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.
Well then, congratulations are in order. Congratulations, OMalley! :)
Perhaps. But so what? Does it prove something?
That S&W .44 magnum makes a good door stop. I'd never carry anything that big and heavy. Too cumbersome. If you miss on the first shot, you're dead.
Because the more the extreme right whines about Arnie the more popular he is with the middleground. Paradox, irony and dilemma.
Yes, but then there's the real world. The more vocal that complain, should not be construed to represent those that acknowledge the compromise that exists. The point of the thread is that the right is in jeopardy of being rendered extinct altogether. The govm't has the right to enforce attainder and to do so, with respect to commerce, so criminals are not able to buy guns. The essence of the threat posed now, amounts to applying the attainder to everyone, which ultimately means only the govm't, and criminals will have guns.
Thanks for the comment in your reply.
Use indirect sunlight. I tried a shadow box with flurescents and using the flash which doesn't work as you probably already know. The first picture on my profile page was taken in that manner.
Taking factory pictures from their website and claiming the guns as your own may work also but I don't recommend it.
Thank Jim ~ well said and good job!!!
:)
Dang, what a quandary you have yourself in. Fog up his glasses?
Hahaha, i wear ALOT Of black. It started when my son was an infant (a serial urper) and as i gained wieght it became my color of choice.
Children, bad for the hips.
'At home' I wear bright colors too and am comfortable mixing plaids and strips. My grown kids laugh at my dress code, but, oh well, I'm comfortable. They wonder how a woman who dressed them where everything coordinated when they were kids, to a woman who matches her clothes as though she were blind.
Laws should focus on consequences & responsibility, not pre-emption.
If some thing or behavior is reasonably understood to be an imminent threat of grave harm, regulation thereof is reasonable.
If way more than 99% of the time it isn't a problem, regulation is unreasonable.
To your examples:
- Waiting periods are useless in nearly all cases, as practically all the time there is nothing to avert, and other equivalent options are usually available if there is. I know one excellent store which had to close because waiting periods were intolerable to customers (people would drive far to shop, but having to come back days later to complete the purchase was just too obnoxious).
- Most criminals get their guns illegally. That getting them is illegal doesn't stop them (that's...um...why they're criminals). Most gun control laws just annoy the law-abiding, doing nothing to stop criminials who simply ignore them & buy elsewhere.
- A lot of "felonies" do not warrant loss of rights. Simple possession (as in: stuck in a box in the back of a closet) of an $18 30-round M16 magazine (very common & legal in most of the USA) is a felony in NY. Should Constitutional rights be lost thanks to simply owning a small metal box with a spring?
Upshot is: if we go thru the laws many people think we should have, analysis will reveal that they do little good in preventing crime & harm, and do much to annoy the law-abiding or set them up for victimhood. Current gun laws ARE too restrictive, severely misguided, doing more harm than good. Of the 20,000 on the books, only maybe a dozen or so should remain. And yes, I have comprehensively studied the relevant federal and NY laws, and examined those of other states. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the complete gun laws of the entire country (have an extra copy) - read all several hundred tiny-print large-format pages in detail, and then tell me with a straight face that "of course we need all this" (hint: you won't).
Much that many people think intolerable punishable behavior is at worst harmless and often extremely helpful. What the ignorant consider terrifying is often what the knowledgable consider reasonable and normal - and wish the ignorant would stop being so annoying about.
What we DO need is appropriate consequences for irresponsible behavior.
Thing is, it's so much easier to enforce laws on the reasonable & compliant than it is on the dangerously irresponsible.
What pictures from web sites? The .50?
Define extreme right.
The fringe whackjobs. The ones Arnie uses to badmouth just to distance himself from that extreme.I think he likes it when they whine. It sure helps him maintain popularity in the middle.
How do you think the overweight, pretend soldiers of the various "militas" in this country would stack up with the average Al Qaeda trained fighter?
that was oddly unspecific.
Im curious too-who are and what describes the fringe whackjobs:)
Oh spare me that crap. The founders were faced with muskets that took 30 seconds or so to reload and with relatively small cannon. They would drop their false teeth if they saw an AC-130 in operation or even a mini-gun. I doubt they would be as caviler as you think they would be.
Regulate this ~ Rudy Tooty!!
Okay, define fringe whackjobs. And don't say the extreme right. LOL.
Have you seen the S&W site?
LOL yes i think comfort takes over after a certain amount of time. Usually at home during the day I find checkered flannel jammie bottoms and one of hubbies striped shirts is most comfy.
Noone sees me except the kittys and they are color blind;)
I think id look good anytime i could fog up his glasses LOL
Maybe I should just have him not where them AT ALL. then wether near or far, i look 29 :-P
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.