A crawdad or “cray fish” (if you’re a Yankee) is a small crustacean resembling a lobster that escapes from trouble by moving backwards rapidly. Rudy Giuliani is looking more like a crawdad every day.
Rudy tells NRA that 9/11 altered his gun views
Rudy Giuliani told the National Rifle Association Friday that his own views on gun control have evolved in part due to the Sept. 11 attacks, which he said highlighted the importance of the Second Amendment right of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns.
Facing a group that he once likened to “extremists,” Giuliani sought to temper his past strong support for national gun control laws by saying he could no longer support a lawsuit he filed as New York mayor in 2000, which was designed to hold gun-makers liable for gun violence.
Giuliani said “there have been subsequent intervening events — Sept. 11 — which casts somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. It doesn’t change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more….”
…Giuliani rival John McCain also criticized the former mayor’s tactics Friday, calling it a “particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great manufacturers. A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities.”
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson also addressed the meeting of about 400 NRA members, winning by far the warmest reception of the top-tier candidates as he recounted his long-standing relationship with the NRA. He also criticized Giuliani indirectly when he told the audience he doesn’t believe gun laws should be different between big cities like New York and more rural areas of the country — a position Giuliani has taken…
…And he [Giuliani] backed off from his past calls for more gun laws in the nation — such as his support of the assault weapons ban — by saying he now believes it is more important to strictly enforce the laws already on the books, with tough mandatory sentences, than to create new ones.
“We need to have zero tolerance for crime committed with a gun. After all, it’s people that commit crimes — not guns,” Giuliani said, echoing a long-standing NRA slogan. In prosecuting gun crime, he called for “no plea bargains, no exceptions, you go to jail.”
On the city’s 2000 lawsuit, Giuliani sought to defend his thinking at the time, saying he was trying to use every law at his disposal and every interpretation of every law to cut violent crimes. He pointed to a 60 percent drop in murders and a more than 70 percent drop in shootings as proof his approach worked.
But he said he could not longer support the lawsuit because it has taken some legal turns that he doesn’t agree with, though he did not elaborate. And he said his thinking also was influenced by a recent court ruling that overturned a strict handgun ban in the District of Columbia, which he said crystallized his own thinking.
Source: Newsday
Ah, what to do? The Good Book says we’re supposed to forgive when a sinner truly repents. Should we believe Rudy and forgive the lawsuit that tried to bankrupt the gun manufacturers? Should we believe him now after years of being one of the most prominent voices for gun control? I dunno. I guess I’d rather see him in the White House than Hitlery, but not by much.
On the other hand, we’re wanting to change people’s minds, and when a prominent politician comes out and admits that he’s changed his viewpoint on the right to keep and bear arms, shouldn’t it be a cause for celebration? “He once was lost, but now is found…” At least he’s found out that gun control is radioactive.
I suppose it comes down to a question of sincerity. Does he mean what he’s saying, or just playing to the crowd? Will he talk one way to get votes, and act another way once he’s in office? If he does turn out to be the nominee, wouldn’t he still be better than Hiltery, Obama or Edwards? Inquiring minds want to know.
See also:
I believe what my father preached,
“All an election is for is to determine which crook is going to steal your money.”
Of course the election is about much more than The 2nd Amendment alone. However, it is a hot button issue. If you could find a candidate that was “against gun rights” in the past and would still stick to that position in front of the NRA today, you would have a very rare candidate. I’m afraid their actions speak louder than words. We KNOW what this candidate did concerning the 2nd Amendment when he had the authority…as concerns gun rights, voting for him in my opinion is asking for trouble.