Rudy's Double Speak
Listen carefully to what Rudy says. He has not changed his opinions on RKBA and the Second Amendment. He has just changed how he describes his position, with careful qualifier statements, to mislead and give an impression he has changed.
Spring /06 I heard him on Sean Hannity's radio show. Sean asked him about his position on gun control. His reply was that he believed in the right to own guns, but felt that the details of how people can own should be left to local community standards, and that different environments, such as big crowded city versus open rural country could make a difference in what makes sense.
TRANSLATION: He is still ok with the NYC/Chicago/DC style gun bans. Further, a Giuliani Dept of Justice would not intervene or even file amicus curiae briefs on 2A issues and RKBA in lawsuits filed against local authorities claiming violation of 2A.
I'm guessing Rudy's advisors told him his nuanced answer was still too transparent to the gun rights crowd, so he no longer talks about local standards.
I did listen to his entire NRA speech on C-Span Friday night.
First, every one at the conference should be offended by his silly cell phone call from the wife. If it was a real call (which I personally doubt), then it was offensive that as a featured speaker he left his cell phone on. (Plus, do you really believe his wife would not know when he is speaking in public?) On the other hand, if it was staged for the benefit of the audience ("Look at me! I love my wife! Can we say 'family values,' boys and girls?"), they should be offended he thinks them so stupid and gullible.
Second, when asked about the lawsuit against gun manufacturers, he did not say outright he now believes it was wrong. He said it has not gone in a direction he thinks is right. Gone in a direction? The purpose was to drive gun companies out of business. It is still trying to do that.
Next, he kept saying that after reading the Parker vs. D.C. decision, NOW he understand that the 2d Amendment describes an individual right, just like all the other Bill of Rights amendments. Is he so dense he could not see that before? As President, would he need court opinions to tell him every thing he must decide on?
Finally, he discussed the 2d amendment as a right that can only be guaranteed in a safe environment, just like the others listed in the Bill of Rights. He did NOT say that exercise of that right is what makes us safe. He implied that he would see a need to take other measures to make us safe, and only then could he guaranty the rights found in the Constitution.
TRANSLATION: We MIGHT just need to take your guns, to ensure safety. But don't worry; once you are totally safe, we'll think about letting you have new ones.
I'm figuring not one person at the NRA meeting was fooled.
Craig
