September 22, 2007

How 9/11 changed Giuliani’s mind on gun control

Given his record, Rudy Giuliani’s pitch to the National Rifle Association is a tough one. He’s referred to the group’s members as “extremists”; he’s fought the group on the assault-weapons ban; and he filed a federal lawsuit as mayor against the nation’s gun manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms. Indeed, he’s blasted the gun industry as one that “profits from the suffering of innocent people.”

With that in mind, Giuliani spoke to a skeptical audience yesterday at the NRA’s national convention. Would he Sister Souljah the nation’s largest gun group? Of course not. Would he flip-flop his way into their good graces? Well, sort of.

Yesterday, Giuliani backed away from the lawsuit, saying he might not uphold it if he were a judge.

“That lawsuit has taken several turns and several twists that I don’t agree with,” he said, without going into specifics. “I also think that there are some major intervening events — September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn’t change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it.”

By any reasonable measure, this is a fairly silly thing to say. Giuliani couldn’t even chalk it up to flubbing a question, since he was reading from a prepared text. [Update: My mistake; the answer was in response to a question from the audience.] In other words, he meant to say that 9/11 helped change his mind on gun control.

Asked to explain the shift, a campaign spokesperson said Giuliani was “making a point that personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world.”

It’s hard to believe a serious presidential campaign could offer such a foolish rationale for obvious nonsense, and yet, here we are.

I’m generally not in the habit of offering advice to Republican presidential hopefuls, but I have an idea for the Giuliani campaign. As a way to save time at future appearances, perhaps one of his aides could give Giuliani a placard with the word “terrorism” on one side, and “9/11″ on the other. That way, whenever he’s confronted with a challenge on any subject, he can simply point to the sign, instead of having to go to the trouble of coming up with an excuse to end up at the same point anyway.

Matt Yglesias had a good post noting that Giuliani’s take was particularly bizarre, a) given his post-9/11 response to civil liberties; and b) he actually has a better pitch, but he’s not clever enough to make it.

The trouble here, of course, is that Giuliani personally and the GOP more generally is deeply invested in the idea that 9/11 means we need more restrictions on individual liberties, not more rights. More broadly, this is especially odd because I think Giuliani had already been using a different, more plausible rationale for flip-flopping about gaining a broader perspective when he started to take a wider view of the country beyond the crime-plagued early nineties New York that was the initial impetus for his views.

For what it’s worth, the NRA seemed wholly unimpressed.

Several audience members said later that Giuliani had done little to allay their worries.

“I’ve still got something in the back of my mind that’s hesitant about where he stands,” said Michael Neubauer, from Northern California. “He’s not solid enough.” […]

“A leopard doesn’t change his spots,” said Frank Pottle, a machinery repairman from Georgia. “If he’s for gun control, whether you do it at the local or national level, it’s all the same because you’re abrogating my rights.”

What, the “surprise” phone call didn’t win the crowd over?

 
Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

14 Comments
1.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm, jimBOB said:

It’s another application of the Chewbacca defense.

Personally I’m surprised Guiliani has lasted this long. Neither he nor Thompson have any business in the top tier of a major party nomination race, even if it’s for the Republican one.

My thinking is that the GOP is really a top-down organization, and real control remains in the hands of the money people who run it. Unlike the wingnut rank and file, the GOP money is generally pretty smart, and they aren’t going to allow the nomination of either of those buffoons. Nor are they going to let hicks like Huckabee or Brownback get control either. So Mitt will eventually win out.

2.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm, anney said:

….Giuliani was “making a point that personal rights such as the 2nd Amendment are even more critical in a post-September 11th world.”

What about other Constitutional “personal rights”? Perhaps we can expect to see him speak out about how critical those are, too, in this post-September 11th world…

He really isn’t very bright, is he? What IS is about Republicanism that attracts the dufuses, criminals, and bullies? I know, I know, authoritarianism is the draw, but it sure produces some idiotic candidates for political office.

3.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm, OkieFromMuskogee said:

Let’s see. We’ve got Giuliani’s long history of promoting gun control – aggressively!

Then we’ve got Mitt Romney, who said “‘I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.” But this is from a Fox “News” story on 4/4/07:

“The former Massachusetts governor’s hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia. Last year’s trip was an outing with major donors to the Republican Governors Association, which Romney headed at the time.”

An anti-gun prosecutor and a non-hunter from Massachusetts.

So I fearlessly predict that the NRA will be endorsing the clueless Fred Thompson, aka Frederick of Hollywood.

These must be dark days for the NRA. Along with the Religious Right, they’re losing their former clout.

4.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm, Swan said:

OK, but how did 9/11 get him to change his mind on gay rights, abortion, and so on? Where’s the 9/11 angle on that? That’s what I’d like to know, and hopefully he’ll be asked.

swanpoliticsblog.blogspot.com

5.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm, CalD said:

Oh yeah… almost forgot. 9/11 changed everything.

6.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm, mellowjohn said:

but see… if everybody in the world trade center had been carrying that day – and if they’d all opened fire as soon as they saw the planes approaching – well, they could have shot those mothers right oud of the sky!
that’s the kind of post-9/11 thinking that il duce will employ to keep us safe.

7.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm, Derek said:

“Indeed, he’s blasted the gun industry as one that “profits from the suffering of innocent people.””

Kind of like how he tries to cash in on 9/11 every chance he gets. I’m getting so tired of his self-aggrandizing.

8.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm, Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08 said:

Rudy is president of the National Hot Air Rifle Association.

9.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm, andy phx said:

Chewbacca defense. LOL!

Watch the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH5EblIjkrk

10.
On September 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pm, bjobotts said:

As Josh Marshall refers to him…Mr.Phoney-Baloney Mitt Romney is unfortunately the only “tolerable” candidate the GOP has to run that is not a total embarassment. They have to make a showing of some sort and knowing that the dems will win by default anyway they are gearing everything to the 2012 presidential election.

Their plan is to push Bush’s war off on the dems to straighten out or end(depends if we get Hillary or Kucinich). Spend the next four yrs. blaming dems for all problems associated with straightening out Bush’s mess giving them a shot at the WH in 2012.
That is of course, unless Bush/Cheney attack Iran and cancel the elections for a National emergency calling for the “unitary executive order”. Next to Bush and Cheney the person I hope to see driven from office is Nancy Pelosi who no longer even talks to her constituents because “she” has made up “her” mind and refuses to discuss it. She could have prevented all of this from continuing on and that includes stopping Bush from attacking Iran. There are those who commit the crimes and then there are those who make sure they get away with it. We may have a police state now but but the frog has awakened and is about to jump from the boiling water.

11.
On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm, uty7 said:

Although it is quite understandable why Juliani did what he did, there is no excuse for allowing the constant threat of gun violence upon our current generation to persist without much challenge in exchange for civil rights and terrorism.

Mentions on other sites...
  1. Balloon Juice on September 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
  2. The Body Politik on October 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm