Load Up on Guns, Bring Your Friends (Offer Not Valid in All States)

After some YouTube hiccups I'm continuing to upload video from New Hampshire. This one's notable both for radiologist Jim Rini's question about Rudy Giuliani's 2nd amendment view—the only semi-tough question he got—and for the audio quality, surely the best of any YouTube video in the long, violent history of mankind.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    [...] and for the audio quality, surely the best of any YouTube video in the long, violent history of mankind

    This sort of writing, ladies and gentleman, is why I won't care even if it turns out that David Weigel really is a democratic shill.

  • ||

    Unlike most, I like some of Rudy's answers, including this one. I also like his abortion answer which is similar to this one. Things aren't always black and white, and answers like this convey that.

  • ||

    If the Democrats were smart enough to run Bill Richardson, he would kill Gulliani. I know a lot of people who normally vote Republican who are very hestitant about Rudy because of his issues on the 2nd Amendment. It is really about matchups this year. If the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, the Republicans will win if they run Rudy because the 2nd Amendment types would hold their noses and vote for him because they loath Hillary Clinton so much. But if the Democrats ran Richardson, they would loose half of their base from the get go and Rudy would be doomed.

  • ||

    Yes, but Bill Richardson seems content to run for Vice-President....

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Weigel is just shilling for Big YouTube.

    As for Il Duce Giuliani, that analysis would get an F even from Close-Cover-Before-Striking Law School. D.C. isn't a state, the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the federal courts to apply to the states and "what the Constitution says" has nothing to do with what judges subsequently have "interpreted" it to say.

  • ||

    That really is good audio. Now if Rudy wasn't having a seizure all across the stage in response to having been asked a gun question, the video might have been alright too.

  • ||

    Rudy Giuliani has an unusual level of chutzpah.

    New York City's Sullivan Law is the equal--or at least close competitor of the DC law that was struck down. Yet Giuliani was not only a staunch defender of that law when he was in office; worse, he was an opponent of easy gun ownership in other states because it facilitated trafficking.

    This video-clip--a concise defense of Constitutional federalism if ever there was one--proves that Giuliani knows a good argument when he sees it. Ergo, we can come to only one conclusion: he's evil, not stupid.

  • robc||

    John,

    I dont even think it is about matchups. If Bill Richardson is the D nominee, he is the next President of the USA.

  • Bhh||

    He's just like, those other guys? They only want to take away 8 or 9 amendments to the Bill of Rights. I'm so hardcore I'm going for them all and you'll like it.

  • David Weigel||

    Now if Rudy wasn't having a seizure all across the stage in response to having been asked a gun question, the video might have been alright too.

    Oh, ha ha. I was standing up and trying to zoom past a few people in front of me. You'll notice the camera jerk way off of Rudy at one point - that was when a microphone-carrying aide walked right in front of me and I tried to dodge.

  • Bryant||

    Richardson helped broker the UNOCAL pipeline deal with the Taliban. He is also notorious for his connection to lobbyists. He would just be a Republican Bush. He would sell us out to Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big War Profiteers just as quickly as any other neocon puppet out there.

  • ||

    But if the Democrats ran Richardson, they would loose half of their base from the get go and Rudy would be doomed.

    As a firearms enthusiast myself, I would concur with this. Richardson is someone I'd consider giving up my valued "Independent" registration for. We tend to be extremely obstinate in our views that individual rights do exist, and we tend to vote with our views much more than other devisive issues, while the anti personal rights types who stand against us tend to be much less stringent. It amazes me that more don't realize this and adopt an overtly pro firearms stance, instead of "shhhh, they might hear us so don't discuss it" as the Dems are doing.

    The problem is that they (dumbass Dems) don't give him the light of day. They are far more comfortable with an untested feel good say nothing candidate who's an Obama-nation. Makes me wonder how deep white guilt really runs sometimes.

  • ||

    Richardson helped broker the UNOCAL pipeline deal with the Taliban. He is also notorious for his connection to lobbyists.

    And you have someone from either major party who is different?

    He would just be a Republican Bush.

    er..ain't Bush a Repub? Did I miss some key piece of news?

    He would sell us out to Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big War Profiteers just as quickly as any other neocon puppet out there.

    As opposed to (insert list here). It's no different from the standpoint of your comment regardless which frontrunner you are talking about. All I'm saying is that the individual's rights appear to be better under Richardson than any other dem, or repub, with the possible exception of Ron P.

  • ||

    "Oh, ha ha. I was standing up and trying to zoom past a few people in front of me. You'll notice the camera jerk way off of Rudy at one point - that was when a microphone-carrying aide walked right in front of me and I tried to dodge."

    Dave-

    I'll let you in on a closely-held secret of videographers everywhere.

    *Glances about furtively before continuing.*

    Look into buying a tripod. Your video will come out looking much more professional. You can get some lightweight ones that are only a few pounds, and can be carried in a shoulder bag. (yes, in addition to the laptop, camera, pen, paper, and audio recorder that you no doubt already lug around.)

    But there are those of us who will appreciate the effort. Trust me.

  • ||

    As to the content of the video, Giuliani throws out a word that I've always had a bit of a problem with:

    "reasonable."

    Is it just me, or does it seem like any time someone says that some right or other is open to "reasonable" restrictions that they never actually get around to defining what that encompasses?

  • ||

    The restrictions we like, well, we'll call those "reasonable." The ones we don't like, we'll call those "unreasonable."

    You'll find those words in just about every Supreme Court opinion, precisely because they're so vague and open to interpretation.

  • ||

    Which is stupid. Every time I've read a legal document, they always try to word everything in a very exacting manner. If you just toss vague terms in there like "reasonable" then what's the point?

  • Xrlq||

    D.A. Ridgely:

    As for Il Duce Giuliani, that analysis would get an F even from Close-Cover-Before-Striking Law School. D.C. isn't a state, the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the federal courts to apply to the states ...



    Errr ... don't those two factors cancel each other out? Since DC isn't a state, there's no need to make the case for incorporation right now.

    mediageek:


    Is it just me, or does it seem like any time someone says that some right or other is open to "reasonable" restrictions that they never actually get around to defining what that encompasses?



    It's just you. All rights are subject to some reasonable restrictions. While the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ownership may have yet to identify an "unreasonable" gun law, Guiliani did so by reference to Parker. In fact, he overstates Parker a bit by implying that the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to carry concealed.

  • ||

    It's just you.


    I beg to differ.

  • Xrlq||

    You're right, he's not the only one who'd like a pony. I'd like one, too, I just know better than to expect one.

  • ||

    The problem I have, though, is that Giuliani is someone who can probably barely differentiate between a handgun and a summer squash.

    Yet he gets to define reasonable?

    I don't buy what he's trying to sell. His activities as mayor of NYC more than showed that he's pretty thoroughly anti-gun, and his acquiescence in light of Parker strikes me as a grudging admission.

  • ||

    The problem I have, though, is that Giuliani is someone who can probably barely differentiate between a handgun and a summer squash.

    Benito Giuliani may not know much about personal gun use but he seems well-schooled in the use of large number of men armed with them.

    Preferably against an unarmed populace.

  • ||

    Richardson is the only person on the Democratic ticket who pushed through big tax cuts while in office -- he's about the only Democrat I've seen in years who seems remotely libertarian on economic issues. My dream general election matchup would be Paul vs. Richardson.

  • ||

    You're right, he's not the only one who'd like a pony.


    Funny, no mention of a pony in his or my comment. You might wish to reread before going half-cocked.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement