A Little Good News?

Carnivore at TvM notes a little bit of fun psychology:

 I like to do all my converting of anti-gun or ambivalent people by inviting them to empty a 30 round AK-47 magazine at the gun range. The big smiles on their faces tell me that a little safe fun is all it takes to convince them that guns aren’t evil. The blacker the rifle, the bigger the smile.

…but the real “beef” of the post is some good news from the Giuliani campaign; Hizzoner seems to have gotten his head a little straighter about the Second Amendment, in time for his invitation to speak at an NRA special convention:

[Giuliani] said his thinking on gun rights also was influenced by a federal appeals court decision that overturned a 30-year-old ban on private ownership of handguns in Washington on the grounds that the Constitution gives individual citizens the right to own guns.

“It is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them,” he said of the ruling, adding it “sort of maybe even did more to crystalize my thinking on the whole gun issue in light of Sept. 11.”

He no longer argues, as gun control advocates do, that the right to bear arms applies only to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias. He now says that right also applies to individuals as well, and he cites the court ruling, Parker v. District of Columbia, that said the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own handguns.

Carnivore – who may be the only blogger in town more pro-gun than I – approves: 

… if it takes 9/11 and the Parker decision to change Giuliani’s mind, then I welcome him to the club. As a person who grew up and was a product of New York, with its (originally anti-Italian) gun laws, dating back to the early 1900s, I can see how he might have lived his life with his previous view of the Second Amendment and the feeling that it’s not important since most New Yorkers can’t even exercise that right.

So one of Giuliani’s big sticking points for this conservative seems to be getting a little less sticky.

54 thoughts on “A Little Good News?

  1. If the democrats want to win, even if they nominate Hillary, all that would have to happen is for Giuliani, to be the republican canidate. Serious gun owners would defect in droves. I have held my nose and voted for such hacks, empty suits and stiffs in the past as George H. Bush and Bob Dole, even when I knew they were NOT my friend. But I’m though. I’ve voted libertarian before and I can do it again. And yes I have considered the damage such a thing can result in. But honestly I don’t think we would be more then marginally worse off.
    I don’t trust Giuliani to follow though on anything he has said as far as judges or anything else.
    If you truely are for first principles as a conservative Giuliani and McCain are not to be trusted. And Rommey is marginal.
    I swear if Richardson hadn’t go wobbly on the war I would be voting for a democrat for the first time in my life.

  2. “I’ve voted libertarian before and I can do it again.”
    You could also masturbate while looking at a picture of Ayn Rand. Then at least one person would be affected by the impact of your choice.

  3. Jeff.. I don’t need to convince you, SCOTUS said so and has repeatedly upheld it as SO.

    If you don’t like that, and see it as activism, how exactly do you reconcile the invention of the right to hunt in Parker.. exactly WHERE was that right enshrined, exactly?

    Regardless, you’ve sidestepped the issue – do you have any regard for the fact that David Koresh will be allowed to own Anthrax under your interpretation of the 2nd?

    Mitch, your reply was an obfuscation at best.. you both didn’t answer (mostly) and attempted to claim there is blurry opinion on both points, of which, there isn’t, at least not in SCOTUS rulings.

    But, you, as always, ducked the issue… are you aware of the implications? Apparently not, as normal. The implication is clear, and again, what you wingnuts either don’t care about, or more likely, never really hashed through. No law, at all, restricting any weapon, from anyone, ever. That’s your interpretation, and the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, have you heard of that before? Given that it’s not, your claims that no law is allowed is specious on its face, unsupported by fact or ruling, and unsupported even by your own rather haphazard standards.

  4. And btw Mitch, for someone who is the Trivia King of the world to not understand the basic principle of self-inclusion/incorporation. I’m Shocked I tell you.

    The idea is this, not all amendments are enforced upon the states themselves, in fact, many aren’t. The fifth, and ostensibly, the 6th were, but only through the 14th. The 2nd has NEVER been held to be so, except as stupidly quoted in Parker – a ruling beyond a collection of vomittous bile spewed upon the legal system – and NEVER been held by SCOTUS.

    What this means, oh master of all knowledge, is that the Congress may be enjoined from passing a law, and had Parker restricted it’s comments to DC, I’d have said “Good Ruling” – but states aren’t, because states get to pass their own laws. Ask your dancing/singing friend AC about it sometime.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.