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.
G for Giuliani?
Judging by your recent vanities, I am getting the feeling that you hate Giuliani as a candidate almost as much as McCain.
GO, JIM!!!
The GOP can blame the marketplace all they want, but their product is really starting to suck.
I will never forget that video of the California Highway Patrolman smashing his shoulder into an elderly woman and knocking her to the ground in her kitchen, all because she had a revolver.
Ed
And one other thing.
As long as Rudy was just mayor of NYC, his gun-confiscation tendencies (and I think we can agree on those) only affected those in that city. If I lived in NYC, I could either not move there, or move away if I lived there and disagreed.
But if Rudy becomes President, he affects the right to bear arms of the entire country. I would have nowhere to move within the country if I disagreed with his gun-control actions. He has spoken forcefully for a so-called assault weapons ban. He has called for stringent handgun restrictions. He worked to take legal guns away from NYC permit holders who never had their guns taken away by Koch and Dinkens.
So why should we trust him to sit in the Oval Office, pen at the ready, if a Dem-controlled Congress sends him a bill severely restricting handgun ownership or state concealed-carry laws?
Therefore, Rudy's gun control views require scrutiny an order of magnitude above that required for a mayor of a large city.
Sorry, I'm decaffinated now, it went over my head. Scarlett G's are ridiculous. Supporting Giuliani isn't as bad as being a ho.
To: Jim Robinson; Hildy; onyx; Peach; Howlin; veronica
Jim, there's a core of FR Rudybots who don't share your opinion.
WHY are you including me?
Show me ONE post of mine wherein I have stated I'm FOR Rudy.
You really need to grow up and stop your silly game of trying to "tattle" on posters.
I have repeatedly stated and posted here on every thread, that I have not selected my favorite; that I want a full field of GOP candidates and that I wait for the first of the candidate debates before I even consider making my choice.
Are we clear?
I don't even know what point you're making. Everyone knows federal laws which are ruled unconstitutional are no longer laws, much less supreme.
The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government. It wasn't until after the Civil War when the Supreme Court started to rule that some of the BOR also applied to state and local governments.
Apparently not, and he did not even use the opportunity to shade/nuance his position to a more acceptable place.
He could have said: Well, when I took office, there were so many criminals running around with illegal firearms, NY was overwhelmed. I did what I thought was best, with advice from my police dept. It was not ideal, and I understand how important the 2nd amendment really is. As a president, I will not support any new gun restrictions, but I will come down like a ton of bricks on illegal trafficking in guns.
But he did not, proving that he is not as smart as people pretend he is.
Love Wyoming. Went to college in Bozeman, did a lot of hunting, fishing and hiking in Wyoming. Will retire there one of these decades.
Just as you have the scarlet "P" next to your name.
Oh, ditch your absurd sense of persecution because of your twisting of the comments of one poster.
Okay, let's stop right there. Before I answer the rest of the post, please answer me one question. Do you agree or disagree with Justice McReynolds's opinion in U.S. v. Miller?
If the latter, then why are you citing it? Do you cite Roe and Kelo and Dred Scott as well?
If the former, then I must inform you that your interpretation of Miller is mistaken. The exact wording of Miller is as follows:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Let me explain the fallacy you're committing. Suppose you had two propositions, P and Q. In this case, let P be the proposition that Miller's sawed-off shotgun had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And let Q be the proposition that Miller's sawed-off was protected by the Second Amendment. The Court held in Miller that ~P->~Q: not-P implies not-Q. If Miller's sawed-off was not a militia weapon, it was not protected by the Second Amendment.
As it happens, I disagree with this holding. But even accepting it as precedent, if you're given that not-P implies not-Q, it does not follow that P implies Q. That non-militia weapons are not protected does not imply that all militia weapons are. So Miller does not support your argument against Guiliani's interpretation.
OK. Whatever.
Congress can make it illegal to slander, to conspire, to threaten, to incite riot, and the libel.
Well, I think they have. But what property does any of that stuff damage? Whose rights are infringed by those actions? (I guess that depends on what the definition of infringe is.) I'm not really sure that those should necessarily be federal crimes. From what you've said, you seem to be one of those emotion-driven people I try not to talk to. Later.
I copied Hildy's ping list from another thread. It's obviously a matter of guilt by association, my apology.
You do understand that when you begin taking little bites of something, pretty soon all those little bites add up to one big one.
And in this case, Rudy bites this big one.
Case and point: Welfare. It started small with the most noble of intents, but it grew and grew to the monster it is now. And do you honestly think we'll ever turn the tables on welfare? Take away some of the welfare laws?
The same thing will happen with the 2nd Amendment. Do you honestly think that the ban on assault weapons will ever be overturned? Do you believe, if even more 'regulation' is placed on the 2nd Amendment, that it will ever get repealed?
If you do, then you are not living in the reality of the United States as it is now. Taking guns from you renders you powerless, and the government all powerful.
I think you believe you have some inherit 'right' to say how this website is run.
Unless your intitials are J.R., I would would venture to say you don't.
That's the funny thing about 'guests'. Sometimes they never seem to recognize when they've over stayed, or over played their 'welcome'.
My belief has always been, that since this isn't my website, and the owner has started this site to express his political opinions, then anything that I say may be regarded as useful or worthless.
Some peoples opinions are more so than others.
We have a 2nd Amendment so that the States CAN'T interfere with the right to bear arms.
That is really a great point. I've thought about how much resistance was mustered against Hitlerie's health care plan. I think the country's visceral reaction help generate support that propelled the Republican Revolution in the mid-90's. When I see how much nonsense passed with Bush in office (e.g. drug entitlements), might conservatives have better success fighting liberal policy with an overt socialist in office than with a covert one? I guess I'd rather throw my support to a true conservative even if it is a loosing battle. Still, I shudder to think the kind of judges Hillary would appoint.
signed, UNUSUALLY CONFUSED IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA
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.