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.
I quite agree, but I also think that true defenders of the Second Amendment need to make better efforts to educate people like this (and Bloomberg). The man isn't stupid, but he was born and raised in NYC and spent all his adult life there. He can't conceive of how unfettered Second Amendment rights could work there as a practical matter. He has also worked in NYC government for most of his life, and has therefore never experienced any political pressure to rethink his position on Second Amendment rights.
I disagree with him, and I live in NYC 5 days a week, so I'm not oblivious to the situation on the ground here. But in addition to a lack of citizen or politician comprehension of the Second Amendment, the other thing I see on the ground here is ZERO evidence of any effort by RKBA forces to change public opinion. The black and Hispanic communities here overwhelmingly regard gun control as a good thing, imagining it will somehow help fight the serious violent crime problems in their neighborhood. The leftist white community imagines itself as helping the poor blacks and Hispanics by supporting gun control measures. The silence from the RKBA community is deafening -- nothing is being said by RKBA supporters here, and no RKBA outreach programs are being directed at New York (or any other big city).
I try to do my part by striking up conversations wherever I can, and I'm often pleasantly surprised at how easily many people shift their positions. They're easy to shift because when you just give them the basic common sense arguments, you're giving something they've never heard before. I wonder if anyone has ever sat Rudy down for a friendly chat on this topic, and I sort of doubt it.
Don't take it personal but what did you expect here?
Did you forget what's on the FR Homepage? It is kind of hard to miss....
Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!
So there you have it - CONSERVATISM. Not 'moderate' or 'moderation'. Not RINO. And certainly NOT for furthering the political aspirations of an anti Second Amendment gun grabbing liberal from New York who is 99.5% in lockstep with the Democratic party platform and who just happens to call himself a Republican. (run on sentence: off)
And since you're not posting any longer, don't worry about responding. But have a nice day.
This is a great wheel gun:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/a-10_gattling-gun_040302-f-3963c-059.jpg
EXCELLENT POST! BTTT!
I didn't know that either! Well done, OMalley. BTTT
I agree that in conventional warfare, you're right--a militia generally won't hold up against a regular army. However, as far as loosely trained militias having success against a regular army, how's the fighting in Iraq going?
And look: this isn't meant to be an endorsement for overthrowing the government or anything of the sort--just an observation. Up until recently, everyone just sort of followed the notion that in a war, once you get beaten, you go home and live your life and that's that. But that's not the formula anymore, and I think that's one of the reasons why we're having issues in Iraq. I think that everyone in the White House, honestly and in good faith, believed that once we defeated the Iraqi army and overthrew the government, all the Iraqis that opposed the US would just go home and accept that they got beat and that would be that. It didn't happen. Somehow, someone is going to have to figure out how to fight a war against people that won't accept that they've lost. It's a problem.
I've been there. Littlefield is just a very rich guy that collects ~big~ weapons, and allows a few groups a week to come through to see them.
Incidentally, his 'tank farm' is within rifle range of Stanford. -- One shot from any kind of ordinance he owns would get him shut down permanently.
I used to take my rifle to school with me. Even built a new stock for it when my brother broke the original. We had a shooting club in HS. So what's your beef? Or did the "learing" you got from your journalism overfill your brain and wipe away any common sense about what the Founders meant?
Further, keeping asylum and prison inmates disarmed whist they are in those institutions is the ONLY LEGITIMATE time it may be done. Once released as either cured or having finished their full sentence, they have the same rights as anyone else, period. If the thought of someone actually exercising their right to own and possess weapons frightens you (as it does MANY liberals), may I commend to you a change of scenery? Cuba or China or North Korea might fill your needs, but be wary of Switzerland, as I hear EVERYONE has machine guns and ammo stashed in their closets.
I ain't quitting the Forum, OK? But there's no need for me to rehash the same pros about Rudy on every thread. I might as well just post to a brick wall.
Facts are stubborn things.
+++N-i-i-c-c-e, very nice take, beltfed308----love ya, baby.+++
There's one exception to that - the 2nd Amendment. Rudy is NOW more of a rabid gun grabber than he was ten years ago. He is now calling for Federal Licensing of ALL gun owners, mandatory 'fitness' testing of gun owners and 876 gazillion new "regulations". The scary part is, the sob says it with a straight face - he's serious!
But for some odd reason the Rudyites try to ignore this little gun hating quirk of Rudy. They try to pooh-pooh it away with non nonsensical spin like the POTUS has no control over gun laws --- r-i-g-h-t.
Bye, now. Write when you find work.
The likes of Rudy and Bloomberg are beyond educating on this issue.
Folks who are ignorant by accident, by lack of exposure to issues, can be helped.
Folks who choose to remain ignorant in order to pursue their agendas cannot be helped by education. Only by keeping them out of higher office can we help ourselves.
His pros are fine. It's the cons that concern us so much.
That's YOU. Others feel differently and the Founders agreed with THEM.
How did NYC benefit from disarming law abiding gun owners? Were they not reasonable men? Do they not desreve their right to an effective self defense?
I make more money than you do.
No, it doesn't, and your statement about the Bible is an irrelevant strawman.
Our freedoms are limited every second of our lives, and in particular, being Americans. We simply cannot do what we wish. Even the 1st Amendment 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.
The 1st Amendment does not grant any rights, period. It is a prohibition on the power of the government. Do you understand what "Congress shall make no law" means?
That is an illogical argument.
No, the "illogic" is yours. You attempted to sidestep the argument by interjecting an irrelevant reference to the Bible and claiming or implying that outlining "in explicit detail the "rights" we have been endowed by our Creator" was necessary to properly interpret and apply the Declaration and the Constitution. You have things exactly backwards.
The Declaration and Constitution make no attempt nor provision for outlining our rights "in specific detail" - they simply state that the source of our rights is our Creator, give a few examples for illustration and theoretical, foundational justification, and then proceed to the business of "detailing explicitly" ONLY the "limited powers" delegated to the government by the People. And, just to make sure there's no misunderstanding about the explicitly detailed powers of government versus the general, sovereign rights of the People, they included the 9th and 10th Amendments.
I have no wish to "pile on" here, and wish you well. I just hope you'll one day be able to breach that barrier you keeping banging against when the facts and logic of this issue carry you to conclusions you so obviously, emotionally don't want to reach.
My personal favorite is the spin on "single issue voters". All it would take is another incident like outside Langley and sir julie would would be in front of the cameras before the ambulances even arrived.
We've 'been there, done that', in our Indian wars. --- It took a couple of hundred years, but we finally killed all the Indians that wouldn't accept either reservation life or 'civilized life'.
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.