. My brothers 5 and 6 year old kids drive me nuts with that feature every time they get a hold of their dads cell phone.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Answering that call was completely idiotic.

Rightwingsparkle on September 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Given Ronald Reagan’s current condition, he’d still be the better candidate.

.

GT on September 22, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Agreed.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 5:20 PM

It appears he has a Razr.

amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:29 PM

w00psy

trailortrash on September 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM

But of course, this is Rudy, so it’s possible that this will be the only place you’ll hear about it.

Is he kidding? Every time Rudy is late for a speech or gets something wrong it’s on Drudge.

amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM

This is a stupid post. The thought was cut off by the phone call and Rudy was just in the middle of saying that the freedom or right as set forth in the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the other 10 — its not a stretch to think he knew what he was talking about and was in the process of making a point by talking about the fourth. We’ll never know what he intended, but to call attention to this is just more red meat fed to Rebubbakins and Fredheads by AP. His perspective is starting to get stale.

tommylotto on September 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM

People usually don’t use ‘shall” when paraphrasing. Also, after the phone call he changes subject. But…the truth is…we will never really know.

Jay on September 22, 2007 at 5:34 PM

but to call attention to this is just more red meat fed to Rebubbakins and Fredheads by AP. His perspective is starting to get stale.

Actually I think AP spreads the “love” quite evenly over the field of candidates.

Weight of Glory on September 22, 2007 at 5:37 PM

You want to know how stupid a post this is?

If the Second had the language that this post implies Rudy used (which I highly doubt), it would be even stronger for the rights of an individual, because it would not have stated the expressed reason for the right to bear arms as assisting the formation of a well regulated militia.

Are you paranoid NRA types saying that Rudy the gun grabber was re-writing the Constitution to give you more and stronger rights to bear arms?

tommylotto on September 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM

You want to know how stupid a post this is?

Really? Is your football team losing today?

Weight of Glory on September 22, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Ha ha ha, no AP, it wasnt a faux pas at all Rudy realized that he had screwed up so pretended to be receiving a call. Watch the video clip carefully, he starts reaching in his pocket for his phone, but it doesn’t actually start ringing until it is in his hand.

Nope. It’s ringing before. Turn up the volume or get some headphones. You’ll hear it.

MrC_5150 on September 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Are you paranoid NRA types saying that Rudy the gun grabber was re-writing the Constitution to give you more and stronger rights to bear arms?

tommylotto on September 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM

No.

Weight of Glory on September 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Jay on September 22, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Keep in mind that he’s been an attorney for over 20 years, a mayor through the 90s, a prosecutor, and one-time 3rd highest rank in the Justice Department under Reagan. He very well may paraphrase using “shall”.

amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM

MrC_5150 on September 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM

That and the fact that some phones can be set to vibrate before ringing.

amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:49 PM

We’ll never know what he intended, but to call attention to this is just more red meat fed to Rebubbakins and Fredheads by AP. His perspective is starting to get stale.

Feel free not to read the site then. I spent basically all summer criticizing Fred for the LAT abortion story, for dragging his feet in getting into the race, and for his myriad campaign personnel problems. I criticize Mitt regularly for pandering to social cons, including in the very post that precedes this one. I criticize Rudy too when the occasion warrants — and also defend him, per my Vilsack post of last night. Everyone gets the same shake, but for some reason the Rudy fans tend to whine about it more. I wonder why.

Are you paranoid NRA types saying that Rudy the gun grabber was re-writing the Constitution to give you more and stronger rights to bear arms?

No, they’re saying that Rudy’s newfound belief in the Second Amendment is so transparently phony and designed to pander to the base that he couldn’t even be bothered to get the wording of the amendment straight.

Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

The phone was just in time to make this debate worthy and the MSM ignore it. I’m skeptical.

For Tommy Lotto….I just don’t like Rudy. I think he is a liberal period. I haven’t decided who to root for yet though. I’m not a Fred Head, though I like him. I’m not a Mitthead, though I like him ok. Just don’t like McCain for President or Rudy…or Ron Paul.

Jay on September 22, 2007 at 6:02 PM

Who can beat Hillary? Fred? Rudy? Newt? Picture this—-The Senate, the House and the Prez all Dems. It’s the stuff nightmares are made of. If Republicans don’t come together at some point on some candidate or other in spite of perceived flaws, this is the future.

jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Another good conversation on this at Free Republic. Thy put it in their breaking news as a vanity.

