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.
Our soldiers and marines are members of the militia too, doomass.
Actually, elected officials are the LAST people who should be making such decisions. Any decision they might make is an infringement. The ONLY weapons that do not belong in the hands of individuals (or groups of individuals) are biological and chemical weapons. But these weapons also should not be in the hands of GOVERNMENTS, either. They have no legitimate role on either the battlefield or the home front. Otherwise, any weapon or weapons system someone can afford and can keep stored safely is up for grabs as far as I am concerned.
It's OK to dream. California can't elect a solid conservative, the well is that poisoned. Would you like the Mama and Papa's 'California Dreamin', or Everly Brother's 'Dream, dream, dream'?
Nationally, things are different. Not quite as polluted by liberalism.[see red states] There may be hope of electing a solid conservative here.
This election('08) comes down to a battle between individual rights (the constitution) and the collective (courts, wayward legislatures, misguided communities, homeowner's associations, rouge cops, ACLU, NAACP, etc.).
May the best man win.(Note: if the deck appears 'stacked against', that's because it is)..."whenever I want you, all I have to do, is dream, dream, dream,........"
I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms.
"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".
"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".
So you would s**t on the constitution and infringe nupon the right that is not to be infringed for a TACTICAL ADVANTAGE after you just get thru saying any restrictions must be consistent with a respect for the 2nd amendment.
Such thinking is so incoherent as to make one wonder about his ability to reason.
The line is not drawn between inanimate objects.
The line is drawn between people who use them responsibly, and those who demonstrably will/do not.
Without diving too deeply into the "WMDs and RKBA" debate, as this thread is about Rudy, let me say: so long as someone can safely store, handle, use and apply a weapon - any weapon - they have a right to do so. If reasonable people conclude someone is using a weapon in an unsafe manner, they have a right to infringe on that right (which returns once they can be safe again).
The difficulty with WMDs is that when used, the operator cannot be sure that innocents are not in harms way, save in rare and remote circumstances.
Agreed. Indiscrimate killing doesn't fall within the purvue of self-defense (unless everyone's your enemy). A target should be more defined (unless you're a radical muslim) and able to fit into your sites.
Then the Republican Party is choosing to shoot itself in the foot, if not the head.
Rudy or McCain as candidate amounts to the Republican Party choosing a Democrat as candidate. With the choice effectively being between a Democrat and a Democrat, between a leftist and a leftist, it is entirely understandable if some voters choose some form of "none of the above".
The choice of Hillary vs. Rudy/McCain is truly a choice between the lesser of two evils. As the result either way is evil, please understand if some of us pass up the choice altogether.
None! if you live in an area deemed by appointed government officials as a high crime zone.
Until Rudy unconditionally proclaims his support for individual Second Amendment rights, and categorically rejects abortion on demand, I will stay home rather than vote for him.
That explains why Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to refuel due to security reasons.
I can't speak for JimRob, but I think Rudy would do exactly that if he ever gained the power to do so, seriously. His supporters claim that he has softened his position on gun control now that he is no longer mayor of NYC, but his responses to questions concerning the 2nd Amendment and guns on Hannity & Colmes were not reassuring to gun rights advocates to say the least.
The unfortunate fact is that despite the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary that has been presented in recent years by many highly respected constitutional experts, dean Lawrence Tribe of Harvard law School for one example, practically all northeastern liberals of both parties are convinced that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. When that belief is combined with a seemingly inborn prejudice against gun possession by ordinary citizens and a mistaken belief that more guns in lawful hands means more crime, it's only natural that a northeastern liberal president such as Rudy would be if elected would work for the enactment of much more restrictive federal gun control laws than are now on the books.
Until we have at least a 6-3 originalist majority on the USSC and many more originalists on the lower federal bench, I am not willing to put my 2nd Amendment rights in the hands of a NYC RINO who has a long track record of denying law abiding Americans under his jurisdiction their constitutional right to possess firearms and use them for lawful purposes.
Welp, we're going to find out...
That explains why Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to refuel due to security reasons.
Nice catch! Not sure what inning it is, but another 'out' can't hurt. You got the glove.
I assume you mean that to say that we will find out when he becomes president. To which I would reply, we will find out only if the conservative Republican base tosses out it's principles and embraces the liberal philosophy of governance of a undeniably liberal authoritarian just so they can have a man in the White House who has an R after his name. I won't have any part of it myself except to vote for ABR in the primary, but it looks as though I'm in the minority on this thread.
Have you forgotten about 9/11? To a large part of Republicans that is the most important issue of the day. If we don't have the right person to deal with the WOT, nothing else is important...why can't you understand that's where alot of us are coming from?
"- Convicted felons are not permitted firearms.
- Those of us with Concealed Carry permits have gone through a background check to determine if applicants have a criminal record."
Both of which are unconstitutional infringements on our RKBA.
It was not all that long ago that convicts were given a horse and pistol upon being released from prison, at least here in the west.
The "Felony prohibition" is a fairly recent development, and with the continued application of "Felony" to ever lesser crimes we will all be "Felons" soon enough!
The entire notion of requiring a "Permit" to exercise our right to "Bear arms" is ridiculous, with roots in the "Jim Crow" laws of the Democrat controlled south!
"Shall not be infringed", amazing how that bit of constitutional prohibition on federal legislation is not only ignored, but it's being ignored is applauded by so many who claim to be conservative!
As I have posted before, the root of N.Y.'s "gun control" is the "Sullivan Act", and it's history is a sordid tale of rival mobs seeking advantage.
Leave it to a N.Y. mayor to boast of his support for mob backed legislation!
He is wasting everyone's time if he continues to take this position.
Several of my friends own tanks and howitzers, you have a problem with that?
As I recall Bavaria restored Arnie's old tank and gave it to him as a gift.
I'm feeling deprived, I only have a few machine guns!
If the environment in the company contains potentially explosive vapors, high pressure vessels that could be penetrated, caustic chemicals, etc., then prohibiting firearms may make sense.
The circumstances where prohibition is justified are VERY few.
You did not respond regarding "felons", or when children gain the right to defend themselves.
"we have had two or three gun killings this week with eight year olds accidentally killing their younger siblings."
A statistical anomaly, many more kids drown in buckets, or suffer SIDS from being placed too close to a wall heater, eat Ant poison, etc., every year than die of any sort of gunfire.
Of course the open buckets and wall heaters don't usually make the headlines that what you describe do.
I want someone with a COMPREHENSIVE, REALISTIC, AND BRUTAL foreign policy, or at least has the ability to choose folks associated for this position in their cabinet. Rudy has offerred NOTHING by superficial, shallow talking points, spoon head to the boobs at the Murdoch Media Empire.
Pool the plug on this Coogine. He ain't our guy.
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.