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.
That's the trouble with leaving it up to interpretation... sometimes things are interpreted by unreasonable men.
To support Rudy on this issue, one would have to believe that he is of poor enough character to not stick to his core beliefs when it becomes difficult for him. I have trouble supporting that view.
Rudy is against the private ownership of firearms. The rest is the same politically pragmatic lip service which we can get from Hillary, Obama or anyone else.
"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."
I don't think so. Compare what Rudy did with a Marion Barry, the Democrat in Philly, Chicago, Frisco. Difference was what Rudy did worked and law abiding NY'ers still have their guns. Crime in NY plummeted.
Conventional wisdom tells us where there are gun control laws, crime goes up. Rudy went against conventional wisdom.
Maybe someone can post Rudy's gun control law so we can see for ourselves how it violated the second amendment. I'd be interested to know what happened rather then to read the skewed copy from the MSM.
The Oval Office can either be a pathway or a barrier. 50.1 percent or 66.67 percent for legislation to pass. All determined solely by who holds the pen.
Which is why it is absurd to say that abortion and guns are not issues this election. Especially with Dems currently in control of Congress and the GOP not taking the right steps to wrest control back from them. If anyone needs an example why we cannot overlook a president's views on critical conservative issues, one only needs to look at Bush's willingness to work with a Dem-controlled Congress to get shamnesty. Which means they only need to muster a majority when coupled with the pro-amnesty RINOs in the Senate such as Brownback, McVain and Specter.
Whereas if Bush were to stand firm against amnesty, that legislation would have no chance.
interesting....
I wonder what he and hillary will actually have to debate aside from the WOT?
seems like itll be more of a friendly conversation than a debate. I want someone thatll clean her clock:)
No, 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.
In case you've gotten the idea that I'm some kind of gun hater, I've been using firearms since I was maybe ten. I currently own a 9 mm handgun. I used to also own a 380.
I wonder how Rudy supporters can believe he can ditch social conservatives and win over enough independents and Dems to replace that loss with a pro-WOT platform? Given that opposition to the Iraq War gets stronger the further left one goes into the electorate, that seems like a completely absurd strategy.
No, they do not. Rudy changed permit requirements and many long-term permit holders lost such.
And crime rates in Philly plummeted during the mid to late 1990s as well.
So tanks and howitzers are okay?
Don't see a problem if the owner has enough land to safely enjoy them. Plus, it's kinda hard to hold up a liquor store with a howitzer.
Yep, it sure does.
Maybe they think they can pull votes out of a hat;)
Gun-grabbers, and anti-gun liberal politicians like Rudy are responsible for that 'anti-gun' mentality that did NOT allow our aircrews to be armed prior to 9/11. Thanks to that thinking, our aircrews could not defend themselves, making that horrible day easier for the terrorists. Who knows, if they crews were armed, it might have never happened (as it certainly would have been more difficult for the terrorists, and the crews might have actually stopped it).
Second, Rudy has previously stated that "Clinton's policies aren't all that different than mine." Reference the WOT, Rudy has already stated that, "I do not blame Clinton. Clinton did all that he could do," (paraphrasing) GIVE ME A BREAK! Is Rudy saying that his policies again would have made NO difference?? How can he POSSIBLY say that with a straight face? Geeez
Third, Rudy is pro-amnesty and refused to enforce the immigration laws in NYC. Yep, he sure would be tough in the WOT (rolling eyes)
Nope, not much to debate even here. Maybe they could debate what inaugural gowns they might wear. /s
"No, they do not. Rudy changed permit requirements and many long-term permit holders lost such."
Please understand, I don't know about any of this. I know when I needed my deer tags for NY, I went out and got them without a problem. What permits did he change for handguns and the like.
Rudy isn't my first choice, however if he wins the nomination he will be my choice. All I read here is he is anti second amendment. I am reading a lot of why, but I am not seeing the proof.
Again, can someone post a before Rudy and after Rudy grid to show everyone what Rudy actually did? Let's once and for all close the book on him. The grid will do it and we can all get back to why Duncan Hunter should be our President.
By mentally ill I was thinking of pyschotics, not those who are depressed (if they want to kill themselves, they will find a way w/out a gun) or neurotics (arent we all). By severely mentally retarded I mean someone that has no conception that a gun is anything other than a toy. BTW, I live in St. Louis and we have had two or three gun killings this week with eight year olds accidentally killing their younger sibblings.
Well, you shouldn't make sweeping statements, then, about how Rudy didn't take guns away.
I know when I needed my deer tags for NY, I went out and got them without a problem.
The 2nd Amendment is not about the right to hunt bears. But to bear arms in self-defense.
I agree with you. At the basic level they are one in the same.
Except Rudy plays the word game better and has claimed to support the President on the WOT whereas hitlary claims to have been "for the war, before she was against it".
I think we would probally find out just how close they are on ALL issues, including the WOT if they were to debate which is why i think they are opting out of the early ones.
I wouldnt even be suprised to see Rudy, if he doesnt make it past the primarys to run as hitlarys VP.
Has he listed his party yet???
Or who has better legs LOL I think Rudy has her beat, hands down there;)
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.