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.
rudy's interpretation flies in the fast of the last great militia defense ruling, US V Miller, 1939. As a federal prosecutor, rudy should have known the content of the ruling. It was that if a gun had use in as the militia, the government has no right to control it.
The guns rudy fought to ban, and enforced a ban on, are certainly items that would find use in a militia.
So your excuse loses in both theory and application.
We have a society that stives to keep guns out of the hands of felonious embezzlers.
While ignoring streams of illegals coming over the border.
FReegards Jim...
You are 100% correct.
"This thread is about Rudy saying it should be regulated and I was simply commenting that it is regulated now."
Ok. I got ya now.
I don't want to hijack the thread with the gun issue..
Maybe later! :0)
You got that right.
"In the minds of the enemies of the Second Amendment, there is no distinction between decent Americans who own firearms and violent criminals."
For the ultimate definition of the term “illegal gun,” look no further than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans’ door-to-door gun confiscation.
We must never forget the vision of armed government agents forcing their way into private homes and businesses and, at gunpoint, disarming innocent civilians of their only means of defense against the violent criminal anarchy that filled the vacuum left by a non-existent police presence.
Illegal guns? With an official edict by the top law enforcement officer in New Orleans—“No one is allowed to be armed. We’re going to take all the guns!”—every firearm owned by good and honest citizens instantly became an “illegal gun.”
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=196&issue=55
"And as far as "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals", my attitude is: if he's too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, then he's too dangerous to be loose on the street"
exactly right!
A Republican hostile to gun rights is farrrr more dangerous than a Democrat hostile to gun rights. Witness my experience:
When I was in New York State, Mario Cuomo tried numerous times to get an Assault Weapons ban through. He failed -- the Republicans wouldn't let it go through.
Comes George Pataki: On the very first attempt, it sailed through. No Republicans were willing to anger their Main Guy.
So -- in terms of gun rights alone -- Hillary Clinton would be safer than Rudy Giuliani.
At least that's MY experience.
And Rudi's wife is no lady, especially not a First Lady! He does not get my support.
He who laughs last, laughs best.
With all due respect to the Poles and the Czechs, Americans are not Poles and are not Czechs. It's unlikely that the Nazis will be rolling in any time soon, and if they do, it's even less likely that they'll be able to make half the United States population disappear in the middle of the night. And should they or anybody else try, they will not find that American gunowners submit meekly to being led away.
I'll let you guys in on a little secret... I kind of like the National Firearms Act of 1934 and I'm not wholly opposed to the Gun Control Act of 1968. I like the fact that hoops must be jumped to purchase a fully-automatic weapon. I like the fact that if you try to purchase an arsenal capable of supplying a small army, people at the federal level will take interested notice. This is partly due to the fact that I don't trust Muslims, yet they are still entitled to the full range of Constitutional rights, and if a group of young, devoutly religious male Muslim Americans started accumulating machine guns, I'd want questions asked. I think you would too.
The Supreme Court also twisted the 9th in Griswold, and then applied that precedent in Roe, to find a right to kill a child that did not exist in the Constitution.
So excuse me if I don't respect the fact that they haven't gotten around to incorporating a right that is the most specific in the Bill of Rights. No other amendment says "shall not be infringed."
GO JIM GO!
Liberal Republicans are more dangerous than liberal democrats,,,,,
because liberal Republicans BLUR THE DISTINCTIONS between liberalism and conservatism,,,
MAKING LIBERALISM MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE!
"I'll let you guys in on a little secret... I kind of like the National Firearms Act of 1934 and I'm not wholly opposed to the Gun Control Act of 1968. I like the fact that hoops must be jumped to purchase a fully-automatic weapon. I like the fact that if you try to purchase an arsenal capable of supplying a small army, people at the federal level will take interested notice."
Well thanks for letting us all know you stand on the side of the brady bunch and liberals on this issue.
Convicted felons are in prison. No firearms allowed there for very obvious reasons.
Once sentence served and probation complete, they're citizens again. Society has defended its values and extracted its fee from the ofender.
The problem we have now is that the full value due for an offence is not demanded and not recieved.
It's long been a Republican tradition to be in full support of the second amendment.
So sorry for those Republicans who favor dumping our traditional American conservative values and replacing them with socialist values more in line with Hillary's evil socialist Democrat party.
Abortion rights? Gay rights? Strip away our 1st and 2nd amendment protections and prohibitions against government tyranny?
For shame.
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.