Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"

FOX News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes

[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.

[from occupied ga]

So Rudy sent the police to your door, asking for your guns? You received a letter in the mail stating that you have three shotguns, a 45 auto, two rifles and if you do not bring them in within 24 hours you are going to jail?

No, that was Dinkins, the previous mayor; however, Guiliani didn't undo the legislation or return the unconstitutionally seized firearms or even verbally condemn the action.

[Iwo Jima]

Convicted felons are not permitted firearms.

Wrong. Texas law allows felons to have firearms 5 years after they finish their sentence. There has been no problems with this practice that I am aware of, and there is no call to change it.

You got a problem with that?

[epow]

What part of the people's right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does he NOT understand?

Oh I think he understands it alright, he just doesn't agree with it and therefore government can override it for "the good of society". Dismissing Constitutionally guaranteed rights that don't fit the liberal mold comes natural to him, just as it does to all liberal hypocrites.

"Regulating" guns is nothing more than Orwellian newspeak for allowing certain favored persons or classes of people to possess certain guns under certain circumstances and prohibiting guns for certain other persons or classes. In Rudy's NYC the favored class is composed primarily of the very wealthy, celebrities, or the politically well connected. Ordinary law abiding NYC residents, aka subjects, may as well not bother applying for permission to possess a handgun because they aren't part of the favored classes whose lives and property are more valuable in the estimation of rich liberals than the lives of ordinary subjects.

Rudy's gun-grabbing tendencies are only one reason why I will never vote for him under any circumstances. I can't and won't vote for anyone of such despicable character that he or she will support continuing the American holocaust that has murdered 10 times more innocent human beings than Hitler's holocaust. Now he talks out of the other side of his mouth on the subjects of abortion, homosexual "rights", and gun prohibitions, but AFAIC his actions while he was in power speak far more eloquently than his words do now when he is seeking even more power over our lives.

[OMalley]

yeah me too:)

It used to be a joke out here that you had more gun racks than liberals, but sadly that is changing as we hire outside the state for the coal, gas and methane.

You would think the liberals wouldnt want that type of job, but perhaps thier values have price tag?

[lormand]

"A large part of his support here seems to derive not from conservative beliefs and rational arguments, but from a cult of personality following. Disturbing."

That is probably the best explaination I have heard so far.

[OMalley]

Glad I stopped watching him then.

I stopped a few years ago first with hannity and colmes, then fox all together.

i live in a town house and found myself talking or yelling at the tv too much. thought my nieghbors would think i was insane;) plus it was bad for my blood pressure!

[ctdonath2]

What permits did he change for handguns and the like.

CCW permits in downstate NY now expire in 5 years. Now you don't just have to plow thru paperwork, $$$, and bureaucratic resistance to get a CCW permit, you have to do it repeatedly - with a system increasingly opposed to you getting the permit & renewal. And if the permit/renewal is denied (which can be done without cause), suddenly all licensed firearms you own must be turned over to the police without compensation.

[Publius Valerius]

I can think of one time I've seen on TV a nut with a tank.

DuPont?

[thefactor]

you're not wrong, of course, about his desire to court other than the base. but i'm not wrong either. i believe rudy knows that what works in new york city does not play well in peoria, to coin the phrase. i am worried about the gun control and other social issues, but i just have to admit that the presidential election is a popularity contest and he might be the only "republican" who can beat hillary. if someone more in the mold of reagan comes along, i would welcome them. but politics is about comprimise.

i ask you, jim, if rudy and hillary are on the ticket, would you vote or would you stay home? if you stay home it is a half vote for hillary, as hannity says. theory is fine in these blog situations, but there comes a time when we have to be practical.

[trisham]

Pretty. This is the only pistol I can shoot, though.

I do better with revolvers. Small hands.

[processing please hold]

Absolutely none. But I have the greatest respect for the finest machine for close ground support made. I love everything about them.

They were on their way to being retired until the Gulf War and got a reprieve and showed their mettle. iirc, we only lost 5 or 6 out of about 8000 sorties.

They can take a lickin and bring our pilots back.

If you like A-10's, you might like this site.

A-10's

[dirtboy]

Nah, some guy driving the tank down highways in I believe California (where else?).

The video is on those World's Wildest Police Chases TV shows.

[ctdonath2]

A nutcase is unlikely to be able to afford or feed a tank or howitzer. And those that can will be undettered by prohibitions against them, at which point you'd better hope someone else has one to stop the nutcase pronto.

Some years ago a nut DID steal a tank and went on a rampage. Nobody could stop him - precisely because nobody could legally have what was needed to stop him.

[OMalley]

Gillette (though I think it might have been big haul truck)

[redgolum]

And this is the great hope for the GOP.

Sorry, I will write in the dog Duke from the bean commericals first.

[Delphinium]

When was the last time anyone in this country needed that tank or howitzer you feel is okay for self defense?

We need to be as armed as our government.

I went searching for something from history and found:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

this is a good article for you Dave. You need to study your history, and understand. This is an exerpt, from a pretty good article explaining why we have the 2nd amendment:

"English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says., that might try and oppress us."

[ctdonath2]

I don't think he did that. Then again, maybe he did.

Yes, he did (not to that poster, but did set up the system to do so). He was part of newly requiring permit renewals, in a state where you can't have firearms without a permit, and where a permit can be denied for no reason. Acting on that information would, of course, be kept quiet.

[Dead Corpse]

Difference was what Rudy did worked...

There is little evidence of that. Rudy presided over a period of history in NYC where National Crime rates were already on the decline.

Gun control doesn't work. Not even in NYC.

[adopt4Him]

You say, "there is no justification to deny the right of reasonable folks to keep and bear arms" is exactly my point. You're defining the right to "reasonable folks" but isn't the cost too high for this freedom since there are so many "unreasonable folks" out there who will now (with no gun restrictions at all, let's say) be able to own as many guns as they want to. I guess you could say then, that all the good people would also own guns, and defend themselves against the bad people.

I just find it hard to believe that the framers of the big C meant this to fit into the world we live in, that they could not possibly conceive of in their day. I fully get it, about protecting all of our "rights" as citizens. 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.

I think the blood would flow in the streets, and that civilization as we know it would end, and chaos would reign.

Just my humble opinion...and no, I'm not a Democrat in disguise. Just an honest girl trying to think for myself and for my children, and not just to go along to get along.

Thanks..

[Publius Valerius]

On a lighter note, I remember watching something on TV a little while back, and there was a tank. I remarked to my wife that "I wish I had a tank."

She asked me where I would park it, and I said "Wherever I want."

I really do wish I had a tank. I think, incidentally, that you can buy military surplus tanks, but the guns have to be disabled.