Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"

FOX News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes

[TeenagedConservative]

What are 'arms' anyway?? Does this mean that we can, say, warehouse handheld missiles, or nuclear weapons? It seems to me that technology, alone, requires constant review and proscription, i.e., regulation, when necessary. And technology is but one example.

According to Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and a host of other contemporaries of the 2nd Amendment, arms are guns. Obviously, there were no nukes back then, so the Constitution could not possibly be construed to support civilian ownership of them.

His statement is plain, a given and even, I daresay, pro-Second Amendment.

Yes, quite apparently he SAYS he supports guns. On Hannity's show, he also said he opposed abortion and then went on to endorse it. He says he supports the right to bear arms then admits in the next breath that he used gun restrictions as mayor. This man is not honest enough for me to vote for him.

Gun regulation, like all regulation, must be consistent with the Constitution and all of its amendments, i.e., laws must be constitutional.

That's like saying free speech regulation must be consistent with the 1st Amendment. The first and second Amendments ban Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms. So how can laws infringing on the right to bear arms be consistent with the prohibition on infringing the right to bear arms?

[Mia T]

 

What are 'arms' anyway?? Does this mean that we can, say, warehouse handheld missiles, or nuclear weapons? It seems to me that technology, alone, requires constant review and proscription, i.e., regulation, when necessary. And technology is but one example.--Mia T

 

According to Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and a host of other contemporaries of the 2nd Amendment, arms are guns. Obviously, there were no nukes back then, so the Constitution could not possibly be construed to support civilian ownership of them.--TeenagedConservative

 

To understand the Founders' intent, we must consider both construct and context. A literal reading ('arms are guns') is inadequate, in my view.

'Arms' in the 18th century, if we consider construct and context, were weapons sufficient to defend against a despotic govt. Guns today would hardly be sufficient for that purpose.

So if we want to remain true to the intent of the Founders, 'arms' in the 21st century must include much more potent weapons. But this opens up a whole new can of worms.... and so my previous argument goes. The point I am trying to make here is that the world isn't static, that there exist variables that over time will require review, and if needed, regulation.

 

That's like saying free speech regulation must be consistent with the 1st Amendment. The first and second Amendments ban Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms. So how can laws infringing on the right to bear arms be consistent with the prohibition on infringing the right to bear arms?--TeenagedConservative

Your error, IMO, is assuming that rights are unlimited. There do exist regulations limiting speech, e.g., defamation regulation (libel, slander), but such regulation must be consistent with the 1st Amendment and every other part of the Constitution ..

Yes, quite apparently he SAYS he supports guns. On Hannity's show, he also said he opposed abortion and then went on to endorse it. He says he supports the right to bear arms then admits in the next breath that he used gun restrictions as mayor. This man is not honest enough for me to vote for him.--TeenagedConservative

several points:

• It's absurd to suggest that he was lying. He was explaining his theory of governance, based on a highly successful run as mayor. Regarding guns, he believes that a densely populated, crime-ridden urban area has very different need for regulation than, say, the bucolic VA countryside. It makes abundant sense to me.
  
  
• You are misrepresenting Giuliani. He said he is personally opposed to abortion but that he believes it is the woman's decision. But the crucial point is that he will appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. How his presidency would impact on abortion and on the Constitution is what is important. OTOH, vote 3rd party, or stay home, and you are placing your de facto vote for the avowed pro-abortion (Stalinist) candidate who would appoint justices who will legislate from the bench and uphold Roe... and worse.
  
  
• As I argue above, rights and limitations are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PhilDragoo]

OTOH, vote 3rd party, or stay home, and you are placing your de facto vote for the avowed pro-abortion (Stalinist) candidate who would appoint justices who will legislate from the bench and uphold Roe... and worse.

