Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; bang; banglist; electionpresident; elections; giulian; giuliani; gop; guncontrol; leo; regulatethis; republicans; rkba; rudygiulian; rudyonguns; rudytranscript; voteduncanhunter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,1401,141-1,1601,161-1,180 ... 1,501-1,511 next last
To: dirtboy
Why do you see the need to restrict rights because you don't care to exercise such yourself?

I find a 9 mm sufficient for my self defense needs.

1,141 posted on 02/08/2007 9:21:06 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1052 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Look. If you believe in something strongly enough, don't run away. Stand up and speak out. If the truth and the facts are on your side, your arguemnt will win. Lately you've been running around this forum like a chicken with its head cut off, in support of RINO-Rudy. And you've had plenty of company too. Why stop now? I'm sure the other RudyBots aren't leaving the fight. If you really think Rudy the liberal is the answer to America's future, stand and fight for him. Otherwise, stop whining.


1,142 posted on 02/08/2007 9:22:09 AM PST by Reagan Man (Conservatives don't vote for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
I find a 9 mm sufficient for my self defense needs.

So you become the arbiter of what is sufficient for the self-defense needs of others, eh?

1,143 posted on 02/08/2007 9:22:19 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1141 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Used to be that kids would take rifles to school, to either participate in the school shooting team or hunt on the way home. No problems

Don't know what land of OZ this is.

I grew up in W.Va. and I can testify that 56 years ago people had guns as a matter of course and respect for gun safety as a matter of course - including the premise that a firearm can be indeed lethal and that its use as to time and place and individual can be regulated.

The only scholastic shooting teams I am aware of were at colleges (i.e.,WVU) and military school (Greenbrier Military School.)

The NRA did have INTRA-COMMUNITY competitive-shooting clubs, i.e., 22 target, amd I participated in ours. We carried our rifles in cases. Rifles on the loose were, and remain, common in the country side but sure not the hell in towns - even back then.

1,144 posted on 02/08/2007 9:22:55 AM PST by mtntop3 (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1117 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
No more Rudy threads for me though.

Bookmark.

1,145 posted on 02/08/2007 9:24:07 AM PST by beltfed308 (Democrats :Tough on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1131 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

What an outstanding reply! That man should have been Governor.


1,146 posted on 02/08/2007 9:24:26 AM PST by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1136 | View Replies]

To: mtntop3
Rifles on the loose were, and remain, common in the country side but sure not the hell in towns - even back then.

Seems to me the problem is with attitudes in towns, then.

1,147 posted on 02/08/2007 9:24:44 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1144 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Spot on, well said!


1,148 posted on 02/08/2007 9:26:47 AM PST by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed -- * NRA * -- * JPFO *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OMalley
If I stand far enough away from the bathroom mirror i have no wrinkles and look much trimmer;)

Lololol

Yes, being nearsighted definitely has it's advantages, especially if you're about 10 feet away from the mirror. Hubby's farsighted so I sit as close to him as I can. When he looks at me and says, 'you're as pretty as the day we met', I know my plan has worked. They say black is a slimming color, but when I go somewhere I always look like I'm in perpetual mourning.

Just never, EVER pull down the visor in your car to check your "face" on a sunny day, EEK!

Direct sunlight is a curse to all women of a certain age. It should be banned.

1,149 posted on 02/08/2007 9:27:21 AM PST by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
What an outstanding reply! That man should have been Governor.

Yep, but the California GOP went for "electibility".

And now has stuck us with AhnoldCare - because there still aren't enough incentives for illegal aliens to come here, let's give them health insurance as well!

1,150 posted on 02/08/2007 9:27:45 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1146 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

like all your basic liberals!


1,151 posted on 02/08/2007 9:28:39 AM PST by Fierce Allegiance ("Campers laugh at clowns behind closed doors." GOHUNTER08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Didn't take you long to figure that out.

Very good. ;^)

The tax and spend policies of the past, have been replaced with borrow and spend policies. Rudy did it in NYCity ---- leaving behind a $2-bilion deficit and a $42-bilion debt ---- Arnold`s been borroing like a mad-man and bankrupting future generations of Californians. And Bush has been on the same track. Bush`s tax cuts were great, but a sound fiscal package would involve tax cuts and spending cuts.

When iot comes to spending the taxpayers money, Rudy, Arnold and Bush are BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICANS. Enough already!


1,152 posted on 02/08/2007 9:29:41 AM PST by Reagan Man (Conservatives don't vote for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1137 | View Replies]

To: mtntop3
The only scholastic shooting teams I am aware of were at colleges

Well where I grew up there were high school teams.

1,153 posted on 02/08/2007 9:30:22 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1144 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
It's extraordinary how liberals, RINOs, and other gun-grabbers refuse the logic. They won't read the letter of the law (2nd Amendment), they won't look at the history of Supreme Court rulings, and they sure as hell aren't impressed by the statistics (a la John Lott et al.) that show what happens both (A) when firearm rights are respected and (B) when they're denied.

The next time some nitwit starts telling you that the 2nd Amendment means the National Guard, respond with this: "So you're telling me that the Bill of Rights -- the 10 amendments that guarantee my individual rights to speech, free press, assembly, protection against search/seizure .... are you trying to tell me that I'm also guaranteed an individual right to have the National Guard?" Maybe the absurdity illogic will get through (although not likely, I know)....

1,154 posted on 02/08/2007 9:31:52 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtntop3

I know that back in the 70's at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro that students would keep their hunting rifles in their dorm rooms during deer season.


1,155 posted on 02/08/2007 9:34:22 AM PST by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1144 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
We need to be as armed as our government.

Look what good that has done in American history. Whiskey rebellion. Quelled. Rebellion on the part of the Confederacy. Quelled. Looks like you would do just as well depending on your vote as your gun. If you think your militia could take on our soidiers or marines, you make me laugh. They couldnt hold out for two days. Hell before that the nut cases would be fighting each other over who was the most pure.

1,156 posted on 02/08/2007 9:34:50 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1076 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Why not push for another recall?


1,157 posted on 02/08/2007 9:35:01 AM PST by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
And Bush has been on the same track. Bush`s tax cuts were great, but a sound fiscal package would involve tax cuts and spending cuts.

Or at least neutral spending. Instead, he spent like crazy. Which, coupled with tax cuts, is insane.

1,158 posted on 02/08/2007 9:35:30 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
Why not push for another recall?

Arnold's in a political sweet spot - he's doing enough to keep Dems happy but no so much as to get pubbies riled up enough to rise up against him.

It's a lot harder to get a RINO out of a tent than to keep him out of the tent in the first place.

1,159 posted on 02/08/2007 9:36:42 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius; adopt4Him
Then let's have that debate and amend the constitution. Until then, my reading of the document is clear: we have a right to bear arms.

Regrettably, Publius, you still don't seem to understand. The right to bears arms is not "granted" by the Constitution, nor are any other rights so "granted". The Constitution is SOLELY a listing (an "enumeration", in the parlance of Constitutional law), of the "powers", i.e. the legal authority and duties delegated by "We the People" to the federal government, to be used on OUR behalf, and subject to OUR control. The so-called "Bill of Rights" grants NO rights - it is a listing of specific prohibitions on government power, and the 9th and 10th Amendments provide the catch-all safety-nets for protection of "the People and the States" from the abuse of those powers delegated to the federal government.

Now, since the Constitution grants no rights, from whence do our rights come? That is covered in the Declaration of Independence which clearly states that our rights come from ("are endowed by") our Creator. They pre-exist the Constitution, as the phrase so aptly states, and cannot be lawfully, morally nor "Constitutionally" taken from us. They can only be taken from us by force.

If we followed your suggestion, had that debate and repealed the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, that would in no way remove our God-given, "inalienable" right to be armed to protect ourselves and secure our freedom. It would not remove the right, it would simply increase the level of tyranny we would be willing to tolerate, and further the already dangerously-advanced process of deconstructing and de-legitimizing the Constitution and the federal government.

1,160 posted on 02/08/2007 9:37:05 AM PST by tarheelswamprat (So what if I'm not rich? So what if I'm not one of the beautiful people? At least I'm not smart...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1081 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,1401,141-1,1601,161-1,180 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson