Single shot. Not good for home defense, but, if you can only get off one shot, this is the one to use. Has heft to it and kicks like a Missouri mule. Man stopper.
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.
Quelled may be a bit of an understatement don't you think?
It's also a felony to carry a firearm in Federal offices and on public school property. Airports too. Try it and see what rights you have.
Try walking into a school zone carrying a rifle and telling everybody that.
Before 'gun control' [disarming the people] became fashionable, no one thought twice of a person walking through a 'school zone' carrying a rifle.
-- Once terrorists were fairly certain no one in schools were armed, -- open season.. - Isn't it amazing how that works?
That is what JohhnyMac was telling Dubya back several years ago.
Single shot. Not good for home defense, but, if you can only get off one shot, this is the one to use. Has heft to it and kicks like a Missouri mule. Man stopper.
I guess it depends on what you thought of Atlanta before the fire. :-)
"Dole and Bush were still nominally pro-life, 2nd Amend., etc.
Ford was from an era long ago when Rockefeller Republicans ruled the land. Ronald Reagan slayed those dinosaurs. We don't need to resurrect one."
OK, cool, but it doesn't go to my point, which is:
If, at the end of the *primary* season, the Republican candidate is not great, do we:
1. Divide openly as we did in 2006 and ensure the Dims win everything?
2. Acquiesce with grumbling and without enthusiasm as we did in 1996 and give the Dim presidential candiate a free run?
3. Realize that there are FAR worse things than even a RINO and rally to keep Hillary or whomever from inflicting short and long-term hell on us.
I never liked Ford but nuts, if he'd won we'd still have control over the Panama canal and a shah-led Iran would be a non-issue or even our ally now. I don't care much for Bush41 but we'll be undoing the consequences of Clinton's 'work' with North Korea and China for a LONG time.
That's all I'm sayin. Now, we fight like mad for the best conservative we can get. When the primaries are over, though, the only political foe I'll have is the one with a (D) by his name.
What will you say when "one day" government says you must show a "reasonable need" and get permission to have a child? "As a mother", is that "scary" to you?
When you won't stand for the rights of your neighbor, because you just don't thing they're important, there will come a day when "your" rights are threatened. Who will you turn to for help then? (Google: Martin Niemoeller for details)
It was Hildy that said this: "I guess we'll see just how much sway the extreme Conservatives in the party have. I think you're going to be disappointed."
I had it in my head that it was you. My mistake.
The Dec of Indy and the Constitution are not equal to the Bible. Only the Bible outlines in explicit detail the "rights" we have been endowed by our Creator. May people (especially Christians) get this mixed up.
Our freedoms are limited every second of our lives, and in particular, being Americans. We simply cannot do what we wish. Even the 1st Ammendment does not grant us full rights to say anything we want whenever we want. The right to bear arms as "stated" does not at all require there are no circumstances where it should reasonably be restricted.
That is an illogical argument.
My mind is still open to the whole subject of gun ownership, by the way. Although I would not take a bullet for my right to fire a bullet...if you can follow..
Soooo.....according to Rudi, just like driving a car....
it should be a 'privilege' to be able to possess a gun for your own protection against lawless thugs that the police sure as hell can't (or won't) protect you from, and that get paroled and pushed through the US Justice system via the 'revolving door' syndrome?
And of course the government should regulate that privilage TOO and ergo, should also be able to tax you yearly and in several different ways for that ""privilege"" (example: car registration and vehicle inspection).
Yeah. He's a liberal all right!
They all look alike.
If you can afford the ammo and upkeep. Bear in mind that the second amendment is NOT about hunting down Bambi. Also bear in mind that the founders rather strongly felt that government agents should NOT be better armed than individuals and that the Letters of Marque and Reprisal were to be granted to INDIVIDUALS who happened to own ships armed with cannon and other NAVAL weaponry. So calling people extremist for believing that UNFETTERED access to weaponry makes YOU some sort of nutball or else the Founders were pretty extreme themselves. Or both. Also, many of the cannon used during and after the Revolution were privately owned and the Militia (meaning all the able-bodied men) were required to own and bring with them weapons suitable to wartime emergency service. Again, YOU are the one who has no concept of what the Founders meant and intended.
Our rights are properly confined only by impact on the rights of others. I cannot slander you, for example. I cannot shoot at you unless you represent a clear threat to me.
But what Rudy seeks is something else entirely. He seeks to pre-emptively negate our right to bear arms because he doesn't trust us, or thinks the government should be in the job of defending citizens and private citizens have no real role in defending themselves other than to call 9-11. That is the real problem here. Not that rights have limits. But that government seeks to limit rights without cause or proper enumerated authority.
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.