[Mia T]

[Mia T]

Let down the curtain: the farce is done. (Rabelais)
[Zucker ad, analysis]

[TeenagedConservative]

To understand the Founders' intent, we must consider both construct and context. A literal reading ('arms are guns') is inadequate, in my view. 'Arms' in the 18th century, if we consider construct and context, were weapons sufficient to defend against a despotic govt. Guns today would hardly be sufficient for that purpose. So if we want to remain true to the intent of the Founders, 'arms' in the 21st century must include much more potent weapons. But this opens up a whole new can of worms.... and so my previous argument goes. The point I am trying to make here is that the world isn't static, that there exist variables that over time will require review, and if needed, regulation. - Mia T

The 2nd Amendment does not say, "Whatever is necessary to ensure that the civilian population would defeat the military in pitched battle is hereby guaranteed and protected for civilian use." The 2nd Amendment was, however, written partly for that purpose. The fact that we now have no hope of defeating our military were it to come to it is irrelevant. What the 2nd says, it says. And arms meant guns when it was written.

Whether it should be extended to nukes or not is another debate that I'm sure wouldn't find many supporters.

Your error, IMO, is assuming that rights are unlimited. There do exist regulations limiting speech, e.g., defamation regulation (libel, slander), but such regulation must be consistent with the 1st Amendment and every other part of the Constitution ..

Restrictions on free speech are entirely extra-Constitutional, I'm pretty sure.

It's absurd to suggest that he was lying. He was explaining his theory of governance, based on a highly successful run as mayor. Regarding guns, he believes that a densely populated, crime-ridden urban area has very different need for regulation than, say, the bucolic VA countryside. It makes abundant sense to me. - Mia T

Then wouldn't you classify yourself as a liberal on guns? Just wondering.

Anyway, to suggest that rights only extend as far as they are convenient is absurd, assuming of course that the claim that gun control reduces crime in urban areas is true. Either we have the right to own guns, or we don't. It means nothing if our right ends as soon as some politician finds it inconvenient.

Besides, either guns reduce crime or they increase it. It is illogical to say that guns reduce crime until population density reaches a magic level.

You are misrepresenting Giuliani. He said he is personally opposed to abortion but that he believes it is the woman's decision. But the crucial point is that he will appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. How his presidency would impact on abortion and on the Constitution is what is important. OTOH, vote 3rd party, or stay home, and you are placing your de facto vote for the avowed pro-abortion (Stalinist) candidate who would appoint justices who will legislate from the bench and uphold Roe... and worse.

Apparently you've missed the appointments Giuliani has already made. And remember him praising Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

This is all a facade. Giuliani is not going to appoint justices with opposite views from him on every issue.

[Mia T]

The 2nd Amendment does not say...

NB-Founders' intent.

Whether it should be extended to nukes or not is another debate that I'm sure wouldn't find many supporters.

My 'nukes' example was a reductio ad absurdum.

Restrictions on free speech are entirely extra-Constitutional, I'm pretty sure.

They are precisely what we are discussing, namely, regulations that limit speech, constitutional laws that put restrictions on the 1st amendment..

Then wouldn't you classify yourself as a liberal on guns? Just wondering.

I support the right to bear arms, but I would say I'm a pragmatist.

Either we have the right to own guns, or we don't.

Rights have limitations.

either guns reduce crime or they increase it.

Guns do both.

Apparently you've missed the appointments Giuliani has already made. And remember him praising Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

His past appointment are just that. I don't know his reasons. Maybe it's simply having been sloshing thru the liberal New York scene for all those years, amassing debts. He says he will appoint justices in the mold of Alito, Roberts and Scalia, and I believe him.

You may be confusing Giuliani with the congenital liar you will be supporting if you vote 3rd party or sit it out in 08. Why is a smart young teen like you so cynical?

As for the Ginsburg comment, haven't seen it but as I understand the circumstances, it was qualified praise.

 

This is all a facade. Giuliani is not going to appoint justices with opposite views from him on every issue.

He is a strict constructionist. His appointments will be consistent with his judicial philosophy.

