by Rod D. Martin
March 12, 2007
Human Events has the details this morning on the D.C. gun ban ruling, and it’s well worth a look.
But what deserves even more of a look is the GOP Presidential field. This ruling makes clear that the future of the Second Amendment lies in the courts, and there’s a very good chance (thanks to George W. Bush) of establishing once and for all that it enshrines a self-executing, individual right to keep and bear arms, binding on the states, into the very fabric of the Bill of Rights.
And yet, we have candidates running around right now (cough [Giuliani], cough [Giuliani]) not just talking about but actively justifying their (his) own past gun banning.
The D.C. Court of Appeals ruling would have wiped Giuliani’s New York City gun ban off the books and onto the ash heap of history. The Republican base (and judging by the winning Democrats in 2006, plenty of the Dem base too) would have done the same for years now.
So is this candidate vaguely acceptable? Can any candidate be acceptable when they’re pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control?
You tell me. And you tell me what the average Republican primary voter is likely to say once they realize what his record and positions are.
UPDATE: Drudge brings us this, a video from 1989 of Giuliani demanding public funding for abortions. Front-runner or no front-runner, can this possibly stand scrutiny once people realize where he stands? I remember how quickly the enthusiasm for Condi Rice evaporated once her position became better known…