Redstate

So, we have First Amendment hater McCain and Second Amendment hater Giuliani. Fantastic. LOL. Espcially if you believe that there is a reason the founding fathers put those two amendments at the very beginning of the Bill of Rights.

"Council Speaker Vallone said, "More than 30,000 people, including 4,200 children, die every year in the U.S. from firearms-more people than in any other country in the world."

Really? 'Cause I think Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia, and other countries might disagree.

There is a database that manufacturers can get from the BATFE that says which gun stores have more guns sold that are used in illegal activities, have guns stolen, or otherwise nefarious statistics. Gun manufacturers could choose to stop selling to these stores, but that would be their choice. It is the job of the government to enforce gun laws, not the gun makers.

That said, "Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement" is a question of marketing. Besides, what is their definition of "legitimate purpose?" Does it include overthrowing a tyrannical government? Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution say that is a legitimate purpose.

Further, if New York has a problem with, "Deliberately undermining New York City's gun control laws by flooding markets with looser gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City," then it should take up that issue with those other jurisdictions. All the gun maker knows is that there is demand in Connecticut and New Jersey. They do not know that the guns bought there will be illegally resold in New York.

Finally, "Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and "personalization" measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon" sounds great in a court document, but it doesn't hold up to the test of science. No equipment has been developed that can prevent unauthorized users from firing a gun and stand up to the forces of a gun going off.

Giuliani couldn't get my vote. Not today. Not ever.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

I'm about as liberal as someone can be, but these gun mfr. lawsuits have always baffled me. They are producing a legal product. How does a mfr. "flood" a market? The distributors buy the guns, it's not like the mfr. is dropping off unsolicited truckloads of guns. The distributor is ordering them!

Have any cities actually won any of these lawsuits?

His supporters say, "Aw, forget about X, because he's strong on the war."

Well, pretty soon, X becomes X, Y, Z, and a dozen other things we're supposed to overlook, just because he's a "solid leader" when the crap hits the fan.

Okay, so Rudy does well in a crisis situation. What's he going to do the other 99% of his time in office? Pretend like he's not a flaming liberal on social issues?

What if I want a strong leader on the war and someone I can trust on X, Y, and Z?

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

Support Rudolph Giuliani for President. I knew that a long time ago, because I knew his anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment stance. I'll also never support John McCain.

So who is left?

You're being ridiulous and somewhat paranoid. If this was any other other industry you would see the point, so let me ask you:

-Does objecting to the NY times revealing classified info to the terrorists make me anti first amendment?
-Does going after stores and companies which sell alcohol to minors, make one a prohibitionist?
-Would suing car manufacturers for making defective seat-belts make you anti-car?
-Is objecting to Russia building nuclear plants for Iran, an attempt to ban nuclear power worldwide?
etc.

The point I'm trying to make is not that Rudy should be the NRA's logical choice for the GOP nominee. It is not even that he was correct in filing the lawsuit (that's up to the courts to determine). It is that beleiving a particular set of practices by the gun industry to be unsafe doesn't make him a "gun grabber", any more than filing a suit against the meat-packing union would make him a vegetarian.

The lawsuits against the gun industry were designed to either bankrupt them or try to regulate them through the courts because the anti-gunners didn’t have the political support to pass the kind of national legislation they wanted.

Moreover since when is an industry that has followed all of the relevant laws liable because someone has misused its products to commit a crime? What’s next, we sue auto manufacturers because they don’t make better door locks enabling people to steal them?

Also, the Mayor of NYC attempted to use the courts of his State to effectively regulate what happens in other States. For those who are considering Giuliani despite his views on social issues, they have had to take him at his word that he really does believe in federalism and would leave issues to the individual States to decide.

Which begs the question – if Giuliani was willing to try to use the courts to dictate or change what laws other States had regarding firearms when he was a mayor, why do you think he would suddenly respect federalism as President?

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

To me this is worse than being anti-2nd Amendment. Here we have a man who willingly uses --better said, abuses-- our courts to attack legal businesses merely because the manufactured products are used in criminal activities. How about suing car manufacturers because their products are used as the getaway vehicle? The problem with this is that it skips the guilty, responsible parties to try to get at deeper pockets. Anyway, you can hear & see Giuliani defend this reprehensible lawsuit here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhe38wJ86Do His economic reasoning is also on rather shaky ground.

Of course, similar logic was used to successfully prosecute the tobacco companies. There it wasn't the smokers that were responsible for their actions, it was the tobacco companies. People had known for decades that smoking was an unhealthy activity. Heck, even the Nobel Prize winning novelist, Thomas Mann, recognized in his 1901 masterpiece, Buddenbrooks, that smoking was unhealthy (perhaps not for all the reasons we know now over 100 years later). Thankfully, Giuliani --to the best of my knowledge-- did not have a hand in this travesty. Of course, he did go after Milken & Drexel Burnham Lambert with a viciousness that was way over the top.

To me, Giuliani's aggressive use of the courts raises serious concerns. I would not trust him to oversee & conduct the Justice Department in a fair & impartial way.