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.
All the law abiding ones, yes.
No laws against them, everybody can have them, criminal record be damned.
Red herring. Felons are forbidden by Federal law from possessing firearms.
And, any kind of weapon including automatic rifles?
Yep.
What ever, the 2nd amendment guarantees it.
Damn straight it does.
Also, what if the voters said that they wanted some restrictions on gun ownership?
What if the voters wanted some restrictions on what Church you could attend or what books you could read? What if the voters demanded that Jews be forced to wear yellow stars on their clothing? What if the voters decided you had to quarter Federal troops in your home against your will?
Does that mean anything?
Nope.
L
Well, onre thing I know about you is that you don`t live in NYC and you probably have never been there. I own guns, my kids own guns, I`m going to teach my Grandcritters about guns, I hope you and yours own guns, and when I go to NYC, I hope none of them own guns. It`s not Kansas .
Well, onre thing I know about you is that you don`t live in NYC and you probably have never been there. I own guns, my kids own guns, I`m going to teach my Grandcritters about guns, I hope you and yours own guns, and when I go to NYC, I hope none of them own guns. It`s not Kansas .
Correct.
you probably have never been there.
Incorrect.
I own guns, my kids own guns
Great.
I`m going to teach my Grandcritters about guns,
I'm teaching my son and Lord willing will be around long enough to teach his kids as well.
I hope you and yours own guns,
We do.
when I go to NYC, I hope none of them own guns.
What on earth does your going to NYC have to do with me and mine owning firearms?
It`s not Kansas
No kidding.
Now what does any of this have to do with the questions you posed to JimRob in post #1500?
L
I'll take issue with that statement.
Since the BOR doesn't grant rights, how could another Amendment 'take away' something that wasn't 'granted' in the first place?
Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't make Government confiscation of firearms legal any more than repealing the 8th Amendment would make torture legal.
L
A while back there was a thread containing an editorial by a mohemaden who said it was time to 'repeal the 2nd Amendment' in the name of public safety. He was pretty well trashed by us 2nd Amendment Fundies but you know there out there.
As it is, they're eroding it away one law at a time and calling it legal.
That they are. Things really got started under FDR and have continued pretty much unabated since then. We've got a lot of work to do before the FedGov returns to anything the Founding Fathers would recognize as Constitutional government.
It's an absolute waste of time to argue this stuff with social liberal supporters.
Would it be rude of me to point you to any one of the 1,500 plus post Rudy threads? There's lots of time being wasted there. LOL.
L
Yeah, I know. Like I said, a complete waste of time.
Though, not surprised...by the lack of one.
That's just what we need,,,,
a LIBERAL pit bull
--especially when that pit bull is a gun-grabbing, pro-gay, pro-amnesty, pro-abortion and pro-litigation, liberal lawyer. /s
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.