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.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was just pointing out the current situation in regards to constitutional law.
Fewer things are more dangerous to gun rights than a gun-grabbing Republican.
Freeper Pharmboy had NYC handgun permits for nearly two decades. These permits survived the Koch and Dinkins administrations.
It took an alleged Republican - Rudy - to take them away.
Hannity is a whore, and Rudy's responses now, in this theatrical revamping of his image, is in direct opposition to over two decades of his publicly available record on the 2nd Amendment.
Why is Hannity a whore? Because Hannity was once railing against Guiliani's blanket rejection of CC permits in the city, and Guiliani's attempted forced closure of all private firing ranges in Manhattan besides the one used by the NYPD brass.
If you intend to position this website's moderators group policy regarding forcing anti-Rudy posters into silence, you will lose everyone.
People, Dem. Rep and Independent Whatever, in the NY tri-state region despise this man on so many levels, and it will just take the rest of the country a little longer to figure him out.
No problem with pointing out the legal reality so we can rip into it. :^)
Yes, anyway; all the leftist Rudibots have been very busy, hitting all the conservative sites on the internet. As if no one knows that they are leftists.
If Rudy of McCain make it through the primary, our turnout problems in 2006 will look like the "good 'ol days" in 2008.
And so they equally share the blame? Why not blame the clerk who officially pasted it into the United States Code?
Which is why it is VITAL that we have a president who reaches for the veto stamp instead of his pen when a gun-control bill crosses his desk.
No, which is why it is VITAL that we have a legislature that doesn't send anti-gun legislation to his desk in the first place. It's why it's HIGHLY DESIRABLE that we have a legislature that sends good legislation to the President's desk for his signature, and REALLY NICE if the President signs it, too. If you're at the point you lose if the President needs to whip out his veto pen but doesn't, you're already fighting a defensive, losing battle.
I'm just poking a stick at the pro Rudy crowd who pull out the "you have to go back years to find anything questionable about him" whenever it's brought up.
"For shame."
Exactly!
...and it makes sense and was expressed earlier in this thread. Hope folks are listening.
Well, it takes two to tango.
I see no need to nominate a gun-grabber to be president. Otherwise, the threshhold for a gun law is 51 percent, not 67 percent.
>>>>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.
They very well can already be here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752044/posts
Columbia Defends Its Nazi Links: "Everyone Was Doing It"
Think about all the liberal lawyers, politicians and teachers. How many came in during the 30s?
I guess we'll see just how much sway the extreme Conservatives in the party have. I think you're going to be disappointed.
"I'm back to my original thinking that we'd be almost no better off with Giuliani than with whatever democrat wins."
That may be the wisest thinking.
I remember Giuliani from his days as mayor, and how he broke the mob, reduced crime and stood up to the race fascists like Sharpton, et al. Plus, after 9/11 he was magnificent.
BUT, as ardent a Pro-Lifer as I am, and almost that with the 2nd Amendment, I do see SOME logic to the "hold your nose and vote Rudy, he's the only one that can stop Hitliary" argument.
But, would a Rudy term bring MORE liberal destruction of our country than would a Hitliary term would, where all could SEE with their own eyes her vicious, hateful destruction of the constitution and resist it?
I think California would have been better off had Grey Davis been retained, and a Tom McClintock been elected later, than the absolute destruction of the Cali GOP and any hint of restraint whatsoever, is the same thing true for Hitliary and Giuliani?
I'm torn, and cannot really see the right thing to do.
Ed
Freepers who laugh have no idea how big and legitimate an issue the 2nd Amendment is. They will soon wish Rudy had answered more sensibly.
It's OK, he almost had me as well. The best sarcasm gets some to bite on the worm wiggling on the hook.
Jim, what is Hannity's screen name? LOL!
Weren't we lectured on the same thing during the Miers nomination?
The conservative base wins elections. The squishy middle throws them away.
I like Duncan, but is a Congressman at all electable?
When's the last time a Rep was elected president?
Ed
Yes, I agree.
Mr. Giuliani won't receive any support from me in his bid for the Republican nomination.
The Second Amendment is the most fundamental of all of the amendments. Those who would argue in any way to weaken it have no respect for the most fundamental of human rights: the right to defend oneself and that which one is responsible for.
Without the Second Amendment, there can exist no right of Americans to govern themselves. If only those that are state actors have firearms, then those state actors are the true governors, not the people.
Disarm the people, and you have taken their ability to govern themselves.
All good statists know this, and all totalitarians use the control of firearms as the basis of their rule.
Molon labe.
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.