Which Way Rudy?

At the last Republican Debate, when asked about his turbulent Personal Life, Rudy Giuliani made it clear that instead of looking at things like that, we should judge him based on his record as a leader. In fact, he spent pretty much the whole debate talking about what he did as Mayor of New York City, and said virtually nothing about what he would do as President of the United States. So, here, he wants us to judge him by his record.

Part of his record in New York City is that he was strong proponent of strong Gun Control.

Jump forward to his speech this week in front of the NRA, where he said he supports the Second Amendment, and the rights of Americans to own guns. So is he saying here that he wants us to ignore his record? You know, the one that he can't talk about enough?

So I'm just asking, which is it Rudy, by your words, or by your record? It can't be both, because they don't agree.

Now, a little bit about Gun Control specifically:

From an engineering standpoint guns are a marvel of human ingenuity. Being able to use a small explosion to propel a piece of lead down a barrel and hit a target with accuracy is truly amazing.

From an original concept standpoint, you have to look at what guns were originally intended for. Guns were invented for the purpose of killing people. They were not thought up for hunting, although they were quickly and readily adapted for that purpose, as you have to remember, there already existed sufficient means for hunting, even big game. Armor, on the other hand, made bows and arrows fairly ineffective for killing people at any sort of range, and so, guns were invented to penetrate the armor. So, in initial concept, guns are evil, how else you would define the concept of a more efficient way to end a human life. (More accurately I guess you would have to say that guns are the result of an evil quest.)

On the other hand, once some people started using guns, others had no choice. They could either start to use guns themselves, or they could sit back and be wiped out, so, from a national and military standpoint, guns are absolutely essential.

By the same token, criminals have never had too much of a problem obtaining guns to use in their lifestyle of crime, so if law abiding people wish to remain safe and not be victims, they must have guns with which to protect their homes, families and possessions, so, without the freedom to keep and bear arms, criminals would, in fact, cause a lot more problems for society, than they do now. So, from a personal security standpoint, guns are indispensable.

From the standpoint of being a free society, guns are critical. Consider this, Hitler prohibited the German people from having personal arms, ensuring that the populace could not revolt against him. Chairman Mao and Stalin adopted the same principle, for the same reason. In fact, history is replete with such policies in totalitarian regimes, but such a regime cannot exist in the presence of an armed citizenry.

The following quote explains the issue quite exquisitely: "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed, where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Judge Alex Kozinsky

So, there you have it... for now...