Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"
FOX News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; bang; banglist; electionpresident; elections; giulian; giuliani; gop; guncontrol; leo; regulatethis; republicans; rkba; rudygiulian; rudyonguns; rudytranscript; voteduncanhunter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,501-1,511 next last
To: Hildy

"whine"?

I guess if you call exposing a gun grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, pro-campaign finance reform liberal republican whining, then that's your dictionary, not mine.

I just remember the sweet silence of all the miers fans the moment she withdrew and through the alito process. They were so damn sure "aunt harriet" was going to make it through to the final round. Taunting, calling people "unappeasable uber conservatives", saying it was her or nothing...then...SILENCE!!

You guys should try that more...it was fun!


201 posted on 02/07/2007 3:43:14 PM PST by flashbunny (<---------- Hate RINOs? Click my name for 2008 GOP RINO collector cards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

There's a first time for everything now...:)


202 posted on 02/07/2007 3:43:29 PM PST by Hildy (RUDY IN 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Gillette


203 posted on 02/07/2007 3:43:32 PM PST by OMalley (Hi Mom:) Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
PLEASE, people, no Rudy in 2008!

Agreed, I'll drink to that. Even if we just take a logistical look at his ideas, it would be a nightmare. Let's say I have a friend in Maine and he invites me up to hunt. Well, I pass though Philly, Camden, NJ, New York City, Hartford and Boston. What if I get pulled over and I'm breaking one of Rudy's rules? The mosaic of gun laws are bad enough now but will get worse under him. I applaud how he led NEw York City durong 9-11, he is the right man, FOR THAT AREA (although his lack of support for the RTKBA and support for abortion trouble me still) but as President, no. I don't know who I want for President in 2008, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo seem OK, I could support them but I doubt they will get much traction. Michael Savage, well, he's my dream candidate but again, might not get a lot of traction. McCain, um, eh, I'm not really for but I'd take him over Guliani at least.
204 posted on 02/07/2007 3:44:00 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Pansy: 1987 - 2006, I miss you, Princess. RIP. Say "Hi" to Greystone for me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
There's a first time for everything now...:)

Nice 3 1/2 Lutz.

But you still did a 180.

205 posted on 02/07/2007 3:44:32 PM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
In your scenario, he'd be ignoring the "shall not be infringed" part.

No, he'd be interpreting that part... and frankly, I think it's high time we reclaimed the word "interpretation" from the Left and put it to its proper use. The English language is inexact, and must be interpreted. Ludicrous interpretations (such as in Wickard or Grutter or Roe) are to be discarded, but the words still need to be interpreted.

For example, let's have a look at the following law:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"Congress shall make no law" can be read an absolute as easily as can "shall not be infringed." Should it be interpreted in its absolute sense? If a religion believed that its adherents needed to set off air horns in the street at 2:00 AM every night, could Congress pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of this religion? Don't laws against slander, threatening, conspiracy, and incitement to riot abridge the freedom of speech? When the New York Times published classified information, it broke the law... do you believe the Times had the right to publish because it enjoys freedom of the press? Don't laws against libel abridge this freedom? If you try to hand your petition, signed by millions, to the President, the Secret Service will drag you away... doesn't this abridge your right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

The answer is no, it does not, because the Constitution is English and nearly all statements made in English have "subject to common sense" as part of them. A parent tells a child, "I'll take you to the zoo on Friday." Thursday, foreigners invade, and there's bloody street-to-street fighting, with armored vehicles commanding the highways and a 24-hour curfew on pain of death being broadcast from trucks. So the parent doesn't take the child to the zoo. Did the parent lie? Did he break a promise? No, because what he really told the child was, "I'll take you to the zoo on Friday, unless something happens to make that totally unreasonable." The latter part is implied. Similarly, the Framers didn't intend us to use the Constitution to commit suicide. Congress can make it illegal to slander, to conspire, to threaten, to incite riot, and the libel. And, to tell you the truth, I'm really not too unhappy that the feds would know about it if a bunch of fanatics started buying up machine guns.

206 posted on 02/07/2007 3:44:39 PM PST by Politicalities (http://www.politicalities.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

Comment #207 Removed by Moderator

To: Rb ver. 2.0

Why am I not surprised by who posted that statement?!


208 posted on 02/07/2007 3:45:11 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut

> More than 90,000 guns have been seized...

The criminals will get more. Meanwhile, citizens going about their peaceful, lawful business will be at the mercy of the criminals.

Why punish citizens for what criminals 'might' do?


209 posted on 02/07/2007 3:45:32 PM PST by rbookward (When 900 years old you are, type as well you will not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
However, the 14th extended the BOR to the states.

It doesn't explicitly say that, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled that it says that.

210 posted on 02/07/2007 3:45:45 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RacerF150; msnimje
"How do we keep firearms out of the hands of convicted felons (those of us that want to) without calling it regulation?"

Felons forfeit their rights upon conviction. It is not a regulation on the law abiding.

211 posted on 02/07/2007 3:45:51 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

The main reason I voted Republican in '06 was that I was voting against Democrats and I thought they had a chance to beat Stabenow and Granholm. I'm not even a Reublican.


212 posted on 02/07/2007 3:46:07 PM PST by MichiganConservative (If you don't like rape, then don't rape anyone. Don't force your morals on others!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The Marshal has the right to say 'no firearms east of the tracks' as was done in the Wild West. He cannot restrict ownership but certainly can restrict where they are carried. Of course, he has to be Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson or nobody will pay attention.


213 posted on 02/07/2007 3:46:11 PM PST by RightWhale (300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
How soon some folks forget. The Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill became law just prior to the 1994 election. In that November election, voters sent a clear message what they thought of the Democrat Congress creating and Pres BillyBoy signing the bill into law. Americans who supported the 2nd amendment/RKBA were outraged by this anti-Consitutional effort. And they paid the price.

Rudy is of the same frame of mind that Democarts were back in 1994. Rudy doesn't support the 2nd amendment.

214 posted on 02/07/2007 3:46:18 PM PST by Reagan Man (Conservatives don't vote for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Rb ver. 2.0; Jim Robinson; Hildy; onyx; Peach; Howlin; veronica

Perhaps we could put a scarlet "G" next to our name? Would that be satisfatory to you, Rb ver. 2.0?


215 posted on 02/07/2007 3:46:26 PM PST by Hildy (RUDY IN 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It doesn't explicitly say that, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled that it says that.

The Supreme Court also said abortion is a Constitutional right. Doesn't mean I agree with them or take their action, or lack thereof, as validation of my positions.

216 posted on 02/07/2007 3:46:43 PM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man
The mosaic of gun laws are bad enough now but will get worse under him.

I remember last year a guy was on a commercial flight and his flight was diverted to NYC. He was arrested and his gun siezed because of this crap.

217 posted on 02/07/2007 3:48:18 PM PST by beltfed308 (Democrats :Tough on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

You lost me on the "G".


218 posted on 02/07/2007 3:48:26 PM PST by Rb ver. 2.0 (A Muslim soldier can never be loyal to a non-Muslim commander.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Perhaps we could put a scarlet "G" next to our name?

Why bother? You already do it....

..... with every justification of left-of-center-behavior you post.

219 posted on 02/07/2007 3:48:46 PM PST by Lazamataz (You are not your mind. You are not your emotions. You are not your pain. All you are is love.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Molon Labe! Unless one is convicted violent criminal or insane, the right to keep and bear arms comes from God Himself, nuff said.


220 posted on 02/07/2007 3:48:46 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Pansy: 1987 - 2006, I miss you, Princess. RIP. Say "Hi" to Greystone for me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,501-1,511 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson