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.
"I own several rifles, nine shotguns and many pistols. Which of these do you plan to allow me to keep ?"
Which one do you plan on going into the street with to commit a crime?
LOL! I wouldn't be on it, that's for sure.
i correction I
Nope that won't do it. Remember Bernard Goetz? He applied for a permit after bing robbed and was turned down. The way to show need in Guiliani's NYC is to be a celebrity. Celebrities have no trouble getting permits in NYC.
Is Free Republic large enough to accommodate Rudy's cult of personality as well as Dubya's?
Georgia, I never thought of it that way. Good point. And having to be the victim of a crime to demonstrate need to have a weapon is stoopid. What if you don't 'make it' through the criminal act due to being unarmed?
How to be a celebrity in NYC.
Sleep with Donald Trump and Rosie O' Donnell......at the same time?
Just asking. LOL.
What a nightmarish thought!!
That kind of post should only be made between the hours of midnight and 5AM. Ungh.... ;^)
I've already been through that shakedown - rather thoroughly too. They've said "Won't you cast a vote for the lesser of evil? it's for the good.." - as if I'm too blind to know the net difference is none. I've spent time on my knees to determine what's right for me, and this is my resolution.
My conscience tells me NO for abortion and anyone who supports it; NO for SSM and those who condone it and want to place it at par with marriage and I believe both stances I've taken to be Biblically principled positions and that leads me to a NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE declaration with regard to RinoRudy. To cast a vote for JulieAnnie is to go directly against those I hold as Christian convictions and I'm a firm believer the Almighty has placed it within the hearts of mankind to know right from wrong and to let us decide whether we stand firm on His principle AND his ability to lead us in righteousness or do we curl up with a whimper and abandon our beliefs simply for a perception of "winning".
For principles' sake, I will trust the Almighty's promises to guide the obedient over that of politics, any day.
None. But Rudy and his gun grabbing friends want to take two of my rifles, three of my handguns, and possibly one of my shotguns as well. I also wouldn't be able to buy the next bolt action rifle I was looking at as it's chambered for the uber-scary .50BMG.
Heck, Kennedy even tried to get my .30-30 banned as 99% or your typical rifle rounds can easily defeat Class IIa body armor.
There can be no "reasonable restrictions" on an unalienable Right.
As POTUS, Ronald Reagan didn't support any assault weapons ban, nor did he ever infringe on the 2nd amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Reagan did sign one bill outlawing "cop-killer" bullets. Reagan also signed the Firearms and Owners Protection Act of 1986. The FOPA was supported by the gun rights advocates.
************
Thanks for posting the above. I suspected it was something of the kind, but did wonder after all of the posts (I think mostly by one person, if I recall correctly) that cast it in a different light.
Gotcha----will try to remember. LOL.
If this POS is the nominate, I WILL vote 3rd party.
I agree. If it's down to rinorudy or marxisthillary I'm voting libertarian.
Indeed. I think what you have is people who place "winning" above all else, and so they've chosen who they believe to be the most electable candidate and will support him no matter his beliefs. However, implicit in that action is the feeling that conservative beliefs are not electable on their own. I question whether these folks have really thought hard about why conservatism works, or whether they just made conservative-sounding statements when it happens to suit "their guy".
That dog won't hunt, fella. Rudy Giuliani's disgraceful track record with regard to upholding the provisions of the 1996 Federal immigration reform act that specifically prohibited the establishment of "sanctuary city" policies makes this a particularly lame -- and pathetic -- defense of his views on gun control when he was mayor of New York City.
Isn't that why we are discussing it now? So it doesn't come to that? Say "no" to the RINO's now, while the option isn't so dire.
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.