Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Then let's have that debate and amend the constitution. Until then, my reading of the document is clear: we have a right to bear arms.
until 1968 all of the above - or at least howitzers (not sure about tanks) were available mail order. You could get a WWII PAK 37 in 37mm or 75mm and ap ammo for it. 20MM was a common caliber, and there were a number of Lahtis (sp?) and Solothurns also sold mail order to shoot it. I never saw any 88mms for sale, but there wasn't any law against them. Now 39 years later is there more or less crime, more or less freedom in the USA?
It has gotten so huge prior to my noticing it I probably will stick with the ones I have already gotten involved with. Does look interesting though.
AMEN!
The reason Bush has lost support is not because he's too conservative, it's because he isn't nearly conservative enough. In fact I don't consider him to be conservative at all on most issues, he typifies the mushy middle on many issues other than national defense, the right to life, and taxes. His stubborn refusal to make, or to even allow anyone else to make, any kind of effort to restrict illegal immigration is what offends me the most.
But never the less, his uncompromising support for the right to life overrides all of his negatives AFAIC. When I look at the probable '08 nominee of either party Bush looks like a 1000 carat diamond in a coal bin by comparison.
its not a real exersize plan (but it sounds good huh)?
It sounds great. As a matter of fact, I think I'll adopt that exercise routine.
I have a brand new treadmill, but im afraid if i get on it ill have a heart attack LOL It just sits there and mocks me;)
ROTFLMAO. It mocks you. lol
Ya know, I joined an exercise club about 30 something years. When I walked out of the dressing room and saw myself in wall to wall mirrors wearing that body clinging tight outfit, I turned around, got back in my street clothes and never looked backed. Money down the drain. :-)
"But I also cannot imagine what life in the U.S. would be like if there was no gun restriction of ownership at all. It is mind-boggling to me, despite what you all say we have a "right" to do under the constitution".
Uhhh...
No more blood in the streets than there is now. Do you really think thieves and murderers obey the gun ownership restrictions?
nope, but that's pretty cute. Actually, in between homeschooling my four children, and wiping runny noses, I've been thoughtfully reading the responses I've gotten, and have been thinking each one thru carefully. I'm still reading...
I can see that guns could be looked at anything else -- inocuious or otherwise (i.e. right to own a knife, a pet, a hammer, etc.) You all say it's about individual freedom, apart from what evil people do with said object that I am free to own. This is just one "freedom" that doesn't make sense to me, but i see the logic that where gun control is lessoned, crime decreases. It's just scary to me (as a mother) to think of everyone being allowed to own a gun.
Do you think it applies to children too? the right to own a gun? it doesn't give an age in the big C. when you get technical.
Thanks...
That something is mind-boggling speaks to the mind, not the something.
Perhaps you are unaware of how unregulated arms are in the majority of states. The less the regulation, the greater the peace. VT and AK have no regulation, and are very peaceful; NY and DC have extreme regulations, and among the highest violence rates. States which relaxed regulation promptly saw a drop in violent crime.
This "wild west, blood in the streets" notion is sheer nonsense.
Absolutely right. That sentence should be carved in stone and erected on the front lawn of the White House.
I want a light howitzer. Where to find one?
Well, he would have INDEED sent police to my door if I had not voluntarily turned the pistols in. I had re-upped my two pistol carry permits every two years (on my birthday, since that's when the 2-year carry permits in NYC run until), never had a problem until Rudy came in and changed the rules for re-upping, even if there were no problems with the individual. That's what happened to me, and many others. And, if you DIDN'T turn in your weapons, you can bet your bottom dollar the NYPD would be coming to your door for the (now) illegal firearm.
Do you believe a business has the right to prohit anyone carrying a firearm from entering their premises? How about a church or government office?
Our right to carry arms is the 'Law of the Land". -- So yes, businessmen are obligated to support & defend the 2nd, as is everyone that lives & works in the USA.
[Comment Dave?]
I've had my say. I know the futility of changing the minds of one issue people, even two or three issue people. Rigidly fixed minds that will argue that even a howitzer and psychotics are covered by the 2nd ammendment are not open to discussion, just plattitudes.
I find it strange that you ask a question, then ignore an answer, -- in effect refusing to discuss the fact that everyone that lives & works in the USA are obligated to support & defend the 2nd as part of our supreme Law of the Land.
"Rigidly fixed mind" indeed.
LOL Its been some years since Ive been in a gym myself.
I used to think having to wear glasses was the pits, but Im finding now that Im older being near sided has its advantages.
If I stand far enough away from the bathroom mirror i have no wrinkles and look much trimmer;)
Just never, EVER pull down the visor in your car to check your "face" on a sunny day, EEK!
so you apply this to children also? when you get technical, the big C doesn't give an age limit. So kids can own guns? there are NO rules at all?
My dad gave me a BB gun at age seven, and a .410 at age ten. I was using a double-barrel 12 gauge at age 12.
The decision when kids can have a gun should be up to parents, not fearful nanny-state ninnies.
Yes, I would say that "children" can own guns. Many children have grown up with firearms and these people are responsible, integrated members of society with a healthy respect for these weapons. Why should this not continue?
Again, if you disagree, let's have the debate and amend the constitution. Until then, let's not make an end-run around the Second Amendment.
As a result of a recent assault weapon ban, Cook Co. IL residents will be experiencing the same thing in a week or so. And Mayor Daley will be claiming credit for taking "illegal" weapons off the street.
From your keyboard to God's ears.
Hannity's simple minded prattle should be an embarrassment to any and all reasonably intelligent conservatives, and you can add that shameless self promoter O'Reilly to the same category.
The assualt on weapons ownership could come from any direction. All it takes is an allegience to the "it's for the common good" emotional screed. Many LEOs oppose carrying by civilians as they perceive it to be "against the common good"-murder, mayhem, blood in the streets, etc.
This emotional attachment to 'the common good' blinds many (including well-meaning politicians), and has led to conflicts with individual rights that are surrendered out of respect for the collective. With prisons overflowing and a crime rate perhaps second-to-none, it's difficult to imagine how disarming civilians contributes to the 'common good'.
Curious how this emotion is employed to limit certain individual rights, while the one, actual 'common good' that I can think of (something that neither limits your or my individual rights while bestowing benefits upon us both) - national defense at the border- goes unattended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.