Skip to comments.
Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"
FOX News ^
| Feb 6, 2007
| Hanity and Colmes
Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 1,501-1,511 next last
To: Dog Gone
Conservative Republicans do not support gun grabbing socialists whether they be mayors, governors, legislators or presidential wannabes!
To: Jim Robinson
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these SOBs not understand?!?!?!??!?!
To: MichiganConservative; flashbunny
On what do you base how you think about the issues and how they related to the federal government? Me? I use the US Constitution. If the guy said he used the US Constitution to make up his decisions on federal laws, that's cool with me.Okay, fine. Let's have a look-see at some words I will quote from memory:
"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.
Now, Rudy believes that the word regulated implies the Constitutionality of things such as the Brady Act. As it so happens, I disagree with this interpretation. In fact, I believe that the Second Amendment ought to fall under the category of "incorporated rights" under the 14th Amendment and thereby apply to the states as well. But Rudy's interpretation is reasonable. It's undoubtedly in good faith. He's not trying to ignore or rewrite the Constitution to push an anti-gun agenda, he's applying what he sincerely believes is the meaning of the Constitution. I can respect that.
If GWB had bothered to read the US Constitution and use it as his guide, he would have vetoed CFR and many other things.
...and later, by flashbunny:
But if a democrat controlled congress passes anti-gun laws, will Rudy the Rino sign or veto them?
Indeed. The Constitution provides three bars to bad legislation, and the President with his veto pen is the second of them. The first is the Legislature. When bad legislation is enacted, it's because Congress passed it and the President didn't veto it. Bad legislation is a problem. I prefer to attack it at the source: the legislature. Get Rudy a good solid conservative Republican Congress to work with in 2008, and he'll never have the chance to not wield his veto pen on a gun control bill.
103
posted on
02/07/2007 3:16:34 PM PST
by
Politicalities
(http://www.politicalities.com)
To: Jim Robinson
Nice try, there Rudy, almost danced around the issue. Regulate? Infringe? Restrictions? They all sound the same when you say them, so let's just be blunt. Rudy, you are in favor of gun control. Period.
Rudy, what you're saying is that we, the people, do NOT have the right to bear arms if the local government says we can't. The Constitution be damned. People do NOT have the right to defend themselves with a gun. That right the people must forfeit to the government...so who will protect us from the government? Can I sue the government if they fail to protect me, since they say I MUST defer to them the right to protect myself?
104
posted on
02/07/2007 3:16:37 PM PST
by
GBA
(God Bless America!)
To: Dog Gone
"The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the Federal government, not a limitation on state or local government. "
NOT BY A LONG SHOT!
Article VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Get it?
105
posted on
02/07/2007 3:16:55 PM PST
by
flashbunny
(<---------- Hate RINOs? Click my name for 2008 GOP RINO collector cards.)
To: rbookward
I'm not a one issue voter, but the second amendment is one of several good litmus tests. couldn't have said it better myself.
106
posted on
02/07/2007 3:17:11 PM PST
by
tcostell
(MOLON LABE)
To: Jim Robinson
"REGULATE AWAY THE RKBA? NOT ON MY WATCH!!"
Ditto...molon labe.
Why is it that so many elected officials can't figure out that the "Rights" we have articulated in the Constitution come from God and that governments are established to protect those rights? The government doesn't create a "right" because a right is something who's point of origin is from an authority higher than the State.
If they can't get that straight in their minds, they have no business being elected and swearing (usually on a Bible), that the will uphold and support and defend the Constitution.
107
posted on
02/07/2007 3:17:16 PM PST
by
Towed_Jumper
(I faithfully fart toward Mecca five times a day.)
To: Jim Robinson
I couldn't agree more. As if we should support a gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, liberal lawyer from New York,,,just to save us from a different gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, liberal lawyer from New York. No thanks.
108
posted on
02/07/2007 3:17:57 PM PST
by
stockstrader
("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
To: OMalley
109
posted on
02/07/2007 3:18:08 PM PST
by
ElkGroveDan
(When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
To: Dog Gone
Rudy:
We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones...That's a pretty difficult quote to reconcile with a federalist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment.
110
posted on
02/07/2007 3:18:11 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(Duncan Hunter 08)
To: thinkthenpost
I was going to post about the fallacy of equating rural to urban America, then reread you tagline and thought better of it.
To: JTHomes
I'm back to my original thinking that we'd be almost no better off with Giuliani than with whatever democrat wins. Which is exactly correct, which is exactly why the MSM is trying desperately to annoint Giuliani as the Republican candidate.
If Hillary! wins, they get a liberal Democrat. If Rudy wins, they get a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican.
Don't fall for the rigged game.
112
posted on
02/07/2007 3:19:02 PM PST
by
Campion
("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
To: RedStateRocker
> ...only a tyrant would fear his subjects.
That's why DC has a complete firearm ban--the culprits don't want the militia anywhere near them!
113
posted on
02/07/2007 3:19:08 PM PST
by
rbookward
(When 900 years old you are, type as well you will not!)
To: DaveLoneRanger
"-Rudy Giuliani
The Mayor's WINS Address
Sunday, March 2nd, 1997"
Oh come on now, That was 10 years ago. Can't you find anything more recent? People can change. Look at Hillary.
114
posted on
02/07/2007 3:19:35 PM PST
by
Rb ver. 2.0
(A Muslim soldier can never be loyal to a non-Muslim commander.)
To: Jim Robinson
115
posted on
02/07/2007 3:19:45 PM PST
by
Brad’s Gramma
(DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT! http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx)
To: Rb ver. 2.0
Oh come on now, That was 10 years ago. Can't you find anything more recent? People can change. Look at Hillary.You almost had me. hehehehe
116
posted on
02/07/2007 3:20:08 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(Duncan Hunter 08)
To: dirtboy
So that's how we never had an Assault Weapons Ban. Oops, we did.Did we really? And this was because the President has the power to unilaterally abrogate the Constitution?
When you start with a false premise, it negates the rest of your screed.
Indeed, for example if you start with the premise, "We had an Assault Weapon Ban solely because of the President." We got an Assault Weapon Ban because we had a staunchly anti-gun Congress. (And, ironically, it's because of that Assault Weapon Ban that we got a staunchly pro-gun Congress for twelve years... until the Ban expired. Funny that.) If you want legislative progress, focus on the legislators.
117
posted on
02/07/2007 3:20:11 PM PST
by
Politicalities
(http://www.politicalities.com)
To: Hildy
Do you think Rudy's gonna take away all our guns, seriously? Who in their right mind would even take the chance? At the very least he would enable further erosion of the 2nd. Just say no to Rudy!
118
posted on
02/07/2007 3:20:15 PM PST
by
beltfed308
(Democrats :Tough on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism)
To: Jim Robinson
"And I might add, electable got us Arnie. It's not working for California and it won't work for America!"Glad to see you've come to your senses. A little late in Arnold's case though.
To: Rb ver. 2.0
"People can change. Look at Hillary"
You fergit yore sarcasm tag there, pilgrim?
(she changed for the worse, alright)
120
posted on
02/07/2007 3:21:08 PM PST
by
dynachrome
("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 1,501-1,511 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson