The Candidates
Featured Archives
I have been hesitant to comment on this, as it will likely cause some readers to get a little worked up, but it needs to be commented on, and I will try to be fair minded.
Today in an article online, Fred Thompson took issue with gun control laws in New York City, going back to the early 1990’s. He had this to say about the policy taken during this time period, and the quick reaction provided by the Giuliani camp, courtesy of the hill:
“Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani’s administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple.”
Late Tuesday afternoon, after the blog posting had started to make media rounds, Giuliani’s campaign reacted strongly, calling out Thompson’s actor’s perspective.
“Those who live in New York in the real world – not on TV – know that Rudy Giuliani’s record of making the city safe for families speaks for itself,” Katie Levinson, Giuliani’s communications director, said in response to press questions. “No amount of political theater will change that.”
Personally, I think Thompson is right on this issue, and it will be a test that Giuliani will have to overcome once the primaries really start to pick up. This same judge is the one who let:
Mayor Bloomberg send private investigators to make “straw” purchases – illegally buying guns for somebody else. According to the ATF, NY’s illegal “stings” interfered with ongoing investigations of real gun traffickers.
Obviously, New York won’t get much cash out of the few dozen shops being sued in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia; so the purpose can only be political. Some of those sued have already buckled under the financial strain of legal defense and agreed to live by New York City rules.
God help us if NY is able to successfully sue stores in other states. However, this could be a fascinating debate if the Giuliani camp provides a rebuttal on policy terms, instead of replying in a harsh tone. Remember Thompson’s debate with the NRO’s Ramesh Porronu. It won accolades for both of them.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
From Politico…
In response, a Giuliani aide hit back with one of the first direct, if anonymous, shots at the water-testing Thompson (that also got in a little dig at Romney, who went up on the radio today with a “sanctuary city” spot). As crafty as it is, the comparison of Thompson to both an inanimate object (a 527) and a hated figure of the left (Soros) reflects a little bit of frustration at Thompson and his non-campaign campaign.
“Clearly they’re attacking Mayor Giuliani because he’s the front-runner,” said the unleashed aide. “The news here is the first 527 attack is from Fred Thompson and not George Soros, and Governor Romney’s ad conveniently forgets that his trooper plan that never took effect did absolutely nothing to cut down on the number of illegals working in his yard.”
UPDATE: Team Rudy kicks it up a notch, putting their criticism on the record and dinging Fred for only portraying a New York prosecutor in TV Land.
Says communications director Katie Levinson in an email the campaign blasted out tonight:
“Those who live in New York in the real world – not on TV – know that Rudy Giuliani’s record of making the city safe for families speaks for itself. No amount of political theater will change that.”
August 21st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Tommy: deepen up.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
[...] post by Tommy Oliver and software by Elliott [...]
August 21st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Good post Tommy, I think that this could ultimately prove to be a fruitfull debate with many shades of nuance. I’m all for it as long as all sides obey the Eleventh Commandment. I don’t like seeing all of this mudslinging coming out.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Arthur Branch sure knows how to circumvent the campaign rules.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Can anyone tell me what the Republican argument against gun control is? (I’m against gun control myself–I just want to know the reasons Republicans give.)
August 21st, 2007 at 9:36 pm
illlegal restrictions on a Constitutional right.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
“Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
The bumper sticker slogan goes like this: If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws would have guns.
I’m not a gun guy personally but I don’t mind others having them. The issue isn’t anywhere near my priority list. However, I believe that there is a “black helicopter” wing of the GOP who worry about a Fidel Castro type taking over the country so we better be armed. They point to the 2nd Amendment phrase “shall not be infringed” while ignoring the other phrase “A well regulated militia”. Our Constitution is designed to make a dictatorship impossible and even if it were you’re not going to defeat the military with whatever is in your house. What do people really need to meet their protection and sporting goals?
August 21st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Nusrat,
We are fond of the constitution(as I’m sure you are). What was it Franklin said?….Those who would give up liberty to preserve their safety deserve neither. And of course there is the argument that if I put down my gun/knife/means of defense because I obey the law then those that don’t will have free reign. Then our only recourse would be government sponsored 1-800-DIAL-A-PRAYER AKA 911.
I don’t see Giuliani disagreeing with the Judge…
Hopefully the two of them tear each other apart over this.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:01 pm
As someone who doesn’t really care all that much about gun control this doesn’t really affect me.
I think there’s a huge difference bewteen a mayor of a city who was elected to basically save it from falling apart and succumbing completely to an out of control crime epidemic and someone serving as President who is not making gun control an issue at all in his campaign and certainly isn’t going to be elected on any gun control platform or any crime platform.
I think the 2nd amendment basically leaves gun issues to states and localities and if a city or state wants to have more restrictive gun laws I don’t see anything i the 2nd amendment that prevents them from doing do. The 2nd amendment was only adopted to prevent the FEDERAL govt from infringing on rights, not states or cities.
There’s an argument that it was incorporated by the 14th, but who really knows?
All that said, as crime continues to grow in big cities, particularly in Philadelphia, Newark, Flint, Detroit, Baltimore, etc…, Rudy’s crime fighting record will only help him in a general election. His gun record will hurt him in primaries but help him in a general election.
I also think his campaign needs to get more pro-active. Lately they’ve been dealing with attacks by Romney on Immingration and Thompson on Guns and they’re not getting their own message out. I know it’s August and know one cares, but with the kids going back to school and education still a top issue for women and suburban voters, this week would be a perfect time for Rudy to unveil the education part of his 12 commitments and aggressively push for true school choice and vouchers and begin to own that issue. School choice is a winning issue and he needs to start pushing it.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
So, if someone commits murder by drowning, should water be outlawed?
Hmmmnn, let me think about that. Sheesh, these liberals…
#8 said it correctly. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:41 pm
The basic problem with Thompson and Romney is that they do not have the executive experience and executive success that Rudy has. Both Thompson and Romney need to falsely portray themselves as “social conservatives” while RUdy has been himself: the successful executive candidate who has locked up mobsters, defended against terrosrists, helped resurrect NYC, thrown the terrorist Arafat out of NYC against the Clinton administration’s objections, lowered tax rates in probably the most liberal city in the country, greatly contributed to reducing crime in NYC, etc.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Iowa,
Thanks for posting there in #1.
I wanted to comment on this from Giuliani’s aide:
“Governor Romney’s ad conveniently forgets that his trooper plan that never took effect did absolutely nothing to cut down on the number of illegals working in his yard.—
It would have taken effect if it had not been reversed by the liberal Gov. Patrick. Somehow this is all Romney’s fault? How stupid do some of these guys think we are anyway? Romney was only governor for so long with one of the most liberal legislatures in the union. None of those digs can even begin to rebut what Giuliani himself said in 1994:
“Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens. If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
Ricky Ricardo says Giuliani still has some splaining to do..
August 21st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Fred is a Johnny come lately who has a lackluster Senate career, meanwhile, Romney is putting all of his emphasis into trying to win Iowa and New Hamp. and the states with higher Morman populations because he (Romney) knows that he doesn’t have a chance to win the national GOP primary.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Tom,
“The basic problem with Thompson and Romney is that they do not have the executive experience”
I agree with that statement as far as Thompson is concerned. However, Romney has significant executive experience in both the private and public sectors. Romney has been Has been demonstrably &* outrageously successful at most everything he’s done. I’d like to invite you to re-examine Romney’s record.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Press Releases
08-13-2007
FOR OVER 25 YEARS, GIULIANI HAS CALLED FOR SECURING THE BORDERS, DEPORTING ILLEGAL ALIENS
AS ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, GIULIANI CALLED FOR STRICTER IMMIGRATION LAWS
Associate Attorney General Giuliani Was Frustrated With Lack of Focus Justice Leadership Had Shown On Immigration Issues. Giuliani: “As you know, for too long those in positions of leadership in the Department have ignored the immigration area – policy, law and budget. Reversing this lack of emphasis and tackling problems long neglected are necessary …†(Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani, Letter To Nina Rao Cameron, INS District Counsel, 11/3/81)
In July 1982, Giuliani’s Office Commissioned A Report Of INS Headquarters In Order To Review Productivity And Efficiency Of The Agency. (Renee Szybala, Memo To Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani, 7/9/82)
In 1982, Giuliani Argued That The Federal Government Should Focus On Improved Border Security And Potentially Criminal Illegal Immigrants. GIULIANI: “And in a situation where we have enormous ongoing immigration problems, wouldn’t that be a terrible waste of our resources and a diversion from the kinds of things that the President has been doing and the Attorney General has been doing over the last six or seven months that have begun to restore control of our borders.†NEWSCASTER: “Giuliani says the Administration stands behind its policy of deterring those who come to the United States illegally by holding illegals in detention camps, increasing border controls, and implying sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens.†(Miami’s Channel 10 News, 2/25/82)
Giuliani: “In The Last Decade, Our Policies Intended To Make Immigration Fair And Orderly Have Failed. We Truly Have Lost Control Of Our Borders.†(Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani, Remarks To Seventh Annual Baron De Hirsh Meyer Lecture Series, Miami, FL, 4/16/82)
Giuliani Noted It Was Lax Enforcement Of Immigration Laws That Led To An Uncontrolled Border And The Illegal Immigration Crisis. Giuliani: “This country has neglected to enforce our immigration laws. As a result, we have lost control of our borders. This Administration is committed to enforce its laws – firmly and fairly – so that all people who choose to come here, from whatever nation, will do so in accordance with our laws.†(Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani, Statement, 6/14/82)
AS MAYOR, GIULIANI WANTED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO MORE ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Giuliani In 1995: “[T]he Federal Government Should Be Doing More About Illegal Immigration.†(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Joint Press Conference with Governor Pete Wilson (CA), New York, NY, 3/29/95)
Giuliani Said INS Failed To Deport Most Criminal Illegals, Even Though NYC Officials Gave Them Names. Giuliani: “We just happened to check the numbers and in this part of the state, there were only about 776 deportations last year of people. … Now we send thousands and thousands of names of illegal and undocumented aliens to the INS who have committed crimes. Either accused or convicted of committing crimes. So literally sitting at the INS is a pile maybe this big of names of people who have committed crimes and last year they got around to deporting seven to eight hundred of them. So before there are obligations placed on [city of New York], to turn over the names of children in school or their parents or people who use public hospitals, I’d like to see the Immigration and Naturalization Service dealing with people who commit crimes.†(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Joint Press Conference With Governor Pete Wilson (CA), New York, NY, 3/29/95)
In 1996, Giuliani Said The Federal Government Should Do More To Combat Illegal Immigrants, With Regard To Border Patrol As Well As Foreign Policy. GIULIANI: “What I say is illegal immigration is wrong. We should do everything we can to cut it out, to stop it. The federal government should do a lot more about it, both with regard to foreign policy, border patrol, things that are done with regard to deportation, in which a lot more resources should be put into it.†(CNN’s “Evans & Novak,†7/6/96)
Giuliani Said The Federal Government Should Focus More Of Its Resources On Deporting Illegal Drug Dealers. Giuliani: What the federal government could do is to deport more of the illegal drug dealers that we have in our city which … unfortunately, very few deportations take place of the people who are actually selling drugs who are illegal immigrants …†(CBS’ “Face The Nation,†9/22/96)
Giuliani: “There Is No One That Is In Favor Of Illegal Immigration. I’m Against It. It’s Wrong For People To Violate The Law.†(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Remarks At The Conference On The New Immigrants, Minneapolis, MN, 9/30/96)
Giuliani Said The Federal Government Does Not Do Enough To Deport Illegal Immigrants. Giuliani: “[T]he reality is, the Federal Government doesn’t deport them. In New York City, which has 400,000 undocumented immigrants, only about 1,500 a year are deported. Under the new legislation, that number would — at most — double to about 3,000 out of 400,000.†(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Remarks At The Conference On The New Immigrants, Minneapolis, MN, 9/30/96)
Giuliani: “Preventing Illegal Immigration Is The Job Of The Federal Government. The United States Has To Do A Lot Better Job Of Patrolling Our Borders.†Giuliani: “[P]reventing illegal immigration is the job of the Federal Government. The United States has to do a lot better job of patrolling our borders. If we can’t stop illegal immigration, then we can’t stop drugs and weapons from entering the country, either..†(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Remarks At The Conference On The New Immigrants, Minneapolis, MN, 9/30/96)
Giuliani: “[P]reventing Illegal Immigration Is The Job Of The Federal Government. The United States Has To Do A Lot Better Job Of Patrolling Our Borders.†(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Remarks At Harvard University’s Kennedy School Of Government, 10/10/96)
In 1997, “At A News Conference, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani Repeatedly Called For A Tightening Of Immigration Policy And Barring Aliens Who Admit They Have Been Accused Of Terrorism.†(Richard Pyle, “Source: FBI Links NYC Ploy To Hamas,†The Associated Press, 8/1/97)
Giuliani Called For INS To Focus More Energy On Deporting Illegals Who Commit Crimes And Endanger Society. Giuliani: “Along these lines, I believe that Congress should also encourage the INS to focus more of its energy and resources on deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes and endanger the rest of society. New York City spends approximately 36 million dollars to jail illegal immigrants who are criminals. Of the 4,400 illegal immigrants who pass through the jail system only approximately 160 are deported each year. If the federal government is serious about stopping illegal immigration it should work diplomatically with other governments and make our national borders more secure.†(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Testimony, 8/11/97)
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, GIULIANI STRESSES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO SECURE BORDERS FIRST
“Giuliani Said The Federal Government Needs To Secure Borders And Address Concerns About Security Before It Can Handle Questions About Immigrants Already In The United States.†(Brad Branan, “Giuliani Taps Into Valley Funds Again GOP Presidential Hopeful Attends Fresno Fundraiser,†The Fresno Bee, 6/29/07)
Giuliani Said Arizona Was Enacting Its Own Immigration Laws As A Result Of The Government’s Failure To Address The Issue. “Asked about a new Arizona law that will require suspension or revocation of business licenses of employers which [knowingly hire] illegal immigrants, Giuliani said it appeared to be a response by the state to the federal government’s failure to address the issue.†(Paul Davenport, “Giuliani: Focus Immigration Efforts On Border Enforcement,†The Associated Press, 7/26/07)
View Full Archive
http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?&id=649976&postid=7919865
August 21st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Tom,
“his emphasis into trying to win Iowa and New Hamp. and the states with higher Morman populations because he (Romney) knows that he doesn’t have a chance to win the national GOP primary.”
