Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Giuliani for President? No effin' way

Kim brought this to mind, and one of his links tells why Giuliani should be treated like a vampire in a blood bank:

“My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed? We’re talking about all dangerous weapons.” - Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions — and really stronger ones — that exist for driving an automobile.”

“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed.”

“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”

“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”

“I’m in favor of gun control.”

But now that he needs our votes?

“It’s part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.”

I've been listening to Sean Hannity a bit, and the man has pretty much sold himself to Giuliani, making excuses and "buts" for every damn thing. Especially Giuliani's attacks on the 2nd. Take note of that last bit Snowflakes found: "You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.” Not "I will not mess with the 2nd Amendment", but "regulate consistent with". Which means he'll do the same damn thing he's done before: sign onto every lawsuit, ban, licensing scheme, restriction and whatever else comes along to cut pieces off.

What does Hannity say? "He's promised to appoint judges like", etc. Which means exactly nothing. For whatever reason Hannity seems to have decided Giuliani is 'IT', and wants to make excuses for the problems.

And here's some more, from Alphecca:
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?

GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.

HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?

GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.

Let's see, 'reasonable and sensible' restrictions; in favor of the Brady bill and AWB, etc. One more nanny-state politician that we're supposed to vote for because "He'll do this with judges" or "He's not Hillary!". Bleah.

Like Jeff says, I'm not wedded to the Republican(aka 'Stupid') Party, especially with so many of the 'front runners' being so hostile to things I hold dear. A Democrat who doesn't bend over for the national level people like Pelosi and Reid and Clinton and holds the same things I do dear, can get my vote.

Awright, Stupid Party, you need to get your collective head out of your butt, and do it very damn soon. People like Sen. Coburn are great; they aren't going to save the whole damn party.

No comments: