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.
Oh geez. If anyone is foolish enough to cry like a girl to Jim because they don't like a post, they are in the wrong place. Carry on, Peach.
Yes, but he screwed the pooch and went after law abiding gun owners too. I was suggesting a smarter way to answer the inevitable question, and he obviously did not think it through well. Either way, I wasn't gonna support him.
So far, we've been able to confirmm TWO Giuliani picks of Republicans for the bench, out of a reported 60. Most of the rest were Democrats. No information on whether those two were real Republicans or Giuliani "Republicans."
Thank you, rintense. I shall.
We should all think of Rudy as the last rational sounding guy in the insane asylum. But make no mistake, he's an inmate, not part of the staff.
A flogging? From whom? Certainly not you.
And if you think a few metrosexual weeny men (and I use the term men loosely) posting on free republic are going to flog me in any way, shape, or form, you'd better think again.
Thanks for the update.
Of course, the fact that Rudy appointed two confirmed Republicans out of sixty appointees is ironclad proof that Rudy is a conservative.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?He's saying that there are already restrictions on gun ownership in every state. It's recognized that some restrictions are not inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Some restrictions are necessary -- like prohibiting handgun ownership while serving time in a federal penitentiary. If a state wishes to have restrictions on firearms, then those restrictions MUST BE, consistent with the Second Amendment, otherwise they are unconstitutional. Remove that comma and it reads, not that there must be regulations, but that any regulations that are imposed have to conform with the right of the people to bear arms. It should be transcribed thusly: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: 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.
Here is my prediction: FR will fracture beyond recognition by the time the convention rolls around. Why? Just look at it now. It's one thing to respectfully debate on the merits of a candidate. It's an entirely different thing to get personal, vindictive, accusatory, etc. If that's what FR is now, what and the heck will it look like in 8 months?
LOL :)
Well, I think they have.
Duh. The point isn't what Congress has done, the point is what Congress may do. That's what the Constitution is all about. Congress has enacted so-called campaign finance reform, too, that doesn't mean that it legitimately can. Laws restricting the expenditure of funds to promote a political cause infringe the Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech. Now tell me: do laws against libel, laws against slander, laws against inciting to riot also violate this Constitutional guarantee? No!, because "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" isn't quite the ironclad absolute it sounds to the simple-minded.
But what property does any of that stuff damage?
Where does the First Amendment mention property damage?
Whose rights are infringed by those actions?
If the government forbids me from saying to you, "Let's you and me go kill Bob", and criminally prosecutes me for conspiracy for doing so, it has infringed my right to say that. And properly so.
I'm not really sure that those should necessarily be federal crimes.
Don't you understand that it's not about what the law should be but about what it legitimately may be? The Constitution isn't a collection of good ideas, it's a rulebook. Whether you think the federal government should criminalize conspiracy is entirely beside the point. Do you think that federal laws against conspiracy or slander or publication of national secrets violate the First Amendment? If not, why do you make the poor word "shall" work so hard in the Second Amendment and let it take a nap in the First?
From what you've said, you seem to be one of those emotion-driven people I try not to talk to. Later.
I'm not emotion-driven in the slightest, but I do have a sense of humor, so thank you for tickling it by calling me emotion-driven. Sorry to see you leave (run away with your tail between your legs) but if you don't mind, before you go would you mind pointing out one single solitary statement of mine that could be fairly characterized as "emotion-driven"? Thanks.
You know guys, I find it fascinating how career Congressional Republicans have completely ignored cities enacting gun bans, Republican lawmakers voting in favor of gun control laws, Republican lawmakers refusing to take the issue to SCOTUS so it'll be clarified once and for all. CRICKETS CHIRPING FROM CONSERVATIVES! It's all the fault of a presidential candidate (CUE DRAG PIC!) who yes, had a horrible gun record, but would be a fool to implement gun control nationally. So much for working within the GOP and making it more conservative, huh? So you guys can't make the case in the GOP primaries, vote against Rudy then. Does he scare you that much? Let's get that conservative 3rd party going & split the vote so the REAL anti-gun Rat candidate will win! Yeah!
Without our guns we're defenseless, just the way criminals and some in the government want us. We can never lose our 2nd amendment. It's all that protect us against despotism.
That's basically it. The funny thing is that it gives more ammo to the pro-gun argument because it was more along the lines of "well, if you could prove this would be used by a militia, it would be ok." Which if extrapolated would mean that if you could bring it along and use it in a war, it's kosher.
Tough to interpret. Is he saying the rights of SOME of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed???
I wouldn't bet against that.
I see this election as the revenge of the Rockefeller Republicans.
Of course, when it all goes down in flames, it won't be their fault. Just like it was never their fault when they were in charge and the GOP was a perpetual minority, and they would rather eat broken glass than support Reagan.
Two wrongs do not make a right. And turning a blind eye to the obviously wrong decisions does not correct it either.
And now we have a freeper who has decided I should be flogged because I like Rudy.
That's why I posted that half these people are literally insane. And depending on how the evening goes, I may up that percentage :-)
He answered the question the way Richard Daley would have answered it. It's a right to be regulated unconditionally by local government. Which isn't why it's called the second amendment.
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.