True, Romney has the traditional plan to the GOP nomination by playing hard for IA & NH. You blow it with the 2nd half. Mormons make up less than 2% of our nation population. There are very few Mormons in IA & NH. Most agree Mormonism is more of a liability than an asset due to the severe misconceptions and prejudices rendered against that faith. Besides, The only two states with Mormon population over 10% (UT & ID) won’t be participating early enough in the primaries to help Romney win the nomination.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
18. Yes, i’m speaking about UT and ID, not the 2% of the population.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
cwpete, did you just call me a liberal?
I’m pro-2A. I really am but if you’re looking to upgrade from bullets to RPGs, then yes I think you should be infringed.
Lets take this assault weapons ban for instance. Like I said, I’m not a gun guy so I’ll concede that you are more informed than me. I’m not debating you. I’m asking instead. Are you kept from meeting your protection and sporting goals because something you need is unaccessible to you?
Also, tell me why an honest person would think a background check is a bad thing?
August 21st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
If you want to ban assault weapons, then you are saying, “Assault weapons are bad, so we need a government with assault weapons to make sure that no one buys assault weapons.”
Contradiction much?
August 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Sure it does Nusrat but you’re not going to out-arm the government. And what authorities ranging from local beat cops to ATF agents are conservative gun owners planning to take out anyway.
This is the one issue where many conservatives take one step further to the right of Conservatism and that is Anarchy.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 am
There is no such thing as an absolute right.
The Constitution also says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”, but I doubt any here would object to the laws that Congress passess abridging the freedom of people with sensitive national security information to speaking it into the ears of the enemy. There is also broad agreement with the existence of libel laws, or sanctions fro people who shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre.
So pointing to the “shall not be infringed” clause is not a argument-ender.
Anyone who would propose allowing the free sale of assault weapons on the streets of New York is certifiably insane.
Whatever happened to your guys love of federalism?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 am
[...] Race 4 2008 | Guns in The Big City [...]
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
In some cases, Federalism works. In other cases, it does not. Certain things have to be reserved for the Federal government. Among these are making treaties with foreign nations, printing money, declaring war, and protecting Constitution rights.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
The 2nd Amendment is sacred because the government has a legal monopoly on the initiation of physical force and each person has a God given right to defend themselves from agressors. Private citizens own more guns than the combined armed forces in the entire world, and ever may it be so. Giuliani’s record as a proponent of gun control is one of the most important reasons to support Romney for the nomination. Thompson’s above cited lack of executive experience is another. But if we ever let the government disarm us, after they take our guns they will take the rest of our freedoms as well. Orwell may have been off by a few years, but aside from that, he was right on target (pun intended).
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Randy & Tano:
The context of this discussion is regarding:
“… to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple.”
Who is to say this only pertains to assault weapons?
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Oregon does not have a sales tax. The states that surround it, Washington, Idaho, and California do. Does this federal court ruling mean that Washington, Idaho, and California can now sue stores in Oregon for the sales tax that their residents avoided paying by shopping in Oregon?
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
ACT, the question is whether the constitution actually extends the second ammendments to the states.
It most likely didn’t before the 14th ammenment. The bill of rights only applied to the federal government.
However, the 14th said that states should not take away people’s life, liberty or property without
due process of law, neither was a state allowed to infringe upon a citizens privileges and immunities.
So whether you think it should be a federal issue or not isn’t entirely the question. The question is how do
you interpret the constitution. At least that’s the question you need to ask if you’re going to make a
constitutional arguement on the subject.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
cwpete,
Yes we kind of went on a tangent but we do agree with the main question. The whole suing thing is BS!