Everyone wants to have the best car sound system, and everyone selling one wants people to think that theirs is the best….

Not very good. And makes him unable to run away from his belief on this issue. You can’t nuance out of it when you go this far by saying ‘well um you have a right to own a gun.’ He clearly believes gun ownership is not a right if he sues manufacturers for making a legal product.

but just like any individual right protected by the bill of rights can be restricted by the state if the restriction is narrowly crafted to protect a “compelling state interest.” What is reasonable, sufficiently narrow restriction and what is a compelling state interest will depend on the locale.

I could not disagree more. There is no ‘compelling state interest’ other than a ‘police state’ to take guns away from law abiding citizens. AGAIN. . . GUNS don’t commit crimes, PEOPLE commit crimes. If you want to keep CONVICTED FELONS from owning firearms, that’s completely different from keeping a law abiding citizen from owning a gun, any gun.

A state could not completely ban firearms, but depending on the totality of the circumstances, there could be limits on the type of firearms permissible, limits on cealed firearms, limits on assualt weapons, maybe limits on hand guns, registration requirements, owner certification requirements, licenses, etc.

AGAIN, this is a DEMOCRATIC position. It is a valid argument that is made all the time by the Rosie O’Donnell’s and HILLARY CLINTON’S of the world. Yes, the SCOTUS will decide a case about this soon. THIS IS WHY THE BELIEF OF THE GUY RUNNING FOR THE POSITION TO APPOINT THE JUSTICES IS IMPORTANT! I don’t expect Rudy to differ from Hillary on this issue. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary because of it, and I won’t vote for Rudy because of it (I don’t care if they have a D or a R next to their name, they are wrong).

I hate I didn’t come back to this thread earlier because nobody will see this. But the bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is a right for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS in ALL LOCALES. The government does NOT have a right to restrict my gun ownership AT ALL if I am a law abiding citizen (according to the Constitution – and I’ll bet the SCOTUS will decide this way too).

Guns do not commit crimes. People commit crimes. Paste that on your brain when you discuss the issues about restricting gun rights of American citizens. You will force law abiding citizens to defer to incompetent and often unavailable government police forces to protect them . . . hello Hurricane Katrina.

We have run the second to death. I will tell you again what the SCOTUS is going to do with the issue, and it will be very similar to Rudy’s position. The Second IS an individual right, not a state right, but just like any individual right protected by the bill of rights can be restricted by the state if the restriction is narrowly crafted to protect a “compelling state interest.” What is reasonable, sufficiently narrow restriction and what is a compelling state interest will depend on the locale. What is constitutional in NYC will not be constitutional in Texas, because local circumstances create different state interests. A state could not completely ban firearms, but depending on the totality of the circumstances, there could be limits on the type of firearms permissible, limits on cealed firearms, limits on assualt weapons, maybe limits on hand guns, registration requirements, owner certification requirements, licenses, etc. Not all these restrictions will be required in all locales. In some places none will be enacted. In other places like DC, the state will go too far and the law will be struck down by the courts as too restrictive, or not narrow enough, or not associated with a compelling state interest.

Neither the right nor the left will get a win. The debate will go on, but the perameters of the debate will be defined.

He believes in an individual right and reasonable restrictions based on locale.

Again this is just blatantly wrong. DC tried to ‘reduce crime’ by making guns illegal. But they are still the ‘murder capital of the world’. Guns don’t commit crimes. People do.

Owning guns is either a right or it isn’t. Felons should not own guns, but a government in any ‘locale’ in America does not have the right to take guns away from a law abiding citizen. If the crook knows the good guy doesn’t have a gun because he can’t, then bang, the good guy without a gun is dead because now the criminal with a gun has the advantage.

It is NEVER right to trample on the 2nd amendment in America. Go to the UK if you want a gun ban. We fought a war some 230 years ago to get away from UK rule.

The main problem I have is the video of him trying to justify trampling on the 2nd amendment rights of Americans. It’s just wrong and I would not expect a Republican to even consider such a stance – conservative or moderate (Democrat? likely).

Do you think the gun lobby is just going to forget what Rudy did by suing the manufacturers? The NRA is still a powerful force in the R party.

That gun move is BAD with a capital B and in my book disqualifies him for the top of the ticket of the R party. That and that alone shows that he thinks more government is the solution (not an ‘R’ trait).

Same with sancuarty cities. As mayor he did what he had to do to hold a city with 400,000 illegals together. His policy as POTUS is different because the job description, powers and objective is different.

He’s a good campaigner, but he won’t beat Hillary when/if she wins the nomination and her spin/hit machine gets a hold of Rudy’s record.

For the record, I’m not actively supporting anyone. Of all of the R candidates, I probably like McCain the best (and I really dislike him for many of his backward positions).

I have no problems with New Yorkers, or Italians, or Catholics if their stances on the issues are similar to mine. I just can not get past his gun confiscation policy in NYC to consider him as a conservative. And I don’t even own a gun. . . but I want the right to have one because the police won’t always be there to protect me if I need them.

You go, tommylotto.

ThackerAgency on November 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Thacker, I have a problem deciding whether to respond to you, because you are so prolific. I doubt I can keep up, because I’m not as devoted. The problem is that you are constantly attributing positions to Rudy to make your point that are not Rudy’s positions.

For example, Rudy on the Law of the Sea Treaty:

“I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan. I also understand the arguments of those — particularly in our military — who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations.

“But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as long as it fails to address these concerns.”

Then you link to a smear job from Slate.com on socialized medicine. Which completely distorts what Rudy did — because it is a smear. Rudy was the mayor of NYC. There were federal programs set up to afford poor people with health care. There was talk of expanding those programs. Rudy stated that instead of expanding the programs, let’s fully implement the ones that we already have. He started a drive to enroll all in NYC that were eligible. He did not expand socialize medicine. He picked up all the $$$ for NYC thrown around by the federal government. That is being a good mayor. If you want to know what Rudy’s position is on health care, look here, not the Village Voice. You will see that Rudy wants nothing to do with socialize medicine as POTUS, but if the fed is giving away money, as mayor, he wants his share.

I know NYC has more foreign nationals than any other area in the world. But here again, I personally would prefer that America not look or act like NYC over the past 20 years. I would like to see preference given to America and her citizens.

Fred is right to tell Rudy that he’s got to do more than talk about his NYC record. Rudy needs to see it is an chance to demonstrate that NYC isn’t a microcosm of the USA, and that there are different job requirements and principles between mayor and POTUS–like a prosecutor becoming a judge or an SVP of sales becoming CEO.

Some issues, like abortion, might be fundamental and not subject to change, but something like SCHIP probably would be. New York State gets 79 cents in federal spending back for every dollar sent to DC. The mayor of NYC or governor of the state has a responsibility to the people of the state, much like a parent has a responsibility to his family to take all of his tax deductions, even if he thinks some are not the best federal policy.

Ended Watergate

Ended the Impeachment Process of Clinton by leading the Federalists

Ended out of control spending in Washington

Rudy took credit for crime that was already heading way way down post Dinkins

Rudy’s top management team is going to jail

Go figure

Who knows soon Rudy may have a record – so to speak if Bernie talks

When these two Republicans clash, know there’s a woman at the scene, not Lou but Hillary, waiting to ‘pinch the vote’ from both. Shame that Fred had to take it to Rudy, but this is what I’ve been saying since February: Rudy is useless, as far as Gu…

I understand that. I am quite familar with how rude other posters can be to each other. But you didn’t really fire back, you used it to make a point (where valid or not) on another blog to create an impression about Rudy. It is disappointing to see as I’m sure you understand.

Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 9:39 AM

Point taken Spirit. It was just frustrating that no one would just say, Rudy supports XYZ.

AP’s original premise on this particular thread was that Rudy was saying that Fred has no record.

I am Fred supporter 100% and will be unless he gives me a reason to change my mind.

At politico I was looking for the same response. ie Rudy supports XYZ.

Thanks for your response-I’ll try to make my points a little clearer in the future.

My post at politco was before anyone here had answered my question. tommylotto’s first response to my question started out by calling me “ignorant” and telling to “Shut Up” so I just fired back a little.
Nelsa on November 25, 2007 at 8:12 AM

I understand that. I am quite familar with how rude other posters can be to each other. But you didn’t really fire back, you used it to make a point (where valid or not) on another blog to create an impression about Rudy. It is disappointing to see as I’m sure you understand.

strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits.

and I hope he doesn’t mean giving more money to the UN. It is in NYC isn’t it? How about the Law of the Sea treaty? Does this comment mean that he would be willing to give up US sovereignty for ‘the international system’?

