Republicans’ gun-control fight moves to center-stage

The National Rifle Association will kick off its national convention today, and Republican presidential hopefuls are expected to promise to be the greatest friend gun owners have ever had in the White House. None of this is particularly unusual — the same thing happened in 2000, 1996, 1988, and so on.

But this year is a little different, because it’s the first time Republicans have had a leading candidate who has a record of outright hostility for the NRA and the group’s agenda.

Rudolph W. Giuliani will go before the rank and file of the National Rifle Association on Friday, seeking support for his Republican presidential campaign from a group he once likened to “extremists” for its efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons.

But even as the former New York mayor strives to burnish his Second Amendment credentials at the gathering in Washington, a panel of federal judges in his home town will be hearing arguments on the lawsuit that Giuliani filed seven years ago aimed at punishing the nation’s gun manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms.

Announcing the lawsuit in 2000, then-Mayor Giuliani wrote in his weekly column about issues facing the city that “this is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths.”

He called the lawsuit “an aggressive step towards restoring accountability to an industry that profits from the suffering of others.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit will decide whether the lawsuit — against Colt, Glock, Smith & Wesson and others — can move forward despite federal legislation that attempted to grant immunity to the companies.

Asked if Giuliani still supports the lawsuit he helped file, the former mayor’s presidential campaign refused to say.

Wait it gets worse.

In a 1995 interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose, Giuliani said the NRA goes “overboard. The extremists on the left and the extremists on the right have essentially the same tactic,” he said, adding later that “the NRA’s, in essence, defense of assault weapons, and their unwillingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in our cities is a terrible, terrible mistake.”

Giuliani’s support for the assault weapon ban won him the admiration of then-President Bill Clinton, who sent him an autographed picture of the pair sitting in the White House.

“To Mayor Giuliani,” Clinton scrawled, “with thanks for your help on the assault weapons legislation. Bill Clinton.”

As you might imagine, the NRA faithful do not necessarily consider Bill Clinton a close ally.

For a variety of reasons, Giuliani’s Republican rivals have not made much of an effort to criticize the former mayor for supporting abortion and gay rights, but the NRA convention is proving to be too tempting for at least one presidential hopeful.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain lobbed a thinly veiled attack at fellow rival Rudy Giuliani, describing the former mayor’s “devious” attempt with a lawsuit “to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers.” […]

In his prepared speech, McCain refers to a lawsuit by Giuliani and other mayors against the gun industry, to Giuliani’s shifting Second Amendment position and to Giuliani’s use of the term “extremists” in relation to the NRA.

“My friends, gun owners are not extremists; you are the core of modern America,” McCain said in the prepared remarks. “The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers.

“But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners — and those who make and sell firearms — for the actions of criminals,” McCain said.

He mentioned “a particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great gun 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,” McCain said.

At a certain point, one has to wonder if there’s a limit to the GOP’s tolerance for a candidate that breaks with practically all of the party’s orthodoxies. Giuliani has supported abortion rights, gay rights, illegal immigration, stem-cell research, and condemned the NRA while supporting gun control.

One of these is bound to be a problem.

I think I read that the current president of the NRA is a Jewish(!) woman(!).

Tonight is the beginning of Yom Kippur.

I don’t know what the timing of the convention says about anything.

  • Rudolph W. Giuliani will go before the rank and file of the National Rifle Association on Friday…

    I hope for Rupaul’s sake that he wears a bullet-proof vest. On second thought…

  • I hope for Rupaul’s sake that he wears a bullet-proof vest. On second thought… -JKap

    NRA Accolyte: Right this way, Mr. Giuliani.

    RuGiu: Okay, but is the blindfold really necessarry?

    NRA Adept: (in a hissing voice from under a hood) Yesssssssss.

    Any time someone brings up NRA now, I think of the box of rocks that asked the question about keeping his ‘baby’ during the Democratic YouTube debates. If that’s what these fools are like, then we need to take their guns now because they’re all one animal cracker shy of an empty box.

  • McCain’s comments just leave my head spinning….”gun owners are the core of modern America?” the only Amendment that matters is the Second? I know he’s probably just full of pander, but jeez…

  • There’s no surprise on the way. Rudy will do what all the other top-tier Republican candidates have done: repudiate everything that he stood for in the past. Their lizard-brained base never stops to think that if these guys turned their back on their stated principles once they might just do it again.

  • Every constituency on the right has reason to pick a fight with Emperor Rudy, and why they really haven’t is a bit of a mystery. The homophobes should be after him, the anti-abortion crowd, and the gun lovers, not to mention the Christianists and their various delusions about ‘family values’.

    As horrible a mayor as he was in NYC he was not a kneejerk right-wing ideologue. He just sees himself as the reincarnation of El Duce who will make the trains run on time, and keep the streets clean (particularly of non-whites).

    As one of the best known Americans, by his own reckoning, I’m sure he wouldn’t mind a larger than life statue of himself on every street corner.

    I keep waiting for Guiliani’s whole charade to collapse, but the Rethuglican candidate field is so pathetic, and his mythology so strong, not to mention the subtle imprimateur of Bush (whatever that will get him) that he lingers on. Somehow he doesn’t fit the mold of a stooge for corporate America the way Romney does.

  • In 1994, 1.5 million assault rifles were estimated to be owned by Americans.
    The concern about them is they allow mass murder, massacres.
    Cho killed more students at Virginia Tech using handguns than two students armed with assault rifles at Columbine.

    The number of assault rifle massacres that might be difficult to produce with handguns (at least 8 victims) tops out at 20 over the course of 30 years.

    20 assault rifles out of 1.5 million used for the purpose people fear.
    The Democrats lose a LOT of votes over this issue.

    I own no gun of any kind, but I find the alarmism of my liberal peers a key obstacle towards achieving more statistically relevant goals. It is our version of the fear-mongering associated with the “war on terror”. The risks are far out of proportion and the freedoms we feel we must squash for the sake of our safety are treasured by a substantial portion of our population.

    While we put our fear of 18 men on airplanes in perspective regarding our civil liberties, can we do the same with the 20 crazy people who did unspeakable but exceptionally RARE things with assault rifles? Democrats may be rewarded if they can convincingly do so.

  • Maybe if McCain hadn’t helped gut the First Amendment then I might give a damn what he thinks about the Second.

  • I agree with williamjacobs.

    The second amendment is one reason why, I believe, that there has never been an invading army that could, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge.”

    As the cliche goes, and to the chagrin of some, a well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.

    I’m inclined to be more sympathetic to gun-ownership today, with the advent of the first American Dictatorship.

  • Just how many corners can these people paint themselves into? When you are beholden to so many special interests, you’re bound to start mixing them up. That’s when they start spouting whatever the people in front of them want to hear with no regard to what they think or have ever said before.

    They hate big government except when they’re a part of it. They hate government horning in on people’s rights, unless you’re gay or a ‘terrorist.’ They hate ‘tax and spend’ liberals, but they spend without taxing. They hate violent crime, but think everyone should have access to the tools of violent crime. They think we need more God in the government and schools, but call the Taleban ‘extremists.’

    Christ, it’s like they all have Alzheimer’s.

  • williamjacobs, i do own a gun (2, actually). and i agree with your stats on assault rifles, but what those really prove to me is that the problem is handguns generally. It is clear, however, that it is politically easier to control assault rifles than all handguns. Some things have to be done in incremental steps.

    As I say, I own a gun and have no desire to give it up. But I would not be at all offended – and really dont understand why anyone else would be – if I have to register that gun, take training courses to be licensed to own that gun, if I cannot purchase certain types of ammunition (why should I own armor piercing rounds?), if there is a limit to how many rounds my clip can hold, if there is a limit to how many guns I can own, if I am required to use trigger locks, if there are other child-access protections I have to take, etc.

    Yes there are people on the left who want to eliminate private ownership of guns, and that is a political problem. But there are many, many more on the right who don’t believe in the slightest recognition of the problem or in making any compromise to address those problems.

    My guess is that the vast silent majority in the middle believe people should be allowed to have guns, but also believe in reasonable controls. I don’t believe the vast middle has much sympathy for the nut who goes to a gun show every week and wants to buy 6 at a time and already owns 127 guns, or for someone who wants to buy Talon ammunition that peels back into sharp blades for maximum internal damage (of a nature that would ruin meat — to be clear, these are not for hunting game), or who thinks he needs a 30 round clip.

    It just amazes me that this debate is always held at the extremes. There is so much middle to work with, both pragmatically in solving the problem and in terms of the politics.

  • JKap (setting aside for now my disagreement that the Second Amendment provides a private individual right to own arms seaprate from one’s role as a militaman) at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment you argument about preventing tyranny may have made sense.

    In present day, however, unless you are suggesting we can all own RPGs, armed drones, .50 tripod-mount machine guns and the like that argument really doesn’t hold up. We are long, long past when my ability to reach into my desk drawer and pull out a revolver is a credible threat to a tyrant’s army trying to take my property or demand my loyalty. As in Russia and almost every east-bloc country (and South Africa), tyranny was prevented not by force of arms, but by force of public relations. In those situations, the governments superior arms actually hurt them in the PR battle. In modern times, that is really the only viable tool an oppressed public has, and there is simply no way that private citizens will ever again be able to win an arms race (or even stay close enough to make a difference) with government. That aspect of the Second Amendment – assuming it ever was truly intended – is a dead letter as a practical matter today.

  • Zeitgeist, we’ll see if your assertion holds up if our Dear Leader doesn’t leave office peaceably on January 20, 2009 (that glorious day when God has mercy on us).

  • Cho killed more students at Virginia Tech using handguns than two students armed with assault rifles at Columbine. -williamjacobs

    I can only imagine that if someone skilled with weapons, like Cho was, had access to more deadly weapons that the ultimate result would be worse. Comparing Cho to Klebold and Harris is flawed; Cho was more efficient.

    The number of assault rifle massacres that might be difficult to produce with handguns (at least 8 victims) tops out at 20 over the course of 30 years. -williamjacobs

    So if someone is killed with a rifle, but could have been killed with a handgun, it doesn’t count? That sounds a lot like saying someone shot in the back is criminal and someone shot in the front is sectarian, or whatever the Bush Admnistration’s bullshit statiticians came up with to say Iraq is ‘safer.’

    Either they were killed with an assault rifle or they weren’t. Period.

    As I say, I own a gun and have no desire to give it up. But I would not be at all offended – and really dont understand why anyone else would be – if I have to register that gun, take training courses to be licensed to own that gun, if I cannot purchase certain types of ammunition (why should I own armor piercing rounds?), if there is a limit to how many rounds my clip can hold, if there is a limit to how many guns I can own, if I am required to use trigger locks, if there are other child-access protections I have to take, etc. -Zeitgeist

    Thank you, and frankly, that’s all I want. I’m not looking to violate the intention of the Second Amendment, but we should approach gun ownership with an abundance of regulation.

    One wonders if there were more stringent regulation of guns accross the board if Cho would’ve been prevented from purchasing any guns at all and several young people would still be alive today.

  • Zeitgeist, we’ll see if your assertion holds up if our Dear Leader doesn’t leave office peaceably on January 20, 2009 (that glorious day when God has mercy on us). -JKap

    I’m with Z on this, considering the assumption that a Democrat would be on their way into said office and most of the people with guns are the 28% that still think dear leader is Jesus 2.

  • Comments are closed.