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

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

[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.

[Shooter 2.5]

The grips came much earlier than I thought. Good service from gungrips.net. Unfortunately, the grips don't fit my hand. They look good but they aren't functional. I need a large grip with finger grooves. They do look great but not exactly the type that helps my shooting. The largest grips you can handle help place the finger tip on the trigger without thinking about it.

As far as the picture, the patio doors on the house can be seen in the grips. It was shot today on on overcast sky. The earlier pictures had my reflection on the frame. I don't use the viewfinder because of that. I use the screen on the back of the camera.

Last thing. Go Hunter!! If it was up to Rudy, taking this picture would be illegal. Other posters, think about it.

[trisham]

Pretty. I confess I'm happy with the grips that came with the gun. They're utilitarian-looking, but I have a very stable grip with them. They seem to absorb some of the shock or recoil as well. I have seen some lovely custom grips in the magazines, though.

[Mia T]

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.--TeenagedConservative

Your response, 'Whether it should be extended to nukes or not is another debate that I'm sure wouldn't find many supporters,' sure sounds like a literal interpretation to me.

Nonetheless, I am talking about the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).

Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'

If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as your 'guns' do.

---

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.--TeenagedConservative

 

Freedom of speech is not license to say anything. Slander and libel are two obvious counterexamples. They are very serious crimes, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000. The First Amendment protects you only if the statement in question is true.

 

---

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.--TeenagedConservative

 

No. I believe 'making a more perfect union' requires inductive and deductive processes working in tandem. You start out with laws, which may sound wonderful in theory. But then you must observe the effect of those laws.

What if you observe that people in cities of a certain density and demographic are popping each other off at a rate that will depopulate the entire city within a year? To invoke the 2nd amendment and insist that these people be allowed to keep their guns is a perversion of that amendment.

---

Rights have limitations. --Mia T

 

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

Yes to the first point. Not necessarily to the second.

---

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.--TeenagedConservative

 

When you look only at the 'net' effect, obviously you miss the differential effects.

---

 

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.--TeenagedConservative

If you had done your research, (thank you PhiKapMom, nopardons) you would have discovered that Giuliani's hands were tied.

Since 1978, merit selection has been used to select judges of New York City’s criminal and family courts and to fill mid-term vacancies on the city’s civil court.

Established by executive order, the mayor’s advisory committee on the judiciary evaluates applicants and nominates highly qualified candidates. The mayor may not appoint a judge who has not been nominated by the committee. All based on merit selection and all come from an advisory committee which means in liberal NY the chances of finding a conservative judge based on merit would be nil to non-existent.

Conversely, consider Giuliani's statement made at a recent visit with the South Carolina GOP Executive Committee when an audience member pressed him for his position on judges:

'On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible.'

 

---

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.--TeenagedConservative

Are you saying that you've determined that the recipient of your de facto vote, the congenital liar, is 'the right candidate'???!! 

Not understanding the moral imperative of voting for a person of character gave us clinton 1. Surely you see the error of that move....

Listen to Bush 41 on character and clinton.

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.

(Applause)

play tape

 

---

 

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?--TeenagedConservative

 

Point 2 is false, which makes your argument unsound.

Allow me to repeat my reason for supporting Giuliani (Note that I explicitly exclude ideology).:

I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he can win, and because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times.

The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.

We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.

[PhiKapMom]

Very well said! Thanks for posting that!

[Mia T]

EXCELLENT research, PhiKapMom. Thank you.

[nopardons]

BRAVA !

Well done, as always, Mia!

[PhiKapMom]

You are most welcome!

[narses]

Tuesday, June 20, 2000 MAYOR GIULIANI AND SPEAKER VALLONE ANNOUNCE CITY LAWSUIT AGAINST GUN INDUSTRY

[Mia T]

thank you for the heads up, nopardons. :)

[muleskinner]

Tuesday, June 20, 2000...

Nearly 7 years ago, and PRE 9/11.

[narses]

And Post 911, what did he say?

“And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.”
Rudolph Giuliani

[Mia T]

fyi--(note the section on the selection of NYC judges)

[muleskinner]

You put much thought and effort into your posts, which makes them well worth a look. Keep it up.

[EternalVigilance]

I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he can win

Which begs the question of why you oppose Hillary Clinton. After all, her policies, as Giuliani freely admits, are nearly identical to his. And, after all, since this is your unprincipled position, it is important to note that Hillary definitely "can win."

[Mia T]

If you cannot discern the difference between clinton and Giuliani, I find that frightening.

'unprincipled position?' Hardly.

Those of us not blinded by a petulant insistence on doctrinal purity understand that there are things that trump ideology. Like saving western civilization.

[EternalVigilance]

Those of us not blinded by a petulant insistence on doctrinal purity understand that there are things that trump ideology. Like saving western civilization.

Idealogue? I'm a constitutionalist republican; one who despises Giuliani's leftist ideology as much as I despise Hillary Clinton's leftist ideology. I'm sorry that you can't see that there is no difference between the two socialists other than the fact that Rudy looks better in a dress.

And, it should be noted that it is leftist, statist socialists like Clinton and Giuliani that are the ones "destroying Western Civilization," not me. And you're their enabler, sadly.

[EternalVigilance]

Those of us not blinded by a petulant insistence on doctrinal purity understand that there are things that trump ideology. Like saving western civilization.

Idealogue? I'm a constitutionalist republican; one who despises Giuliani's leftist ideology as much as I despise Hillary Clinton's leftist ideology. I'm sorry that you can't see that there is no difference between the two socialists other than the fact that Rudy looks better in a dress.

And, it should be noted that it is leftist, statist socialists like Clinton and Giuliani that are the ones "destroying Western Civilization," not me. And you're their enabler, sadly.

"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani

[EternalVigilance]

We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.

That's just plain sick. It's a mockery of the fifty million American babies who have been butchered at the hands of the NARAL/Planned Parenthood ghouls, enabled 100% by politicians like Giuliani.

[Mia T]

The bottom line: Giuliani will appoint strict contructionists. He is uniquely suited to prosecute the war on terror.

Who better to protect our babies?

[EternalVigilance]

The bottom line: Giuliani will appoint strict contructionists.

If you really believe that, you're incredibly naive. If you really do know how ridiculous that claim is, you're a deceiver.

He is uniquely suited to prosecute the war on terror.

Hardly. He opened NY up to illegal invaders (not at all unlike the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC) and thumbed his nose at the law to do so. He's just another liberal. And no liberal is good for national security. In fact, no one is better at getting Americans killed than a liberal.

Who better to protect our babies?

Anyone off the street would be better, as long as they didn't agree 100% with the NARAL ghouls like Giuliani does, even to the extent of sticking a knife into the back of the head of babies in the birth canal and sucking their brains out.