Rudy Flip-Flops on Guns

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:40:07 AM EST
Tags: Rudy Giuliani (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Rudy Giuliani once again re-invents himself to cater to the Republican conservative base. Now he's flip-flopping on gun rights.

As Mayor of New York:

He spoke in favor of a licensing system for gun owners that would require trigger locks and firearms training, and he lobbied Congress to outlaw most military-style assault weapons. He was the only Republican mayor to join a lawsuit by dozens of cities against the gun industry, and he complained that Southern states had lax gun laws that fed the illegal weapons trade in the Northeast.

In his current attempt at recarnation as a presidential contender, he's reversed course:

More...

Mr. Giuliani now talks very differently about guns as he tries to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters. He says he supports the right of individuals to bear arms, and that states — and generally not the federal government — should decide whether to put some limits on that right. He also spoke in favor of a federal appeals court ruling this month that struck down a District of Columbia ordinance barring people from keeping handguns in their homes.

It matters not that I agree with his current views on gun rights. I'm a big supporter of the belief that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms.

The point is the man is a weasel. He'll change his positions to get votes. What that means is that he can't be trusted. A law and order crime-fighter and basher of civil liberties like Rudy Giuliani doesn't change his stripes after leaving behind his career as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. As Mayor of New York, he reveled in his new power to trash the civil liberties of the poor. Of course, the rich among you applauded his cleaning up Times Sqaure.

Did you ever think about where he put the polite squeegee cleaners, the street vendors and anyone else he felt impeded his vision of New York as a safer place for tourists?

This man has no single policy view he wouldn't ditch in a New York Minute to reach his next goal.

< Guantanamo to Stay Open Through Bush's Presidency | Harry Reid: Gonzales to Be Gone Within a Month >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Rudy Flip-Flops on Guns | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It is good he (none / 0) (#1)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:52:03 AM EST

has seen the light (har), not that I would vote for him. He is a Rockefeller Republican.

Ms. TL, Calling him a weasel:

The point is the man is a weasel. He'll change his positions to get votes. What that means is that he can't be trusted.

I have never read where you have called Mrs. Bill Clinton a weasel, they are both equal weasels in my book. Both willing to change positions in order to get votes.

This is unfair. . . (none / 0) (#2)
by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:58:46 AM EST

As Mayor of New York, he reveled in his new power to trash the civil liberties of the poor.

Giuliani certainly did not discriminate between rich in poor in his crackdown on civil liberties. Witness his attack on art.

Of course, the rich among you applauded his cleaning up Times Square.

As a life-long New Yorker (with time-outs) who has been visiting Times Square since the age of 11 and who, despite not being a member of the legal or finance professions, probably qualifies as being among "the rich among you" this is silly.

Among the most notable aspects of the old Times Square were open-air drug dealing and teenage prostitution. As a pre-teen I was once offered smack twice on the same block (street block too, not an avenue block). Times Square today is a ramped-up version of what Times Square always was. It's a good place. Those who prefer drugs and prostitution seem to me to be suffering from a bad case of reverse snobism.

The crackdown on squeegee cleaners was an innovation of the Dinkins administration as you can read in Bratton's memoirs (in which he disclaims credit). Giuliani largely failed in his attempts to eliminate street vendors in midtown (which was an economic issue, not one of tourist safety, since street vendors benefit tourists).

What City are you from? (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:12:22 PM EST

You must be on crack. His art crackdown targeted street vendors selling everything from cheap reproductions to poor artists who had no gallery representation. Mostly junk, if you ask me, but first amendment protected junk.

To say that in order to paint Giuliani as remotely fair regarding his treatment of rich v poor is unbelievably dishonest.

As one who qualifies as the 'rich among you' I took great offense at the disneyification of times square. It is poured on plastic at best. Not somewhere I would ever go. It has nothing to do with NYC as I know it, having lived here all my life as well.

And if Bratton had an honest bone in his body he would have credited Dinkins with the drop in NYC crime. This does not include the 'quality of life criminals' aka squeegee men that Giuliani targeted. His squeegee crackdown was a trademark, to say anything less is revisionist and dishonest.

