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.
"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ......just pass the the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."- p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957 "...
Anybody not happy with Arnold's liberalism is a "fringe whackjob"?
Does it bother you that there are a whole lot of posters on DU who have a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment than you?
"He wants to REGULATE away your right to keep and bear arms."
Stop with the pathetic LYING.
He didn't say that and he doesn't want it.
If you don't want to vote for Rudy, don't.
Your lies tell everyone much more about you than you would imagine.
You don't read so well, do you?
Who or what gave you the notion that Rudy would appoint Scalia-type judges? Rudy's clearly stated views on almost every issue from the 2nd Amendment to abortion to religious involvement in government to special privileges for homosexuals are diametrically opposed to the views of almost all conservative/originalist jurists of Scalia's caliber.
I think he would be much more likely to appoint judges and Justices of former Chief Justice Earl Warren's caliber, IOW a country club/Rockefeller Rebublican RINO.
Mr. Giuliani has made it plain that he will use whatever tactics it takes to get his agenda through. This is good when we agree with him, on economics perhaps. But he has shown that he will happily point in other directions if it happens that it will divert people from being able to accuse him because they disagree with him.
If he is elected, there is little chance that he will get "strict-constructionist" judges appointed in the current congressional climate, and it is not certain to me that he wants to. He will always be able to say that he used the laws, or the judges, on the books.
Further, if he is elected, there is no chance that the other Republicans will buck his program in our defense. We would be better off with a president that the Republicans can and will buck, than with one who wants to regulate guns, rather than the militia; is pro-abortion; and full of other suspect notions as well.
Ehhh, that would be 3/5ths.
That's the exact way we 2nd Amendment people feel about the RKBA.
Fine. When the Muzzies take over, it's not something we're really going to have to worry about...you won't have any guns.
But at least you'll have your wish about no abortions being performed.
The "Muzzies" won't take over EXACTLY BECAUSE we are an armed society. Do you really have that little faith in your fellow Americans and our military?
"I usually respond with the statement that the Second Amendment exists to ensure that government does nothing to limit my right to defend myself or to interfere with the formation of well regulated militias. As for my part, how could a weapon of mass destruction possibly enhance my right to defend myself? As for the militias, how could WMDs in the hands of individual members possibly promote a well regulated force? If this fails to appeal to a fellow conversationalist's sense of reason, I'm gone.
IMHO, therefore, it is appropriate to "draw the line" at a point where the individual is fully protected and does not present massively destructive threats to the public. "
The government has substantial power. Continuing to use Waco as an example, IIRC, one of the government tactics was to force them out because of a lack of water (I think they were down to one or two days worth). Wouldn't a WMD enhance one's ability to defend oneself in this circumstance? Would anything else work?
***
Suppose you lived in a border state. People trespass on your property on a regular basis. Some of them are armed with machine guns.
Your state does little to stop this. Neither do the feds. Would it be appropriate for you to get together with your neighbors and protect your property? Would it be helpful to have a tank? How about a few land mines?
"FedGov COULD have been stopped at Waco, had the church members included a few combat vets. That they didn't is a shame."
The feds could have dialled up a few more JBT's. Also, IIRC, they had cut off the water, so the church was down to a couple of days worth.
"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."
If the feds attack me in my home and I use a WMD to defend myself, who is responsible for the harm done to innocents? Note that similar logic could be used by a criminal resisting apprehension.
I disagree that individuals are unlikely to acquire WMD's. First, other posts noted the Japanese subway gas.
Second, the bomb didn't exist 100 years ago. Then, one country had it. We're up to a small handful. Won't this trend continue?
Third, you point out that biologicals are hard to work with. IIRC, so was nitroglycerin. Then, somebody (Nobel?) invented TNT, which was much more stable. Is it possible someone will do something similar with biologicals?
Fourth, how about malware? We've been lucky so far, but malware could easily be acquired by an individual or small group.
You CAN'T support that wacko Winnie Brady and her bunch or her laws and the "assault rifle" ban and claim you support the Second Amendment.
But Bush II said he would sign the "assault Rifle ban" if it came to his desk too.
The media and the Bolsheviks in the educational institutions are to blame for this because they raise one generation of Americans after another to believe that freedom of speech means having porno movies and the Second Amendment doesn't give people the right to have military arms and become familiar with their use and guns are basically "evil".
Giuliani needs to do some serious rethinking on the gun issue if he hopes to gain the red states. The Dems did and it worked. They picked up seats in gun country because they stopped attacking guns.
There is an understanding that, even when one's life is in danger and the act may/will save one's self, one does NOT willfully & recklessly endanger others. I frequently see discussions of "reducing overpenetration" (per who may be on the other side of a wall). "Know your target and what is beyond" is a fundamental rule. Harming innocent bystanders is unacceptable. The best self-defense schools take pains to teach prevention of harming the uninvolved. Understandable consequences & choices, perhaps, but not acceptable.
Wiping out the city to save yourself is not acceptable in our culture.
Do you?
Americans in general are pretty friggin stupid
- jmc813
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.