Just scanning around, here’s a sampling of what some of the candidates said, at an open meeting of the NRA yesterday, regarding their views on Second Amendment rights.
Mike Huckabee warned Friday against federal judges who seek to use international law to shape gun-control rulings.
Huckabee told a friendly crowd at a National Rifle Association meeting that the nation should not tolerate judges who try to strip away the Second Amendment right to bear arms by using international law as precedent.
He also was sharply critical of the United Nations, an organization that the NRA says supports a global gun ban.
[…]
Huckabee said he wouldn’t mind if UN headquarters in New York “were to break off and float in the East River never to be seen again.”
I’ll give Huckabee one thing: He has been solidly on our side of the issue throughout his career. And while potassium nitrate and charcoal are constantly being naturally formed, all the sulphur in the world was created 4,600 years ago. Sorry, that was snarky.
Throughout the speech, Thompson artfully attacked - without naming names - the sometimes tortured explanations Giuliani has given for his twisting views on gun control and Second Amendment rights.
One argument Giuliani makes is that different gun laws are needed for New York City than, say, South Carolina.
Thompson shot that down, saying, “My philosophy does not depend upon my geography.”
The first question Thompson got from the audience after the speech was whether gun rights should be different in New York than elsewhere.
“Nope,” he answered.
After the applause died down, he added, “It’s more than coincidental that so many places that have such crime rates have the toughest gun restrictions in America.”
“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,” said McCain, in a veiled attack on Rudy Giulaini, who initiated a lawsuit against gun manufacturers when he was mayor of New York.
McCain went on to attack former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and the former governor’s recent admission that he likes to hunt “small varmints.”
“If you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail it makes up for support of gun control,” said McCain. “This myth overlooks a fundamental truth, the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it’s about freedom.”
McCain was heckled by some anti-war protesters during his speech. That’s only interesting because it shows, once again, that the NRA is made up of members from all walks of life, political persuasions, and viewpoints; united by one goal — to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Heck, for two years the NRA allowed gay ol’ me to do a weekly gig on their radio show and directed listeners to this site!
Gov. Bill Richardson sent a video:
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico was the only Democrat invited to address the group. Richardson, who has a high rating from the NRA, appeared by videotape, but did not endorse any specific gun policy. Instead, he urged NRA members to stay involved in the primary elections for both parties, and added, “Your voice needs to be heard. When I’m president, it will be.”
Actually, the Boston Globe is wrong; this was an open forum and ANY of the Democrats could have come and made their case. He was the only one that chose to do so.
Showing some guts — something no one will ever accuse him of lacking — Rudy Giuliani was there:
“I’d like us to respect each other; I think we have very, very legitimate and mostly similar views,” Giuliani told NRA members, who clapped politely a dozen times during his 20-minute speech.
Giuliani also tried to explain why, as mayor, he joined a lawsuit by several cities against the gun industry, arguing that manufacturers and distributors made it too easy for criminals to get guns.
On Friday, he said the ongoing lawsuit “has taken several turns and several twists I don’t agree with.”
Giuliani, an outspoken proponent of gun control during his eight years as mayor, said Friday he agrees with a recent federal court ruling that overturned a 30-year-old ban on private ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. He added that he would appoint judges who take a similarly strict view of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
And speaking of changing positions, Mitt Romney sent a video:
“Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand: I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” he said.
Yeah okay, Mitt. Now you support the NRA except for their positions on gun rights.
Update: Stop the ACLU has more.
26 Responses to “Candidates Meet the NRA”
on 22 Sep 2007 at 8:38 am # Daniel
Here in Baltimore, Maryland, just this past week we had a story that the Mayor (Sheila Dixon) may be consorting (consulting) with Mayor Bloomberg.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.ci.mayor19sep19,0,7518575.story
It seems she is falling for the trap that the thing is the thing to attack. Instead of the criminals.
Here’s the headline and part of the article.
(The article could have been much shorter if the last line was the first.)
City might join suit to stem illegal guns
Dixon meets with New York’s mayor, who began action, on crime, education
By John Fritze Sun reporter
September 19, 2007
NEW YORK - Suggesting that she might consider joining a ground-breaking lawsuit to stem the flow of illegal weapons, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon met yesterday with New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg - the architect of that litigation - to talk about ways both cities can improve education and fight crime.
Dixon, who has unveiled a handful of novel approaches this year to deal with guns that enter Baltimore, said the city is collecting information on people who are convicted of gun crimes and will use the data to determine whether other measures, such as directly suing gun dealers, are appropriate.
Dixon’s trip to New York came a week after she won the Sept. 11 Democratic primary election, virtually guaranteeing that she will serve a full four-year term. Her meetings here also took place after Baltimore’s deadliest weekend of the year, in which six people were killed - including three who were shot on the street in broad daylight.
“All of these incidents that are happening - all of these victims that are being killed - are from illegal guns,” Dixon said as she stood outside New York’s City Hall. “We need to make sure that our base is solid and that we track this information. Once we are through [with that], I will consult with our city solicitor’s office about the potential of joining the lawsuit.”