Obviously you are a Giuliani apologist and fan. I bet you were one of the handful of NYers that wanted him to cancel elections after 9/11 so that he could continue to be NYC's dictator.


Do you have to be (none / 0) (#13)
by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:08:33 PM EST

so offensive? I thought that wasn't permitted here -- at least, I got slagged off for it.

You seem to have missed my point, which I thought was pretty clear. Giuliani attacked the civil rights of the rich and the poor -- not only the poor. I don't know how you could possibly interpret his crackdown on vendors -- an economic issue -- as an "art" crackdown. I was (I thought it was obvious) referring to his attack on the Sensations exhibit.

Bratton, who is an honorable guy and still widely respected in Harlem (where I live -- and not the one in the Netherlands either). His statement about the squeegee men was an attempt to give credit to the Dinkins administration for something that is credited to Giuliani (and Bratton).

As for Times Square, you may never go there now, but I'll bet you never went there then, either -- assuming you're old enough to remember the 70s as something other than a TV show. I am not a Giuliani apologist (as you apparently are for child prostitution) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look honestly at the man. He may well be the Republican nominee. If our campaign against him consists of "Giuliani is a fascist dictator. He did nothing good for New York -- don't let him do to America what he did to New York" we might as well actually vote for him. We'd be handing him the election.


Wow (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:14:28 PM EST

as you apparently are for child prostitution

Really, how did you get that? Is that like being against Bush means being for terrorism? Nice Rethuglican tactic.

And yes I had spent time in times square in the 80's on. Much more interesting a place than now. Now it has little to do with NYC unless you believe that NYC is over, and times square is representative of its current heart. The bets are still on as far as that goes.

I hardly agree that he was equally nasty to the rich as he was the poor. Sorry, I thought that you were refering to his crackdown of art vendors outside of MOMA and the Met. Still, If you think that his beef with Ofili's Madonna in the Sensation show represented bashing the rich in NYC I have a bridge to sell you. He hatred of contemporary art was in keeping with 95% of rich conservatives. It was analogous to the Nazis ban of 'decadent' art. His whole quality of life campaign was a coded attack on the poor, not so coded if you ask me.

Sorry I do not get your apparent reverse psycology regarding Giuliani as a Presidential candidate. He was a facist and lying is his game. Do you think that calling him a whore, as this post does, is akin to giving him the election? How do you see challenging him and his record?


Well . . . (none / 0) (#17)
by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:29:36 PM EST

Turnabout is fair play. You called me a Giuliani apologist for a post in which I (mostly) attacked him. So why can't I call you out for defending child prostitution (which I assume is what you're doing when you say you want to return to the Times Square of the 1970s)?

I hardly agree that he was equally nasty to the rich as he was the poor.

Nothing to agree with, since that's not what I said. I said he showed the same lack of concern to the civil liberties of the rich and the poor. He was mostly nasty to black people.

represented bashing the rich in NYC I have a bridge to sell you. He hatred of contemporary art was in keeping with 95% of rich conservatives.

Since the vast majority of rich New Yorkers are liberal, not conservative, you can see that he was, in fact, targetting the civil rights of the wealthy to present and view art. His anti-Sensations campaign was not intended to win support from among wealthy conservatives but rather from the middle-class outer-borough white ethnic (eg Catholic) population, which was always his base (and which the Democrats tried to take over last election by running to the right of Bloomberg).

Do you think that calling him a whore, as this post does, is akin to giving him the election? How do you see challenging him and his record?

Because no matter how you believe New York fared while he was mayor the vast majority of the country believes otherwise. By sounding like a parody of a left-wing nutcase you're certainly not going to convince anyone on the right, in the center, or even on the mainstream left that Giuliani was somewhere between Mussolini and Hitler. You'll only convince them that you are somewhere between Stalin and Kim Jung Il.

Getting the real message about Giuliani out is going to be more difficult than shouting "fascist". He's a more dangerous candidate than most people who live in the left bubblesphere realize. His weakest point is on personal issues, not his conduct in New York which A) isn't really as you imagine and B) even if it were, is not perceived that way by others.


: Disagree (none / 0) (#18)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:13:55 AM EST

Giuliani certainly did not discriminate between rich in poor in his crackdown on civil liberties. Witness his attack on art.
Sorry I do not agree that the Sensation show was an attack on the civil liberties of the rich.
I was there up front and close. The rich in NYC are not mostly liberal. The zip code 10021 is largely Republican and conservative.
Besides, even if the rich in NYC were mostly liberals, how would Giuliani's attempt to shut down the Sensation Show at the Brooklyn Museum remotely prove that Giuliani did not discriminate between rich and poor as regards civil liberties?
Do you have other examples of how Giuliani trampled the civil rights of the rich? To say that Jeralyn is being unfair to Giuliani and defending that statement with one rather weak example does make you look like you are defending the guy aka an apologist. Yes, I do understand you to say that he is no friend of civil rights on principal, but from my experience he did not mete out his contempt equally across the socioeconomic board.

Well (none / 0) (#3)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:13:55 AM EST

Clinton wasn't also a clown.

I never minded clowns. Some people can't stand them. Find them ironically scary. I could never grasp their phobia. In Giuliani's case I get it.

nonsense! (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:39:10 AM EST

i think everyone should have the right to bare arms, how else are you going to get a tan on them?

ohhhhhhhhhhhh, you mean individually own guns! well, that's another matter entirely. geez, are you all part of a "well regulated militia"? i thought not. funny, how everyone seems to overlook that part of the second amendment, when screaming about their right to own a tank.

as well, the argument that they are for self protection falls flat on its face, if you follow the NRA rules for gun safety: locked up, unloaded, with ammunition stored in a separate, locked location.

unless you put a sign in front of your abode, how, exactly, is a criminal to know you own guns?

flip-flops? nah, he's just reconsidered his position, in light of additional facts being brought to his attention. isn't that what intelligent people are supposed to do?

personally, i still think he's scummy, but that's another issue entirely.

mccain, romney and clinton have all changed positions on various and sundry issues, how do you tell the real "flip-floppers" among them?

"A Rockefeller Republican" (none / 0) (#5)
by jondee on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:30:42 AM EST

plus, he's not born again: i.e., twice too many.
Hope this predictable perception of the Rethug "frontrunner" continues and spreads.

Wow (none / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:02:37 PM EST

The point is the man [Giuliani] is a weasel.

The only other time I've seen such TL distaste directed at a candidate was when Pirro was running.

The obvious similarities are that both Giuliani and Pirro were prosecutors and both were running (presumably, in Giuliani's case) against Hillary.

Jeralyn, what's up?

I agree (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:18:48 PM EST

He is a weasel and a snake. Not to be trusted. If you think that has something to do with his being a prosecuter so be it. Maybe it is true that someone who spends a good portion of their life trying to put innocent people behind bars is not fit to president. I wouldn't know about that, but it rings true.


Yup (none / 0) (#9)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:49:53 PM EST

thats the job of a prosecutor, put innocent people behind bars. Like the job of a defense lawyer is to get guilty people set free.


America? (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:00:20 PM EST

Do you live in China where those arrested are presumed guilty? I know that America has changed quite a bit in the last 12 years but I still think that presumption of innocence is how things work over here, no?

BTW the defense is defending an innocent party until they are proven guilty.

But I am sure you have special skills that enable you to tell who is guilty before they are tried. Seems like a Republican thing.


: Yup (none / 0) (#11)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 02:45:53 PM EST

and all prosecutors knowingly put innocent people behind bars.

: and (none / 0) (#12)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 02:47:50 PM EST

tell me that a defense lawyer has never succeeded in getting someone they known to be guilty off free.

Wile (none / 0) (#14)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:34:09 PM EST

Tell me a cop has never broken the law. Tell me a doctor has never performed an unnecessary operation.

What's your point? Your complaint is against certain people, not certain professions.

: Squeaky (none / 0) (#15)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:31:38 PM EST

brought the professions in, I think Mrs Clinton and Mr. Gulianni are both cut from the same cloth.