Jay on September 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Everyone gets the same shake, but for some reason the Rudy fans tend to whine about it more. I wonder why.

Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Because this isn’t criticism for something he did. This post is speculation that he mistook one amendment for another, when what the few words he said didn’t come from either so was a paraphrase. There isn’t actually a base for criticism here, seeing as he only uttered a few words, which could’ve been a paraphrase of either one.

amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Jump in Newt. The water’s fine.

Guardian on September 22, 2007 at 6:08 PM

The attorney for over 20 years, once working as one of the highest officials in Reagan’s Justice Department, isn’t awarded benefit of the doubt up front, it’s assumed he got it wrong.

Not necessarily by you, but look at the post at FR.

However, when discussing the second amendment’s language, he mistakenly began to paraphrase the fourth amendment instead!

amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Answering that call was completely idiotic.

Rightwingsparkle on September 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Take it from the voice of sane women, everybody - because sane women don’t like to be pandered to - it makes them feel weak.
.

Now if I could tell you a story, like for example, that I know this to be true, because, I was married to an insane woman – and she always needed to be pandered to – you would immediately, say, what to me?

[drum rolls]

“Man, what king of judgment did you have, marrying a woman like that?!”

Dude and Dudettes, you’ve just made my point……… Thank you.

Now you can throw the first stone.…[wallop].

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 6:17 PM

Watch the entire video here:
Rudy NRA Speech

My apologies if someone else has already provided the link.

MrC_5150 on September 22, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Oh, settle down Fredheads. We all supported bush through hundreds, if not thousands, of verbal mistakes. Rudy slips a thought, or gets cut off by a phone, and the next thing you know he’s unfit for the Executive Office.

Give him some credit. He’s at the NRA after all clarifying himself.

Vincenzo on September 22, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Give him some credit. He’s at the NRA after all clarifying himself.

Vincenzo on September 22, 2007 at 6:28 PM

No, as a firm and ardent supporter of the second amendment what I am not doing is giving Rudy credit for speaking at the NRA. He is responsible for some horrible attacks on the second amendment and he doesn’t get a pass now that he is running for POTUS by claiming to support something he has tried to kill in the past.

Nor is his nonsense about gun ownership being a states rights issue flying with me either. States rights are specifically for rights and issues not enumerated in the Constitution itself.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 6:37 PM

I did not like him when he was mayor and nothing has changed.

Zaire67 on September 22, 2007 at 6:46 PM

This is the lamest attempt at a “gotcha” I’ve heard in a while.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Agreed. The phone calls are really stupid but he’s solid on the Constitution.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM

… they’re saying that Rudy’s newfound belief in the Second Amendment is so transparently phony and designed to pander to the base …

Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

heh. I’m sure we will see some huntingphoto’s in the coming months.

AZ_Redneck on September 22, 2007 at 6:59 PM

but he’s solid on the Constitution.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM

… pro-abortion … walks with demonstrators demanding “gay rights” … supports hate crime legislation … supported the “assault weapon” ban … believes the fourth amendment should be suspended when the state has a “compelling reason” … made New York a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, and is a proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens.

yeah. rock solid.

AZ_Redneck on September 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM

AZ_Redneck on September 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Heh!

Weight of Glory on September 22, 2007 at 7:24 PM

AZ_Redneck on September 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Are you a first cousin of AZCON by any chance?

Very few of the items on your list have anything at all to do with the Constitution.

But hey, maybe you can explain in your most scholarly manner how marching in a gay pride parade is a violation of the Constitution.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM

AZ_Redneck on September 22, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Nah. Not Hunting. Maybe at a police shooting range, though.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Huh. Fred Thompson made another comment in which he support some version of campaign finance reform today. Since I’m a former journalist and huge supporter of the first amendment, I think I’ll sit out the election if Thompson wins the nomination.

The first amendment is just too important to be left to someone who doesn’t respect our right to free speech.

Slublog on September 22, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Correction – “in which he supported…” and the comment was made the other day in an interview with Human Events magazine.

Slublog on September 22, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Slublog on September 22, 2007 at 7:55 PM

I am opposed to Fred’s candidacy largely because of his support of McCain-Feingold. That being said, it is possible to reform the laws without infringing on the First Amendment.

