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.
So the solution is to: (pick one)
It's only us law-abiding 'fools' that have been left with hunting rifles, pistols and shotguns and guess what? RUDY WANTS THEM TOO!
WELL IT'S A GOOD THING THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T ENACT LEGISLATION THEN!
EXACTLY.
An invasion is an invasion.
Funny, I don't recall Reagan supporting an assault weapons ban or a handgun ban.
Are you begging the question, or do you have a crystal ball which tells you that Guiliani would not appoint strict constructionists? And where can I get one? A crystal ball would be really useful.
Yeah, I recognize the constitution, flashbunny. Your understanding of it is flawed.
I do get it. I got a very good grade in my Constitutional Law class in law school.
In no possible universe does the Supremacy clause extend all the provisions of the Constitution to the states, or we would be the United State of America.
The constitution was a limitation on federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the states and the people. This is pretty basic stuff.
Better yet, he could have gone after the criminals, rather than criminalizing law abiding citizens.
lol
Decaf, darlin'.....
....and less embrace of leftwing Republican politicians....
"Liberals can only set the conservative agenda back. RINOs are attempting to define it out of existence."
I can just picture you as you wrote that post.
In your best whining voice: Jim, Jim, there are some women here who really upset me because they think maybe that Republican Rudy Giuliani might make a good president. Help me, Jim, help.
Yes, it does. And trust me, I know just a tad more about the 2nd amendment than the average guy.
This quote you pulled out:
""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.""
Might give your argument credence IF you knew the details behind the case. Before the case went to the supreme court, miller split / died / whatever. So there was no defendant there to present his rationale for it being a valid militia weapon. If he was there, he could have shown evidence that the SBS was a military instrument (used in trench warfare in WWI) and therefore would be covered by militia use/ possession.
What the supremes actually said, in contrast to the lies spun by the anti-gun groups, is that if the gun is valid for use in a militia, then it should be legal for civillian ownership. That would include short barreled shotguns, machine guns, all sorts of pistols and rifles, and many other instruments. The big problem, again, was that miller wasn't around to be part of US v miller to present that argument in his defense. So the supremes said "well, we don't have any evidence this SBS actually IS a militia weapon, so the law stands".
Let me guess: This is probably the first time you heard of US v miller, you spent a little time googling it, read some of the ruling, and then became an instant expert on it. Close?
Oh, and your ridiculous argument about johnny jihad buying 100 machine guns to launch a jihad. Highly unlikely, because that would raise red flags with the dealer. Plus they'd be ungodly expensive.
What's more likely to happen is JJ has his cheap middle east / african AK's shipped over in a container of machine parts, because he can get them oversees for $25 to $50 a piece instead of $1000 each. Or he buys a CNC machine on the used market, and a lathe, and gets plans for an AK or AR from anywhere in the world via the internet. He does it all completely under the radar and undetected by the government.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. So thinking you're only going to catch a jihadist with a law because he calls up, say, Armalite or Krebs custom and asks for a $100,000 worth of full auto rifles is rather ridiculous.
But again, that fits in with most of the points you've been trying to make.
More like I wanted to make sure the rudybots were present for a flogging.
My work is done here.
Peach, darling, you know I am not insane. I simply can no longer support republicans who believe in restricting the second amendment. Because it will never end until there isn't a second amendment at all.
No one has a crystal ball.
So we have to look at what candidates did in the past.
Rudy, from what I have seen, appointed one confirmed Republican to judicial seats as mayor of NY (I might be getting the exact details wrong).
However, he appointed a boatload of Dems. Rudy's supporters had to look long and hard for a sole pubbie that Rudy appointed.
You really might want to quit while you can still crawl - I'm still waiting for you to get back to me about the percentage of votes required for a veto override.
Anyone who doesn't know that should go to remedial Freep classes before posting again.
that's why there's the 9th and 10th amendment.
Amazing that an exact pull of the constitution can be posted here and people can say "no, that's not what it means".
Did you even see the post I was responding to, rintense? It was someone alerting me that a whiner has gone running to the forum owner becuase, gasp, some freepers seem to like Rudy.
He split, without looking it up, the Supremes sent the case back to the court of record. No defendent, no retrial, that's the extent of the precedent. It's weak. The lower court decision stands by reason of the defendents default.
He either signs it. Or vetoes it.
And that determines whether a simple majority is required to pass it.
Or a two-thirds supermajority. Not sixty percent as you claimed.
Please, do us all a favor. And take a PoliSci class at your local community college before inflicting your abject political ignorance on us further.
And I don't mean to sound snotty to you, rintense. I'm just can't figure out how grown men (and I don't mean you) could be so upset with people who actually think Rudy isn't the Anti-Christ. LOL
" 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."
No, That is where you are wrong. Its not a losing battle to expose and keep from office treasonous pukes that want to alter our RTKBA without going through the prescribed methods for doing so.
Its a losing battle for you to try to defend someone that will do that here on this site.
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.