According to the NY Post, he might be. In an interview with his newly hired New Hampshire campaign manager, Wayne Semprini, the question of gun control came up – specifically how Rudy’s stances would play in gun loving, “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire. Semprini told the Post that Rudy “satisfied” him that he won’t support weapons bans in the future as he has in the past.
Semprini: “He believes there’s no need for any additional gun laws, that’s for sure.”
So that’s what the Giuliani campaign has come up with as a feasible method of moderating his gun control stance? We don’t need any more gun laws than he already championed? Well… at least he’s not going into the primary with a complete pro-gun control stance, you gotta give him that.
Of course, quick to deny charges of flip-flopping that have become so abundant in this pre-campaign season, Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani’s top advisor, released a statement insisting Rudy’s “position on this has not changed. People understand that Rudy had a commitment to protect New York against crime. That has no impact on hunting or gaming.”
Hunting and gaming, Anthony? I have never hunted in my life, but I still demand my right to keep a gun, or multiple guns, in my house in order to protect my family. To be fair, NYC was a tough situation that Rudy found himself thrust into, and I give him kudos for cleaning up the mess that it was. I guess I can sleep better at night now, though, knowing Rudy doesn’t want to sign “any more” gun laws than he already has.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
no need for any new gun laws
I read that as saying he’s fine the status quo and the Bush policies on gun laws, something that most conservatives are fine with.
I certainly don’t think he’ll be pushing to renew the awb or anything like that.
besides, gun control at the federal level is largely over. even the dems have given up on it to a large degree because they saw how it cost them in 2000.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I’m STRONGLY pro-2nd Amendment, and feel I can trust Rudy on the issue. Heck, I may have been as allergic to guns as he was in NYC if I had been the mayor during his tenure. Guns were almost completely used to shoot at cops and rival drug lords. There were gangsters controlling the streets with what were practically armed militias. Gun manufacturers were dumping arms sales into parts of New York where there weren’t even enough licenses and prospective gun owners to make it worth their while unless large units were being moved to gangs (I believe a lawsuit over that matter was actually filed). As pro-gun ownership I am, one still has to recognize that guns and big cities are not always condusive elements. If people do not grow up appreciating how to use and operate firearms the privilege can easily be abused. I think we’ll see Giuliani move as far to the right on this issue as he can credibly do (perhaps that won’t be much). There is a huge difference between a city-slicker being armed with a gun in NYC and your average Iowan. I think Rudy’s previous stances have been more a knee-jerk reaction to the situation in NYC than a solid philosophy.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I think that “no new gun laws” is a fine position.
I mean, what’s he supposed to say, that he’ll repeal existing gun laws at the federal level?
Would anyone say that?
When Romney says that, then I’ll listen to that complaint.
My guess is that Rudy will say that he did what he had to do to curb an out of control situation in NYC, but that he sees no need to change the law on guns nationally. There’s pretty much no support for that even in the Democratic Party anymore at the national level.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
DaveG, I agree no one is going to say they will repeal gun laws at the federal level.
And I guess “We don’t need any more gun laws” is about as far right as Rudy can realistically move on this issue.
I was just hoping he would say something like, “I recognize now that gun laws aren’t the answer to violence problems,” or, “Dealing with crime in NYC is an entirely different thing than on a national level and I would never, ever apply the same gun laws to the country as I did then.”
Something solid from the guy who the Gun Owners of America gave an F rating to. Instead, we just get, “Eh, I don’t think we don’t need any more gun laws.”
January 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Promising to maintain the status quo on this and to respect states rights might work nicely for Giuliani. Hey, I’m looking to buy a handgun and obtain a concealed carry permit soon and Giuliani doesn’t really worry me on this issue. There just isn’t any political momentum for gun law changes (strengthen or weaken) at this point.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Since even Democrats run like hell from this issue nowadays, is anyone really concerned with anyone in the current GOP field on this issue?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Can you hear the crickets chirping Kavon?
January 30th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
If Rudy Giuliani “moderates” (defined in this context as not moving to or suggesting anything further to the left and prioritizing that which is right leaning) his stand on abortion (by emphasizing that abortion is a tragedy that should be minimized, even though he believes the woman and not the government should decide, and that he will have no problem if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds statutes making partial-birth abortion illegal) and gay rights (supporting marriage as being a heterosexual institution while supporting civil unions for same sex couples for legal purposes), as he has ostensibly done with gun control, doing so in a way that plausibly allows him to be consistent with previous statements on the issues (such that he cannot be accused of flip-flopping), then he is going to be extremely tough to beat for the Republican nomination for president in 2008.
If the Republican opposition cannot claim that Giuliani has flip-flopped or is out of the conservative mainstream, he is their worst nightmare.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:20 am
Please give me a break. The guy kept a mistress, while still Mayor and still married to his wife….not gonna play out in Peoria. He did a fine job on 9-11 but he did just that …his job nothing more. He also lost miserably to Hillary Clinton in their firt Senatorial matchup. If this is the best we can hope for, then we are lost He is pro gun control and pro gay marriage. I will sit out if he is my only choice.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
What is the fascination with this guy? He says he’s a “conservative” and everybody comes flocking. Yeah, let’s believe the guy with three wives! And don’t say “security.” George W. Bush ran the biggest con in election history by talking about security. Rudy can talk about “security” till he’s blue in the face and I still won’t like him.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Republius:
If the Republican opposition cannot claim that Giuliani has flip-flopped or is out of the conservative mainstream, he is their worst nightmare.
I disagree. When the simple question is asked, Giuliani will come down on the side of abortion. Just because he claims it to be a regretable event doesn’t make him any more conservative than Clinton on the subject. She also said we should minimize abortions…will the pro-life movement flock to Hillary?
Giuliani currently stands by every word he said accepting the NARAL award in 2001. Trying to have his feet on both sides of the fence will not make him anyone’s nightmare.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Several of you have said liberals are now scared of federal gun control, and I cringe. You are woefully uninformed. On the very first day of the new Congress a gun control measure was introduced that would include many misdemeanors on the list of convictions prohibiting guns. Under this bill, a person could be prevented from owning a gun for the rest of their life if they are convicted of a misdemeanor that involves only yelling at someone. Scared? I think not. The first thing you can expect from a liberal congress in 08 is a renewed assault weapon ban, this time without a sunset provision. They won’t do it until after the presidency race is over, but they will do it eventually.
As for Guiliani, I think it is disgusting that he supports gun control for years and now changes his stance to get his parties nomination. You either believe gun control prevents crime, or you don’t. I refuse to believe he has seen the light; he is simply waivering from his beliefs in order to get elected.