Rudy approves arming citizens thusly.
But he will "regulate" tomato size and brand (to protect criminals from harmful tomato juice).
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.
Guess I can understand why the FBI checked you out for being a terrorist.
1%'ers. The 'all or nothing' group. The selfish, destructive ones who will take their ball and go home if they don't get their way. Doesn't matter to them that without them playing they'll lose the field too, but its their way or no way. They're the caricatures used by the msm to embarrass everyone on the right. They're the ones who would savage other conservatives in attempt to bully their way to victory. The whackjobs on the right are much more detrimental than the whackjobs on the left, and they make a much more ridiculous caricature, y'know, Archie Bunker compared to the meathead.
"Hate RINOs, moderates, centrists, etc. Support only conservative Republicans and have no problem voting for the LP or CP candidate if the GOP is a RINO."
If you support Rudy, then you may want to edit your profile. Since Rudy is even far left of the avg RINO.
It is too big and heavy. I like them, I like how they look, and I can want one, but as hubby says, want in one hand and spit in the other and see which fills up faster.
okay, still not specific enough.
I am a pro life, anti gay agenda, pro 2nd ammendment, social conservative voter.
According to some on here, that makes me a whackjob, even though thats most of the conservitive base.
So given the above, how far to the right of center is a whackjob?
I suspect that, if pushed to that limit, a lot of veterans and miltary retirees would fare just fine. We don't tend to be too fazed under fire and we do have fire discipline. I do, however, suspect that your average gungrabber (you know, people not too dissimilar to you) would wet his or her Depends and run away crying for mommy.
Rudy approves arming citizens thusly.
But he will "regulate" tomato size and brand (to protect criminals from harmful tomato juice).
I only claimed to have one weapon that I posted. The .45
The other was a wish picture and I never claimed to own it jerkwad. This is my damned gun.
Now, how in the hell does that look like a site picture. Learn how to read moron.
Why not? Except for the phony fifth columnists pretending to be Archie Bunker (just like Carroll O'Connor did) thats where they lie. The Fringe. Its like a piece of whole cloth, it has a frayed edge. This frayed edge is the fringe. Unless the frayed edge is stitched the frays will continue to run and the whole cloth will be ruined.
It's hardly "caviler" on their part. Only the technology has changed, NOT the principles. And THAT they would understand full well. Unlike you modern gun grabbers.
LOL! Tell me. Why would someone toss a vote for someone that would make them a criminal?
Do you encourage people with whom you do not have perfect agreement to leave? That is the most obvious distinguishing point.
The fringe, dude, what percentage of something is the edge. What percentage of the earths surface is covered by the equator?
"First off, even ... "
Factually, I disagree. You should look up Bob Dole's record on the Brady Bill. If it wasn't for Bob Dole, the thing would have been stuck in filibuster.
(ref: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:l4JrWqIZgNwJ:www.rkba.org/goa/us-president.oct95+bob+dole+2nd+amendment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
But that's not the point of my question.
You don't want Rudy; and after hearing the bit our esteemed founder quoted in this thread, he's not getting my *primary* vote either.
Like you, I know what statements like Rudy's mean when people get into office; it means they sign bills that are diametrically opposed to conservatism while telling us the opposite. They don't tend to write such bills themselves; just allow them to exist through inaction. No thank you.
The question is: what are ya gonna do IF he ends up being the Republican nominee anyway? (e.g., in MI Dims can cross the line and vote in our primary as long as they don't simultaneously vote in the Dim primary).
If you line all the issues up, Rudy differs from us on some (or many, however you want to parse it) but not all by any means. Someone like Hillary differs from us on everything. Rudy would be no good for RKBA, and no help for the pro-life cause; but at least he wouldn't ---- our troops over.
I want 100% conservative; but I'm not going to stand around and let 0% win if I can get 30% or 50% or 70% instead. From now until August 2008, don't even think about compromising or settling for less than 100%. That's now. Now is about making sure the Republican candidate is the best one. Not the 'electable' or the 'good enough' one but the best one.
After August, there will be two choices. Yes, there will be other names, but one of two people at that point will win. At that point the whole game changes, because from then until November anything we do or don't do will then benefit the Republican at the expense of the Democrat, or vice versa.
So, while I'm completely out of the Rudy camp, I'm not going to waste a lot of time trashing him, because 18 months from now it may be him or something FAR worse. I don't wanna be in the position of seeing some undecided waffler vote for Hillary because, after all, he listened to me all through '07 when I was telling him how rotten Rudy is. Instead I'm going to devote time to showing how someone else is better.
Oh? Well good on you, then. But who DOES get to define either terrorists or psychotics? The same government that once said that folks who look like my wife were not really people and could be bought and sold like cattle?
Answer his question.
1272 posts on this thread, read a few, you might notice a few examples.
The same people that wrote the 2nd ammendment wrote that Africans were to be counted as 4/5 of a person.
Yes, they had muskets.
Their opponents had muskets.
And I'm sure they wish they had something better than muskets when faced with muskets.
Today, combatants show up with M16s, AK47s, RPGs, tanks, howitzers, Apaches, AC-130s, miniguns, etc.
Dropped into today's realities, the Founding Fathers would want exactly the same things - and more. Yes, after they picked up their false teeth - immediately after.
Faced with AK47s, they would NOT say "I have a musket, that's enough". They'd want AC-130s.
Nice. I bought one about two months ago. It was pretty ragged and had a lot of nicks and cuts in the finish. I asked a friend what could I do and he told me to simply buff out the marks. Home Depot has an assortment of buffing compounds to shine the finish. I don't really want a mirror finish. It's just to replace it's original luster. The frame doesn't seem to match the barrel for some reason.
I started using it for IDPA. I noticed I have to memorize the trigger pull from the single action pistols to the double action revolver. I'm having a bit of trouble when I switch guns from stage to stage. It would be easier if I just shot the entire match with just one gun and then switched. Their rules apply.
I did order some new grips for it. Black Pearlite with my initials and a knight chesspiece. Paladin has nothing to do with it. It's from an old story with my dad and a chess game.
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.