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.
Knowing Rudy, his definition of "regulation" regarding firearms is the modern one, and thus the passage of any law or regulation that had some rational basis would be good enough for him...but not for me. You see, the 2nd Amendment protects basic rights, and any laws challenged thereunder have to be subjected not to the "rational relation" test, but to "strict scrutiny." Such an evaluation of firearms laws would, if done honestly, result in over 90% of them being tossed out as violative of the 2nd Amendment. Something tells me that Rudy doesn't agree with me, and so I'll vote for someone else.
Do you realize how stupid that made you sound?
Interesting you note the Americans were able to capture high ground and the british had to leave because of the American cannon. Obviously they wouldn't have managed that without cannons. Surely it would have helped to have had more cannons!
...so why then can't I have a howitzer? sure wouldn't be able to buy one when needed...
Polite and interesting discussion includes calling me psychotic? Identifying kids is damn easy. Drivers license and the database setup for gun purchases (not sure if it still exists). Database for psychotics and others suffering from mental illness. Not all states report but some is better than non. I'm sure NY would provide its list. :-)
As for saying the list could be outdated and someone could be cured. How many psychotics do you know that have ever been cured. They might be maintained if on drugs but you know how some dont like to take their drugs and then they are out living on the streets again.
"Lastly, thanks for a good conversation in the midst of this contentious issue."
Well, I'm willing to explain the reasons why he should never be thought of as an option but most just start screaming and wont even listen.
I thank you for taking the time to read it.
I've worked at the grassroots for the RNC and the state party for many years. I know the voters in the area and what their reaction will be on those issues. They are willing to vote if they have something to vote for.
I'm amused that he mentions having a howitzer as a snide remark, then describes how a significant Revolutionary War battle was won precisely because our side had the 1770s equivalent of one.
I'm not a Rudy supporter. I'm a Hunter supporter, but I don't want the Rudy supporters alienated. I've promised to support the most conservative (Hunter) in the primary. I hope it is he who I am supporting during the general. I will vote for Rudy in the general if that is the situation.
Rudy supporters can be just as alienating as the extremes and those abusers need to have their case jumped, too.
You must admit that the media finds it very easy to tar all conservatives by the noise made by a few.
I certainly think so. Where do I buy one (seriously)?
New York has gun control - terrorists hit New York
Gun control will not help national security
Well hello fellow Hunter supporter:)
I apolize for my assumption!
Yes, I agree, the media does take the few and make issue with them to reflect poorly on the party. Unfortunalty, for the most part they single out the social conservatives as the whackjobs.
Which would mean we need to be VERY careful about what we say and let the other folks make whackjobs of themselves. for the most part I think we are doing pretty good:)
I wouldn't know, unfortunately. Seems we ought to be able to outfit whole ships for war, as letters of marque were granted way back when. 'Course, I can't afford one personally - yet...
I think some moderates and rhinos get mileage by distancing themselves from the social conservatives because it is the social conservatives who are characterized by caricature. I would like to negate the moderate gains from this by preemptively distancing ourselves from the extreme and irrational voices among us. The counsel of these voices is advice for defeat anyway.
agreed:)
***********
I've only been to pistol and rifle club for practice. I'd never aspire to shoot in competition, but I sure do admire those who can. I have fun practicing, and feel much safer being comfortable with my gun.
The S&W 686 is a very smooth gun and very accurate.
Yes. I've also been to a few places that carry S&W. They make some lovely firearms.
If you want to split the Republican Party for the next election,,,
RUDY IS JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!!!!
And won because of better strategy. I agree that the French played an important role in the Revolution, but much less so in the War of 1812, in which American farmers once again beat the British.
Your examples just go to show how a group of people, who are out-manned or out-"soldiered" can win by outthinking an opponent. You sort of prove my point, Dave.
THIS question: "Would you say that YOU should be disarmed?"
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.