I’d need to see what his specific proposals are. After watching Hsugate, I can see some things right off the bat which could use a whole lotta fixing – like requiring that your name, address and place of employment be consistent when you file FEC paperwork.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM

I’m actually just kind of goofing on the anti-Rudyites. I don’t like Fred’s stance on campaign finance reform, but it’s not enough for me to sit out the election and allow someone worse to get elected.

Slublog on September 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Who can beat Hillary? Fred? Rudy? Newt? Picture this—-The Senate, the House and the Prez all Dems. It’s the stuff nightmares are made of. If Republicans don’t come together at some point on some candidate or other in spite of perceived flaws, this is the future.

jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM

1976 – It took a Carter and both houses of congress controlled by democrats to get Reagan 4 years later. Maybe history will repeat or at least rhyme.

MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 8:10 PM

1976 – It took a Carter and both houses of congress controlled by democrats to get Reagan 4 years later. Maybe history will repeat or at least rhyme.

Absolutely. Let’s put people who not only completely disagree with everything we believe, but are actively hostile to us in charge on the off chance that history will repeat itself.

Slublog on September 22, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Oh, settle down Fredheads. We all supported bush through hundreds, if not thousands, of verbal mistakes.

Vincenzo on September 22, 2007 at 6:28 PM

LOL! How did that one work out for you.

Fool me once, shame on you …
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Oh wait. Did I quote that correct?

Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 8:31 PM

Can you imagine if this were Fred and not Rudy? It would be all over the blogosphere by now. Dick Morris Hollowpoint, Watcher, VolMagic, Gregor, et al would be racing to pump out a new “Fred Sucks” column,

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM

I don’t get it. I believe you and csdeven are the two main “Fred Sucks” party goers. Are you accusing me of writing anti-Fred columns?

You actually show the hypocrisy coming from your end, not the other. Why are both of you not in here bashing Rudy on this? Guess it doesn’t really matter WHAT Rudy does, does it? You and csdeven will continue to support him.

Sorta like Clinton supporters actually.

Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Slublog on September 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Come to think of it you were doing an excellent job of aping their narrow-minded intransigence.

Slublog on September 22, 2007 at 8:24 PM

You said it.

I had a conversation today with someone who is a self-described devout Catholic. He told me that if Rudy was the nominee his faith requires that he sit out the election and his friends agree.

I pointed out that if enough people approach the ’08 elections from that very principled but uncompromising viewpoint we’ll end up with Hillary in the White House and a whole lot more Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s in the courts.

He was unmoved by my argument. The good news is that he said he could vote for Romney.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 8:39 PM

The good news is that he said he could vote for Romney.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 8:39 PM

Only problem: Romney is not going to be the nominee and even if he was, I don’t believe Romney would stand a chance of winning in the general election.

Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 9:01 PM

1976 – It took a Carter and both houses of congress controlled by democrats to get Reagan 4 years later. Maybe history will repeat or at least rhyme.

MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 8:10 PM

These are different times. This time around, we’re talking about far left liberals who are controlled by organizations such as MoveOn.org and George Soros having complete control of our country.

If Hillary should win the White House this time around, and control both the House and the Senate, here’s what we’re looking at the next time we get a chance:

- Amnesty and even less border security, giving voting rights to possibly 100 million new voters who are almost guaranteed to vote Democrat. (Please don’t even try to suggest that these new voters will vote Republican).

- Homosexual marriage (Nationally).

- Full scale homosexual indoctrination in public schools.

- Abortions at ANY stage.

- Unbearably higher taxes.

- Socialized healthcare.

- Elimination of the Patriot Act and all other terror fighting tools.

- And further movement toward becoming an Islamic Nation.

The most important step in the above list would be the new votes given to illegals and their incoming families and future anchor babies. You think conservatives will EVER win another election? Forget about it. It’s over.

So I hope anyone seriously thinking of “sitting out the election” on principle puts a lot of thought into the decision beforehand.

Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Oh yeah.

Add one more item to the above list:

Elimination of the Electoral College.

The libs have already expressed their desire to move to a flat majority vote. It won’t matter any more that most of the country is red geographically. You’ll have the formal illegal aliens and all the welfare hungry leaches deciding the Presidency.

Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 9:20 PM

formal former illegal aliens

Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM

This proves one thing….Rudy’s wife has him wrapped around her finger.

He may be tough, but he doesn’t wear the pants in his own house! If you’re giving a speech and your wife calls and you feel that you must answer the phone or else…you may be henpecked.

haha

p40tiger on September 22, 2007 at 9:24 PM

Good catch Allah. Yep, he was into the Forth Amendment because the word “secure” does not appear in the Second. And his little … takes a phone call from his wife routine is obviously a staged gag. Rudy being disingenuous and misquoting the Constitution, who da thunk it.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Why are both of you not in here bashing Rudy on this?
Gregor on September 22, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Apparently you missed my post at

at 6:17 PM

.
.

My first post at:

at 4:32 PM

was just an attempt to distract you from this debate.

I guess it worked. :)

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 9:27 PM

If you want to understand what he was saying, watch the whole speech. Somebody else linked to it (on the C-SPAN) website) earlier in this thread. He was making the point that the word “people” in the constitution means what it says, and that activist judges shouldn’t interpret it as meaning “individuals” in one case and “militias” in the other. In fact, he invoked the 4th Amendment in making his argument. He obviously knows the difference between them, if you bother to watch the video.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM

It’s not hard how he got from the exact wording of the 2nd amendment, which seemingly links the security of a free state with the right of the people to bear arms, to the clumsy paraphrase he ended up using. Coincidentally, the same two words appear in the 4th amendment. Big deal.

The phone thing was as appalling watching it the second time as it was the first time Hotair covered it. Dangit Rudy, you’ve got to know your every gaffe is going to be pored over in exruciating detail. Youtube, Rudy, Youtube.

Somewhat related, wouldn’t the framers have saved an awful lot of trouble by replacing the second comma with a period or semicolon?

RightOFLeft on September 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Romney supporters …

Savor THIS:

A website paid for and authorized by the Massachusetts Democratic Party has posted a picture of a flier reportedly passed out at a 2002 ‘gay pride’ event by then-gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney expressing support for homosexual rights.

The flier, on red paper, claims to have been paid for by “the Romney for Governor Committee and the Kerry Murphy Healey Committee” and reads, “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride Weekend. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference.”

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FLIER

How’s that going to help them numbers?

Gregor on September 23, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 9:27 PM

If you want to understand what he was saying, watch the whole speech. Somebody else linked to it (on the C-SPAN) website) earlier in this thread. He was making the point that the word “people” in the constitution means what it says, and that activist judges shouldn’t interpret it as meaning “individuals” in one case and “militias” in the other. In fact, he invoked the 4th Amendment in making his argument. He obviously knows the difference between them, if you bother to watch the video.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM

Firstly, we are not talking about some other speech as it may have been presented elsewhere, we are talking about the video clip as it unfolds above.

Here is a transcript of what he says in the above video. Watch the video again to see if my transcript is accurate. This is what he said:

After all the Second Amendment is a freedom that is every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first ten amendments. Just think of the language of it. The language of it is THE PEOPLE shall be secure …. [phone rings] Oh let me see, this is my wife calling I think ….

When he says “Just think of the language of it” he is clearly talking about the Second Amendment, just as he was in the prior sentence.

Then he goes on to say… The language of it is THE PEOPLE shall be secure…

That’s wrong… the word “secure” is nowhere to be found in the Second Amendment. He gaffed it, it happens sometimes. That’s not to say he doesn’t know the difference between the Second and the Fourth Amendments, but it is to say that he blew it in this particular setting.

And the “wife phone call” thing is a stage gag, just as Allah pointed out.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 1:40 AM

The speech I mentioned is the same one, from the NRA meeting. Here it is again. just in case you feel like informing yourself. The section of interest is a little less than halfway into his speech.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 2:42 AM

Agreed. The phone calls are really stupid but he’s solid on the Constitution.

Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM

A guy who has no problem with Roe v Wade (a blatantly activist decision) and who thinks that the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that doesn’t apply to states and cities is “solid on the Constitution”??? I don’t think so.

Romney is as bad- he openly supports another federal “assault weapon” ban, proving he has no respect for the 2nd Amendment and therefore no respect for the Constitution in general.

You don’t get to pick which parts of the Constitution you’ll follow and which ones you won’t folks. It’s an all-or-nothing deal; either you follow the text and intent or you don’t.

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 2:57 AM

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Dude, I told you I don’t swing that way. Stalking won’t change that.

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 3:10 AM

The speech I mentioned is the same one, from the NRA meeting. Here it is again. just in case you feel like informing yourself. The section of interest is a little less than halfway into his speech.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 2:42 AM

So your telling me its the same video but it says something different than the one above. That’s pretty amazing.

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 3:14 AM

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 3:14 AM

Believe it or not, he spoke for more than 30 seconds. Actually, the speech was about 30 minutes long. The section in the clip above came at about the midway point of the speech. Therefore, he said some things before it, and then said some other things afterwards too. They even had something to do with each other! Imagine that. It’s called context.

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:24 AM

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 3:24 AM

Did you not read my comment at 1:40AM ? I don’t care if his speech was going on for 10 days prior to the segment above and continued for an additional 30 days after the segment above. The topic of the discussion concerned only the few words and the small segment that is displayed at the top of this post.

And that is all my comment was based on and all that is relevant to what I stated. Good Grief Man !

Maxx on September 23, 2007 at 3:35 AM

Feel free not to read the site then. I spent basically all summer criticizing Fred for the LAT abortion story, for dragging his feet in getting into the race, and for his myriad campaign personnel problems. I criticize Mitt regularly for pandering to social cons, including in the very post that precedes this one. I criticize Rudy too when the occasion warrants — and also defend him, per my Vilsack post of last night. Everyone gets the same shake, but for some reason the Rudy fans tend to whine about it more. I wonder why.

Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Hey, this is your site, you can be a Fred honk if you want, but don’t pretend to be this un-biased neutral observer. Your critiques of Fred are regularly prefaced with Heart-ache. The prior article was an attack on Vilsack (and Hillary) — nowhere in it were you defending Rudy’s personal life. A few days back you criticized Rudy for taking out the Petraeus ad without his permission, when everyone else thought it was just good politics. (Was MM shamelessly exploiting Petraeus?) Here you are trying to condem him for what — a sentance fragment taken out of context!!! Not to mention your breathless headlines for each Rasmussen poll that show Fred ahead, even thought practically every other similar national poll still has Rudy in the lead.

I like your site, because I agree with much of what you say, but not all — and I like the feisty debates. Who wants an echo chamber? However, you must admit you have a man crush on Fred…

tommylotto on September 23, 2007 at 6:25 AM

No, they’re saying that Rudy’s newfound belief in the Second Amendment is so transparently phony and designed to pander to the base that he couldn’t even be bothered to get the wording of the amendment straight.

Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Thank you, AP.

When Rudy files an amicus brief in his lawsuit against gun manufacturers, stating his abject OPPOSITION to its merits, and stating repeatedly, in the court hearing the case, that he was sadly mistaken for filing the suit, then, and only then, I may believe his sincerity defending the Second Amendment.

Texas Nick 77 on September 23, 2007 at 7:59 AM

A guy who has no problem with Roe v Wade (a blatantly activist decision

WRONG. Rudy agrees that Roe v. Wade was bad law made by activist judges which should be overturned, and that has been his position since he ran for Mayor against David Dinkins.

If you want to disagree about his position on abortion you are free to do that, but don’t confuse being pro-choice with supporting Roe v. Wade.

Romney is as bad- he openly supports another federal “assault weapon” ban, proving he has no respect for the 2nd Amendment and therefore no respect for the Constitution in general.

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 2:57 AM

The right to own assault weapons is your very loose interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are a loon on this issue, along with a few other nutcases here.

Maybe you’d like to have some shoulder-fired rockets in your home arsenal too? After all, any attempt to infringe upon your “rights” is unconstitutional!

Buy Danish on September 23, 2007 at 8:27 AM

Texas Nick 77 on September 23, 2007 at 7:59 AM

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

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Big S on September 23, 2007 at 8:48 AM

I have to run out for the day. If you have the time, can you explain to Nick and others why you are correct to say that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the Second Amendment?

Buy Danish on September 23, 2007 at 9:20 AM

WRONG. Rudy agrees that Roe v. Wade was bad law made by activist judges which should be overturned, and that has been his position since he ran for Mayor against David Dinkins.

If you want to disagree about his position on abortion you are free to do that, but don’t confuse being pro-choice with supporting Roe v. Wade.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18478985/page/7/

Moderator: OK to repeal?

Giuliani: It would be OK to repeal. It would be also [be OK] if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.

Moderator: Would it be OK if they didn’t repeal it?

Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it.

Yeah, real strong stance there- it would be “OK” either way to repeal Roe v Wade, and his view of a “contructionist judge” is one who would let it stand.

The right to own assault weapons is your very loose interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are a loon on this issue, along with a few other nutcases here.

Maybe you’d like to have some shoulder-fired rockets in your home arsenal too? After all, any attempt to infringe upon your “rights” is unconstitutional!

Buy Danish on September 23, 2007 at 8:27 AM

Ah, the old straw man argument. No one is talking about rockets or nuclear weapons- we’re talking about rifles that are judged in part on cosmetic appearance. But please, share with us your view of what kinds of firearms

are

protected by the 2nd Amendment if not semi-automatic “assault weapons” (quotes due to the fact that technically an assault weapon is capable of automatic fire).

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Even if his phone were on vibrate it wouldn’t start ringing just because he took it out of his pocket. They either vibrate or ring, the whole point of the vibrate mode is so that you know a call is coming in but the ringing does interrupt what ever else you might be doing.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 5:20 PM

My cell phone vibrates hard, while the ring GRADUALLY grows in sound volume… And, being able to hear Rudy’s phone ringing before he pulls it out, I tend to believe that the call was legitimate, if a planned stunt, and his intended words will forever be a mystery. Anyone who ‘sits out’ the election, ANY election, is part of the problem and no patriot, in MY view. We MUST vote for the candidate of the party and make it clear, in his first term, that we want MORE Conservatism… Not less. At any rate…, the alternative option (allowing a Lib-Dem to be elected) is NOT an option.

Rugged Individual on September 23, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Ah, the old straw man argument. No one is talking about rockets or nuclear weapons- we’re talking about rifles that are judged in part on cosmetic appearance. But please, share with us your view of what kinds of firearms

are
protected by the 2nd Amendment if not semi-automatic “assault weapons” (quotes due to the fact that technically an assault weapon is capable of automatic fire).

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM

It is not a straw man argument, because many NRA types believe that any limitation on the right to bear arms (even on military grade hardware) is a violation of the second amendment. However, I agree with you that gun control based on cosmetics is stupid. Gun control must be based on a compelling state interest. The state does not have a compelling interest to prohibit folding stocks and muzzle flash guards. In fact, in some localities and under certain circumstances I can’t see a compelling state interest to ban fully automatic weapons. However, in other localities I could see a compelling state interest for a band on most guns — except for certain licensed and registered firearms (such as in densely populated urban area labeled as the murder capital of the world). It depends on where you are and what state interests are in the area.

Most NRA types do not want to have an intelligent discussion about what is reasonable and where is it reasonable, because they argue that any restriction is unacceptable.

tommylotto on September 23, 2007 at 4:38 PM

However, in other localities I could see a compelling state interest for a band on most guns — except for certain licensed and registered firearms (such as in densely populated urban area labeled as the murder capital of the world). It depends on where you are and what state interests are in the area.

tommylotto on September 23, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Spoken like a true Rudy fan.

Rudy is if going down faster than a fluffer at a porn convention.

omnipotent on September 23, 2007 at 6:06 PM

if

omnipotent on September 23, 2007 at 6:06 PM

However, in other localities I could see a compelling state interest for a band on most guns — except for certain licensed and registered firearms (such as in densely populated urban area labeled as the murder capital of the world). It depends on where you are and what state interests are in the area.

Yeah, that’s worked so well in Washington DC.

The NRA is in favor of instant background checks and efforts to prevent felons from getting firearms; the vast majority accept restrictions on crew-served weapons that wouldn’t fall under the scope of an individual weapon. no one is suggesting “no restrictions” as your little strawman suggests.

Perhaps you should just sum up your argument as “I don’t believe in following the 2nd Amendment”, as that seems to sum it up pretty well. But please- let us know what other amendments of the Bill of Rights don’t apply when politicians decide that there’s a “compelling state interest” to ignore them.

Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 11:18 PM