Giuliani waffles on gun control - now supporting gun ownership

[Copzilla]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Friday said Americans' right to own guns is as important as free speech in remarks to a powerful gun advocacy group that has long viewed him with suspicion.

Giuliani acknowledged his differences with the National Rifle Association, a group he once referred to as "extremists." As New York mayor, Giuliani initiated a lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers.
Article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2137302520070921)

Now my problem with this is that I simply don't trust politicians. I'm afraid he'll waffle back again once he was elected. Because fact is, it takes a pretty strong gun control stance to initiate lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Former NRA president Howard Pollock said he appreciated Giuliani's appearance but doubted he changed any minds.

"I think if he were elected I would certainly support him. I don't think that he would be my first choice," Pollock said.
That's kind of where I'm at. If its Giuliani or Hillary "Free health care for all" Clinton, I'll definitely settle for the candidate who understands the very basic notion that nothing is free. But I'm kinda left hoping that a candidate with strong fiscal conservatism and a less striped social record is nominated. Come on, Fred.

[Arc]

Now my problem with this is that I simply don't trust politicians. I'm afraid he'll waffle back again once he was elected.

Your observations are on target and your concerns are insightful and accurate. But isn't that true about ALL politicians? They will do the same thing if faced with the need--that is tell the people what they want to hear if the people are the ones you need to pitch to as your base anywhere in the time line? And if all politicians are the same other than degrees of culpability of this trait what difference does it make in who one should choose.

Isn't the FIRST priority of all politicians is to get elected no matter their views or level of caring about the nation or what condition they view it in and how to fix it? (If they even have a personal view or believe it is fixable.) Isn't the one thing all first term president's want is a second term?

Aren't all politicians regardless of what they believe personally pretty much "hogtied" to the either the DNC or RNC?

It's depressing. Most politicians are in the context of true visionary regarding the country dumber than shit to begin with. The situation is exacerbated by the system of party affiliation plus political reality is going to quash fulfillment of any truly personal visionary ideas or views? (If such a thing genuinely resides in a senatorial or presidential candidate.

[Violet1966]

I saw mention of this on the news. I don't trust any politician. I know they will say what they need to say, to get elected. I think many will see this move as something he needed to think about, in the bigger picture, instead of simply confined to NYC where he originally took the stance he took, based on what that city needed at the time. Makes me wonder as well though, where he really stands. Has he had a change of heart? Or does he know he needs the support of the people who support the NRA? :(