[potlatch]

[devolve]

[EternalVigilance]

He is a strict constructionist.

All of the evidence is to the contrary.

His appointments will be consistent with his judicial philosophy.

That's what every sensible conservative should be concerned about.

[Mia T]

All of the evidence is to the contrary.

Other than his prior appointments? Has he ever explicitly stated his judicial philosophy? And if so, how recently?

Nonetheless, I believe him. When he states he would appoint justices in the mold of Alito, Roberts and Scalia, I believe him. When he states he would appoint strict constructionists, I believe him. (And I give him a pass on the 'inside NYC politics' stuff.)

Read the R. Emmett Tyrrell endorsement. Give Rudy a chance. Keep an open mind. But most important: Irrespective of which R gets the nod, let's stick together to keep the clintons out of the White House.

[PhilDragoo]

If you can make it here,
you can make it anywhere!

[TeenagedConservative]

My 'nukes' example was a reductio ad absurdum. - Mia T

I realize that, and I'm saying that going by Founder intent, the words arms means guns.

They are precisely what we are discussing, namely, regulations that limit speech, constitutional laws that put restrictions on the 1st amendment.. Mia T

The Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall pass no laws restricting in any way the freedom of speech. I don't know where these "regulations that limit speech" came from, but if they came from legislation, they're unconstitutional.

I support the right to bear arms, but I would say I'm a pragmatist. Mia T

In other words, you believe in liberty only so long as it's convenient for the government to allow the people to have some much freedom.

Rights have limitations. Mia T

Gun control is a "limitation" on the right to bear arms. It's the abolition of that right.

Guns do both. Mia T

Care to elaborate? How can something both increase and reduce crime? Crime is a net statistic with only one variable.

His past appointment are just that. I don't know his reasons. Maybe it's simply having been sloshing thru the liberal New York scene for all those years, amassing debts. He says he will appoint justices in the mold of Alito, Roberts and Scalia, and I believe him. Mia T

Wow, you sure are willing to support this guy blindly. We're talking about the kind of justices he would appoint. I very logically brought up the point that he is likely to appoint judges like the ones he already HAS appointed. You're taking his word as a politician OVER his deeds.

You may be confusing Giuliani with the congenital liar you will be supporting if you vote 3rd party or sit it out in 08. Why is a smart young teen like you so cynical? Mia T

I've said nothing cynical, only realist. It's not my responsibility to, with my one vote, ensure that our President is a righteous person. My responsibility is to vote for whomever I believe to be the right candidate, and let God do what he will with that.

Let me steal your logical technique of reductio. The hidden premise in your above accusation is that all conservatives should vote for the candidate who fulfills the following two qualifications: 1) Can win, and 2) Is more conservative than the other candidate who can win. So should I vote for John Kerry if the other candidate is Dennis Kucinich? Or Kucinich if the other candidate is Farrakhan?

I have a limit, and that limit is somewhere after Bush (2000 Bush, not neo-con, let's-democratize-the-globe-amnesty-for-illegals Bush) and before Giuliani.

[potlatch]

It may be rainin, but theres a rainbow above you


Very cute devolve

[devolve]

Rainbows after the storm -


Johnny Cash - "The Man In Black"

.....a different version of "Desperado"

[potlatch]

To find I'm king of the hill, top of the heap

 

[potlatch]

Well, you know me - the lyrics READER - don't know why people have to change the words in songs.

[potlatch]

"but there's a rainbow above you"

Strange, I just looked Johnny Cash lyrics up and it is the same 'on this site';

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/johnny-cash/desperado.html

Lol, maybe he had one too many when he recorded it....

[devolve]

Nice .midi

Frank Sinatra (from New Jersey)

and Liz Minelli (from California)

!!!

[potlatch]

Hey J.B., a midi doesn't have lyrics, lol [usually] so it is just music to me.

You are the master of music, knowing the singers and backgrounds, etc!!