Rudy’s “evolved” stance on gun rights: I’m not buyin’ it

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic Reports on Rudy’s changed position on gun rights:

Glossing over the less appealing line items on his gun control resume, ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani presented himself as sympathetic to the aims of the National Rifle Association and pledged, as president, to protect gun rights.

“Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety,” he said.

He indicated that he would oppose new efforts to tighten national gun laws.

“I believe that law endforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books as opposed to passing new extensions of laws,” he said. “A person’s home is their castle. They have the right to protect themselves in their own home.”

Giulaini explained the lawsuit he initiated in 2000 against gun manufacturers by saying that he was “excessive in everyway that I could think of in order to reduce crime” but said that “intervening events” like September 11th had caused his views to evolve. “I think that lawsuit has gone in the direction that I don’t agree with.”

He cited a DC court ruling overturning the city’s gun ban as instrumental to changing and “strengthening” his views on gun control. That ruling, Parker vs. the Distict of Columbia, was handed down just as Giuliani was beginning his presidential bid.

First things first: There’s no question that after 9-11, Rudy was rock solid, and won over a lot of fans in the aftermath by projecting an image of strength and resoluteness. Of the ‘top tier’ Republican candidates, he looks (to me anyway) to be the clear frontrunner on the issue of who would do a better job of trying to protect this country from another terrorist attack. And the war on terrorism, obviously, is The Most Important Issue of our time, so Rudy’s strength in this area is a definite asset to his campaign.

But what troubles me is that, like Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani’s stances on certain issues have “evolved” just in time for them to run for president. To be sure, there’s a certain amount of insincerity inherent in any politician, but we all have certain core issues that we’d like to see our candidates champion and not only that, but we’d like to see a consistent position on those core issues from our candidates that closely mirror our own. In Rudy’s case, he’s claiming that 9-11, in part, changed his opinion on gun control. Huh? The guy was the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY during the first terrorist attack on the WTC back in 1993, but that didn’t change his mind on gun control becauase, as we all know, he was elected mayor of NYC that same year, and what followed were some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. But contrary to popular myth, gun control was not the reason NYC’s crime rate went dropped dramatically. A large amount of credit for that was due to more aggressive policing tactics, as Heather McDonald explained in this 2006 article.

If gun control worked, Washington, DC wouldn’t be considered the murder capital of the US. If gun control worked, crime in the UK would have dropped significantly, because they, like DC, have some of the strongest gun control laws on the books that you’ll see anywhere in the world. Instead, the crime rate has gotten worse. And knife crime is on the rise. The criminals are still finding ways to hurt and kill people, while innocent people in places like DC and the UK aren’t allowed to own a firearm with which to protect themselves from those criminals.

I realize that over time people’s views on certain issues can evolve. It certainly happened to me back in the early to mid 90s, but I’m not falling for Rudy’s newfound views on gun control. He spent his entire two terms as mayor of NYC devoted to pushing for stronger gun control laws, and all this after the first attack on the WTC which, if he were really sincere about changing his tune on gun control in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, should have made him change his mind on it then. But it didn’t. This is simply Rudy Giuliani v.2007, trying to pander to gun rights advocates by invoking 9-11 as the catalyst for his ‘changed view’ on gun control.

For the other side of the argument, read Don Surber’s post on this issue, which is interesting, as Don used to be a strong proponent for gun control himself until 9-11.

Update I: Ray Robison was at the NRA convention that was held yesterday in Washington, DC and writes about the man who made the biggest impression on him – and it wasn’t any of the Republican candidates for president who were in attendance.