"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they're intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we're talking about all dangerous weapons."
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000 via On the Issues
"Does this statement by Giuliani on gun control fit the definition of "gun grabber?""
Yes. Gun grabbers lie about their end goals all the time. It's always just this one little measure that they think should be passed, and then we'll be safe- and then another, and another, and another.....
Leftists like Clinton are soft on criminals (except for the time Bubba wanted to look "tough" and he executed a mentally retarted prisoner). A leftist politician can sound tough and knowledgeable to the uninformed by railing against "semi-automatic revolvers" or "sniper rifles that can shoot 1,000 rounds a minute and hit a man a mile away." Such a politician will do nothing against real crime and the criminal underclass knows it. Gun control is a tool of class warfare which is why the left will never abandon it.
Giuliani, on the other hand, does not need to say ignorant things about guns to sound "tough." Unlike a fraud such as Bubba Clinton, Rudy Giuliani is the real deal. Giuliani at least understands that criminals are that way because they choose to be criminals and you can discourage crime by making it painful to be a criminal. For that reason, I don't see Giuliani leading a national gun control crusade -- he has real achievements he can stand on rather than hiding behind gun control. I could be wrong, of course.
In a word, yes.
"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they're intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we're talking about all dangerous weapons."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that...
Does this statement by Giuliani on gun control fit the definition of "gun grabber?"
YES. What part of "shall not be infringed" does he (and you?) not understand?
Besides, a "motorist" does not have a Constitutional RIGHT to own and use a vehicle. A law-abiding citizen who wants to buy, own, and use a firearm DOES.
Also, just as in England and other such "Nanny" states, licensing was the precurser to registration, and registration the precurser to confiscation.
If we allow a northeastern liberal RINO with such gun-grabbing, government knows best, tendencies to gain power outside of his region, which is lost to the socialists already, then we are making a grave mistake for the survival of our Constitutional, Representative Republic.
If he, or his ilk rise to the highest offices in our country, where will it end? In England, not only have they banned guns (the idiots don't even allow most of their own police officers to carry firearms), but they have also banned/severly restricted TOY guns, replicas, BB guns, and pepper spray. They are even considering removing sharp tips from all knives! And worst of all, they have denied citizens the GOD-given right to defend themselves against criminal predators.
We do NOT want these un-American infringements on our rights here in America, so we need to keep the liberals, including the Rudy's and McCain's of the Republican party, OFF of the Supreme court, OUT of the executive branch, and preferably, OUT of national office of any size, shape, or form.
Yes, it does.
Licensing leads to banning and confiscation. It's a stealth process, but one which does happen. We need someone at least neutral, if not friendly, to gun rights.
"Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they're intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we're talking about all dangerous weapons." ****
Answer -- YES.
Reason 1 -- Take that same quote, substitute vote for gun. That's a tad unconstitutional.
Reason 2, Last time I read the 2nd Amendment the word "Test" wasn't there.
Reason 3, Take the rest of the Bill of Rights or any of the constitution for that matter and insert the word "Test". Go ahead, try, that would hold up in court for about 10 seconds. In fact "Test" is strictly PROHIBITED by the Constitution.
Reason 4 -- Take this part of the quote; "that shows... they're intelligent enough and responsible enough".
Oh really? Now who pray tell will decide on that??? Some gubmint bureaucrat with the IQ of a stick? I don't think so.
Bottom line, Rudy can go to hell. Better yet, stay in NYC. Wait that the same thing, never mind.
Yes. That, in and of itself, makes him a gun-grabber. Not to mention his support of the assault weapons ban, banning private sales, and just about every other anti-gun legislation out there.
His comments are indiciative of one who is fundamentally anti-American in his mindset. He believes that the state has supreme authority (i.e., might makes right), and that any "privlidges" that individuals have are solely a result of the state granting them.
This is in direct conflict with the classical American social compact theory of gov't, wherein indiviudals have unalienable Rights (including the Right to keep and bear arms), governments derive their limited powers from the consent of individuals, and the purpose of government is to protect individual Rights.
The difference is night and day. There can be no compromise.