One of the big items on the Giuliani check list is his stance on the Second Amendment. Rudy has had a transformation with regard to this very important piece of our Constitution. Rudy was all for gun control when he was the mayor of New York City and he pursued gun manufacturers for the crimes that criminals committed with guns. Perhaps those very criminals looked at New York as a sanctuary city for them as well. In any event, the criminals are the problems and the guns are just the tools that they used to commit their crimes. Once has to wonder how many of the illegals he invited to his city committed the very crimes he wanted to stop.
Rudy Giuliani is not a fan of the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms. He made a career out of going after guns and legal gun owners (by taking away their rights) while opening his city to law breakers. These opposing positions are interesting indeed and begs the question; "Was he really tough on crime?" Rudy's appearance before the NRA certainly could not have allayed any of the fears gun owners have about his past position and his supposed transformation, especially when he did not know the words to the Second Amendment. It would appear as if Rudy has changed his position as a matter of political expediency, despite his claims that he changed his mind after 9/11:
"Sept. 11 casts somewhat of a different light on Second Amendment rights; it maybe highlights the necessity for them more." My Way News
It seems that a leader would know what the Second Amendment means and that a 9/11 would not be necessary to bring enlightenment with regard to that part of the Constitution. He expects that conservatives and those who believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in the Constitution, will accept his transformation and new found understanding as some sort of epiphany.
I wonder how he would expect people to react if he determined, after 9/11, that the press was too free and that the Constitution did not intend for them to have such freedom in light of their reporting of the incident? How would people react if he decided that there really were no Fourth Amendment rights because he needed to be able to break down doors without probable cause? They would view his new outlook as wrong and while he has suddenly gotten the Second Amendment correct, one needs to ask if he really believes this or if he is saying it as a matter of political expediency.