Rudy Giuliani: Hypocrite Be Thy Name?
Allowing that times change and minds occasionally do too, hypocrite is a much overused word in the political lexicon.
But it is difficult to not tar presidential wannabe Rudy Giuliani with that label because of his mad dash from being a darling of gun control advocates to a suck-up to the anti-gun control crowd that dominates the Republican Party.
New York’s tough gun-control laws are a big reason that the Big Apple has gone from being a crime-ridden urban wasteland in the 1980s to a remarkably safe place with one of the lowest big-city murder rates, and Giuliani can take major responsibility for that happening because he tirelessly crusaded for gun control during his two terms as mayor from 1994-2001.
Whereas Giuliani once advocated sweeping federal gun-control laws, he now says that should be up to the states.
I have nothing against personal possession of a limited number of firearms in one’s castle (ie., a man’s home is his castle), but too many states have pitifully weak firearm laws that pretty much allow people to buy and have as many guns as they want, as many kinds of guns as they want, and to pack heat just about anywhere they want.
Worst yet, Giuliani has gone weak in the knees over support of the most sensible of control-control legislation — an assault weapons ban.
More here on Giuliani’s conversion. Click here for Born in the USA: Bang, Bang You’re Dead, an essay on gun control, and here for Crime & Punishment: A Tale of Two Cities, which explores why murder rates have been going down in New York City but have been going up in Philadelphia.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
58 Responses to “Rudy Giuliani: Hypocrite Be Thy Name?”
Michael:
The Constitution has withstood the test of time. That is why there have been so few amendments and most recent amendments have been technical in nature. That also is why recent efforts to change the Constitution — all highly agenda-driven issues like flag burning, same-sex marriage and English as official language — have crashed and burned.
Please explain all of the ways in which you think that this remarkably durable document should be changed and why.
Michael,
It sounds to me like your pulling a Bushie: it’s my way or the highway. What you really want is to change the Constitution to reflect your views, no?
How about if we do what this country has always done: debate, sulk and adjust.
This has gone to the Supreme Court only once, and that some time ago, but we’ve managed to survive.
There are reasonable ways to manage this. It just takes acceptance that it has to settled by how things work out in real life, not by an ideological preference for states’ rights in every situation. Just like individuals in a community have to bend a little to accomodate the other residents, states have to bend a little to accomodate the fact that they affect other states.
The assault weapons ban is wrong.
It was said:
> Change the Constitution.
Absolutely correct. Don’t you leftists lie on here and claim the Constitution means just what you want it to mean, and don’t you continue to engage in illegtimate judicial activism to get a judge to say it means what you want it to mean. Amend it the legitimate way if you want it to be changed.
Shaun,
Anti-gun advocates don’t want to change the constitution because they know that will likely crash and burn as well. But that doesn’t matter, because reinterpreting the Constitution in order to avoid the difficult process of changing does not serve anyone’s interests. If the Constitution is so mutable that “Congress shall make no law…” can be interpreted as “Congress can make a law in some cases” then what is the point of having a Constitution. What other sections of it shall we similarly interpret to match popular political views?
The second amendment could not be more clear. The Congress shall make no law. The implication, of course, is that States can make any law they wish, and they have done so to varying degrees. I cannot think of a more clear-cut example of a matter that was clearly intended to reside with States.
And this is not a liberal or conservative issue. Both sides elevate their important causes to the federal level so they can be enforced nationwide. I don’t consider the 2nd amendment to be a conservative issue though, because the intent is so clear. Liberals have been more successful in getting their issues “federalized” though.
If you don’t like it, change the Constitution. If we continue down the path we’re on, our great founding document will be lawyered into meaninglessness.
Entropy:
Just so I’m clear, I don’t want to change the Constitution. (The only proposed change that I have supported was the star-crossed Equal Rights Amendment.) I do hope that Michael responds to my/our challenge with a list of ways that he would like to change the Constitution and why.
You are quite right that federal vs. states rights is not a liberal or conservative issue per se.
That said, there are instances where the greater need should override the state need and I believe that severe restrictions on assault weapons is a pungent example.
There also are instances where the state need should override the federal need and I believe that allowing the use of medical marijuana is a pungent example.
Domajot,
First of all, I’m not a big proponent of the term “states’ rights” because in my opinion, states don’t have rights–people do. What you are refering to is the concept of federalism, which is embodied by the tenth amendment to the Constitution:
I’m not always happy with the results of federalism myself, but the tenth amendment says what it says, frankly, if you have a problem with federalism, then you have a problem with the Constitution.
Secondly, I mentioned federalism (or “states’ rights”) as the proper way to deal with laws concerning licensing of cars/drivers. It’s funny how no one here has challenged the idea that cars/drivers should licensed by the individual states, and yet they defend federal gun control laws. What’s so bizarre about this is that, unlike driving a car, which is not protected as a right under the Constitution, gun rights are specifically protected under the Constitution. So if anything, there is even a stronger Constitutional argument to be made against federal gun laws than against laws regarding licensing of cars/drivers. And yet we have federal laws for the former but not the latter. It makes no sense.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land (or at least it used to be). The second amendment means what it says–not what you want it to be. Sorry to have to side with the gun nuts on this one, but if you don’t agree with what the Constitution says, you and those who agree with you should work towards amending it and not simply ingoring it.
Shaun,
You don’t want to change the Constitution, but you want federal restrictions on firearms. Those two are incompatible – that’s the point Michael and I have been making. If you support restrictions on firearm ownership at the Federal level, then you need to change the Constitution.
Furthermore, you keep talking about so-called “assault weapons.” I’ve asked you a couple of times now to define what that is in specific terms. I’ve also pointed out that DoJ statistics show the vast majority of gun violence comes from handguns, not rifles or other “assault” style weapons. I also asked you do define what an “especially lethal weapon” is.
States’ rights, individual rights, dog and cat rights.
No one has absolute rights! In a rational world, we have to deal with the areas where an individual’s rights impact on other individuals and one state’s rights impact on another’s. We can, I think, just get along, if we deal less in theories and deal more in studying how all these rights conflict and combine in real life.
I suspect that a lot of our bitter partisanship comes from insisting on ideologies and theories instead of focusing on what’s happening in the areas where we interact and figuring out how to accomodate as many rights as possible while doing as little damage as possible to other rights.
Insisting on one absolute will guarantee that you will be stepping on the toes of another absolute.