“These politicians ought to quit holding media events and media availabilities and stop talking about reducing crime and start working with federal and state and local prosecutors in making sure that gun crimes are prosecuted unequivocally, 100 percent of the time,” he said.
john.fritze@baltsun.com
(”He” is Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman with the National Rifle Association.)
on 22 Sep 2007 at 9:30 am # Letalis Maximus, Esq.
Thanks for the report. I can’t say I would ever be able to force myself to vote for Rudy, but I’ll give him credit for having the balls to show up.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 9:33 am # tomWright
“for two years the NRA allowed gay ol’ me to do a weekly gig on their radio show”
Yup, AND back in the late 1800’s they had at least one African American gun club as an afiliate. I wish I had the link to the story on that, but I do not.
1800’s America and the NRA had African American affiliates.
What were the anti-gun Democrats doing then? Oh, yeah. They were running the post-war south, passing the Black Codes, enforcing Jim Crow and disenfranchising African American’s from their voting rights.
A history that should probably be given more light.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 9:37 am # GeorgeL
A lot of us wish you were still doing the weekly report on Cam’s show. That is how I found out about you originally.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 9:39 am # SDN
“enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”
Bzzzztttt! Sorry, wrong answer. Our natural rights don’t depend on a piece of paper.
Mitt is classic statist. The government has no rights outside of the Constitution. We the People retain the others, and can revoke government authority at will.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 10:06 am # Andy
I’m almost 60 years old. When I was about 4 or 5, I remember my father taking me briefly to a charity trap shooting event; some of his friends were participating, and he stopped by to say hello and watch for a few minutes. It was there that, for the first time, I saw white and black men participating in the event and socializing with each others as equals. When we got back into the car to leave, I asked my father about this, and he explained “That’s because this is an NRA-sponsored event, and everyone can participate.” At that point, I had absolutely no idea what on earth this “NRA” thing might be, but I was certain that they had the right idea about how to treat people.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 10:34 am # Jonesy
Are conservatives for federalism or not? If your for federalism then you have to accept that different states will have different gun control laws because the Bill of Rights will not apply to the states, itll only apply to the federal govt.
Fred Thompsn keeps calling for federalism (as does most conservatives), but then when discussing the 2nd Amend all the suddent he’s not for it. His philsophy does depend on geography; he doesnt even understand what his own philosophy means.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 10:51 am # John
Johnsy,
That comment is so screwed up I am assuming it to be satire. To believe that federalism means that states ignore Bill of Rights is insane. The whole propose of federalism is that rights not granted to the federal govenment, are retained by the states unless enumerated as rights of the people. Hence states cant impose speech codes, but can (and should) tell the EPA to go pound sand.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 11:28 am # chukmaty
Federalism is defined by the 10th amendment. Because for that, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment Rights for law abiding citizens cannot be infringed, by anyone and that includes the states.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 12:07 pm # Rob
“That’s only interesting because it shows, once again, that the NRA is made up of members from all walks of life, political persuasions, and viewpoints; united by one goal — to protect the right to keep and bear arms.”
Actually, that’s not the case. It was Code Pink infiltrators. It’s a really hushed fact of the story. It took me a while to even find one story from the Ministries of Truths that mentioned Code Pink members were the protesters. Imagine that.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 12:10 pm # Gregg
The scary thing is - as bad as Guiliani’s track record on gun rights is, I would take him in a heart beat over Hillary or Obama!
on 22 Sep 2007 at 12:18 pm # peter jackson
Jonsey is right in that the BOR are checks on the Federal government. The difference between the First and Second Amendments is that the First was “incorporated” in the early part of the 20th century whereas the Second has not been. “Incorporation” is simply the courts interpreting the BOR in light of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, thus constraining state and local government as well lest citizens not receive the equal protection of the laws.
What these candidates should have been saying is that the 2nd Amendment needs to be incorporated by the courts just like the First, Fourth and Fifth…
yours/
peter.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 12:32 pm # Jean Garofoli
You guys all all nuts, regarding guns. Americans are all killers, as long as guns are rampant in your land-of-the-freeeeeeeeeBIES. NUT BARS!
on 22 Sep 2007 at 12:44 pm # rightwingprof
You need to re-read the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 12:59 pm # Jonesy
rightwingprof,
You dont have to tell me that. I understand the 14th Amend; I agree with incorporation. Thompson’s the one that doesnt get it.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 1:01 pm # Jonesy
John,
I found an interesting article about this from the federalist point of view:
http://www.law.widener.edu/news/articles/2007/hb_020407.shtml
I hope that will make you better understand what I mean. Id suggest you search Google too; try “Incorporation Bill of rights”, “incorpration 14th amendment”… This debate was dead for century or more, but was brought back to life by Ed Meese and the Reagan Admin. Thats what, in part, gave rise to the federalist society and the whole federalism movement too.