I know NYC has more foreign nationals than any other area in the world. But here again, I personally would prefer that America not look or act like NYC over the past 20 years. I would like to see preference given to America and her citizens.

Hey, Thacker, maybe you should limit your self to 4 “I REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE RUDY AND WILL NEVER EVER EVER VOTE FOR HIM” posts per thread..

otherwise your blood pressure is likely to skyrocket, your heart may go into palpitations, and you wont be able to get proper help under the socialized medicine plan of your preferred-to-Rudy choice for Potus, Hillary RC.

Always Right on November 25, 2007 at 7:57 AM

Funny how you use ‘socialized medicine’ as a reason Rudy would be ‘better than’ Hillary because AS MAYOR he tripled the SCHIP like program with NO CARE about how much it cost the taxpayers. Of course now he says ‘Hillary socialized medicine boogie man’ BUT HIS RECORD shows that he was actively in favor of EXPANDING such a government controlled taxpayer funded program (aka socialized medicine).

I don’t get upset at all posting on here. My writing style is such that I try to elicit emotion from the reader. I believe I have a unique ability to do just that.

I don’t ‘hate’ Rudy. His positions are just like any Democrat running for president. I do get frustrated because people don’t see that. He won’t win the POTUS. Rudy is the R party’s Kerry. He is the elitist choice with no clue about the rest of the country. He’s only hoping that the rest of the country worships NYC enough to get him and his cronies into the whitehouse. I don’t know that Hillary Clinton ever voted to take guns away from citizens – Rudy did (and went on to sue gun manufacturers).

It’s nothing personal against Rudy. My problem with Rudy is his record and his Democrat positions that won’t play well in typically R states.

I like Rudy.. I like Fred.. I like Mitt.

I’ll be happy no matter who gets the nomination.

The rest of you whiney bitches should too.

VinceP1974 on November 24, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Here here, my thoughts exactly.

I have no doubt that Rudy has the experience to be the chief executive of the nation. His politics on matters such as 2nd amendment, abortion and immigration do give me pause and keep me from backing him at this juncture. If he gets the nomination though, I am a Rudy man!

Nelsa here’s another for you. 7 pages of specifics his specific view on foreign affairs. I’m not even a Rudy supporter:) Here’s your summary:

Summary: The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges: setting a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order, strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits. With a stronger defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and cultural influence, the next president can start to build a lasting, realistic peace.
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 2:24 AM

Spirit thanks for link on specifics and your civil response.
My post at politco was before anyone here had answered my question. tommylotto’s first response to my question started out by calling me “ignorant” and telling to “Shut Up” so I just fired back a little.

Perhaps if the MSM would focus on the issues instead of saying that “Rudy focuses on his record in NYC” or that “Fred Thompson is lazy” maybe we would all be better informed.

Hey, Thacker, maybe you should limit your self to 4 “I REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE RUDY AND WILL NEVER EVER EVER VOTE FOR HIM” posts per thread..

otherwise your blood pressure is likely to skyrocket, your heart may go into palpitations, and you wont be able to get proper help under the socialized medicine plan of your preferred-to-Rudy choice for Potus, Hillary RC.

What are the odds of any Republican candidate taking NY?

bnelson44 on November 24, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Same odds Las Vegas bookies would give on me winning Miss America. (57 year old male redneck here.)

I was posting on another Blog tonight and I realized I had a question about Rudy Giuliani and his campaign. No one could answer my question. My question was simple. Give me one policy or proposal that Giuliani has promoted during his candidcacy. What Proposals or Policies does he intent to make as POTUS? Still not answer.
Posted By: Nelsa | November 24, 2007 at 09:09 PM

I’m disappointed honestly. I thought a fair question deserved a fair answer, but what’s the proverb? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Thanks for pointing that out, you have certainly illustrated what is and what is not worth effort.

Summary: The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges: setting a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order, strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits. With a stronger defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and cultural influence, the next president can start to build a lasting, realistic peace.