Peter summed it up well though. Thats what the debate is about and thats what Thompson doesnt understand. Its important too because if he were elected Pres he’ll nominate judges to the surpeme court, and if you want the BORs and the 2nd Amend enforced on the states then you dont want federalist judges. There are already at least two, Scalia and Thomas, on there already.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 2:09 pm # Jim
Jonesy, I think incorporation is goofy. The courts should not be encouraged to keep making stuff up.
Having said that, the courts HAVE repeatedly said that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals. The striking down of the DC ban is just the latest example.
“I agree with incorporation. Thompson’s the one that doesnt get it. ”
If you agree with incorporation then you must think that the 2nd is enforcable against the states, which puts you in the same place as Thompson. I get the impression you are just anxious to thrash the man on any pretext.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 4:00 pm # Dave Hardy
Actually, if I may plug my documentary, it deals with how an all-black chapter of NAACP, in the late 1950s, affiliated as an NRA Club, got rifles, and shot up the Klan. It’s the story of Robert Williams, which you can Google.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 5:34 pm # DaveP.
Shorter Rudy:
“Hi, y’all! I’m gonna pee on your leg and tell you it’s raining! If elected, I promise to make Sarah Brady look like Ted Nugent, but I plan to mealymouth to you until I get every last vote that I can out of you. Vote for ME!”
Shorter Mitt:
“I support the NRA, and believe that no-one should own guns. I want the NRA’s support to win the election, so I can sponsor and support as many antigun laws in the White House as I did in Massachusetts. Vote for ME!”
Shorter Bill:
“I want your vote, even though my party has declared war on people like yourselves and wants to see you completely eliminated. Vote for ME!”
Shorter McCain:
Please allow this Code Pink whacko to distract you from the fact that I pride myself on being the worst enemy the First and Second Amendments have in Congress today, and I’m not so hot on the rest of the Constitution. Vote for ME! (and then shut up or the FEC will arrest you).
Shorter Ron Paul (yes I know he wasn’t there, but he’s just SO damn easy!) :
“I want your votes, so I can protect America from the Jewish…oops, Imeant Israeli, wink wink nudge nudge… threat by surrendering to Al Quaeda and doing whatever Iran tells me to do. Or maybe that’s the Orbital Mind Control Lasers. Whatever. Vote for ME!”
on 22 Sep 2007 at 6:37 pm # Jan
Discussions of the 2nd amendment often reference both federalism and the “doctrine of selective incorporation” arising under the 14th amendment.
Such discussions can be frustrating because there is a lot of misinformation on the interaction between federalism and incorporation floating about in cyberspace. One of the better factual explanations of why the USSC “incorporates” portions of the Bill of Rights against the states can be viewed at:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23
After reading this, I believe that most will agree that Fred Thompson is a federalist and that Rudy is not.
But, just to kick-start the thought process; remember that the “right to privacy” (which is not explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights) was first found by the USSC to be a right under the 1st amendment and then incorporated against the states.
The federalist position is that “the right to privacy” should be decided on a state by state basis.
Rudy does not take that position.
On the other hand, Rudy believes that the rights protected under the 2nd amendment (which are specifically set forth in the Bill of Rights) should be decided on a state by state basis.
In both of these examples, Rudy turns federalism on its head.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 6:57 pm # straightarrow
as regards the right to privacy, the fourth amendment is the very definition of such. There is no way to read it that does not connote an individual right to privacy barring sufficient proof of crime to obtain a warrant.
on 22 Sep 2007 at 9:28 pm # Daniel
To Jean Garofoli:
Of course we are killers. But we won’t kill today.
That’s all it takes. Each day when I get up, I say - I am not gonna kill today.
Does a criminal say that?
Until they do, I’ll be ready for them.
But I won’t kill today.
./
on 23 Sep 2007 at 4:57 am # tom swift
Speaking as a resident of Massachusetts, I can confidently state that Romney is not one of our friends, no matter what sort of a show he puts on now. I doubt that his stance is philosophical; I suspect he just found it politically easier here to be anti-gun.
Giuliani, I believe, is different. I think he’s power-mad. The idea that the general populace might be able to challenge the state’s monopoly of the use of force is, to him, intolerable.
on 23 Sep 2007 at 7:59 am # Quentin
If I could ask Guiliani one question I would ask:
“Since you favor having different gun laws for large cities as opposed to other areas of the country, is it OK with you if these same other areas have different laws for abortion, Free Speech and Freedom of Religion?”
on 24 Sep 2007 at 2:11 pm # Lergnom
Daniel;
You forgot the elliptical pause. The quote was ‘I am not going to kill…today.’
Quentin;
excellent question.
Stay safe
on 26 Sep 2007 at 9:22 am # Greg
DaveP:
Your comments about Ron Paul are off the mark.
If he attended an NRA rally, his comments would probably be more along the lines:
“Hello. You are hypocritical gun-grabbing sell-outs who lie to convince people you support the Bill of Rights. If you really cared, you’d be members of the ineffectual but ideologically pure Gun Owners of America. You disgust me. Vote for me!”