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 much for working within the GOP and making it more conservative, huh?"
You seem to be intent to work within the GOP and make it more liberal. What other outcome could happen from nominating the most liberal candidate in the field?
Do you think nominating rudy will make the GOP more conservative?
I've seen this many times here. Did I miss something? I wasn't aware that the Democrats have already chosen their nominee. Last I knew they, too, have yet to select their nominee.
I don't believe for a minute that the Hildabeast will be the Demcorat nominee. So, talk about how we must have the electable Rudy or Hillary will be president does not impress me.
If that's the best you can bring ... don't quit your day job.
Just 'cause Laz would 'hit it' doesn't make him a bad person!
So if Hillary Clinton had honor and character, but still wanted to ban guns, nationalize health care, pull out of Iraq, and raise taxes, you'd support her?
He doesn't honor the law, as he wants to legalize millions of criminal aliens.
That's a non sequitur... if the aliens were "legalized", how would that not be in accordance with the law? Does advocating a change in the law now constitute dishonor to the law?
I won't vote for him, and his nomination would be the last straw forcing me to switch parties after voting Republican since I was 18.
Have a good long heartfelt chat with a Nader voter before you take such a step. They didn't really care much for Al Gore and undoubtedly most of them cared for John Kerry less... but a whole lot of 'em changed their mind between 2000 and 2004.
Gosh, Reagan himself couldn't be elected today with the climate around here.
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
Take a look at Jim's posts over the last week and a half or so. I don't think you have anything to worry about. In fact, I must commend the moderating staff for being so lenient on these emotionally-charged threads where folks post things they would normally not.
Hope everything is going well. Are you still in Jersey?
In this case, I simply can not sit by while the implied accusation that those who are pro 2A and against Rudy because of his stance are 'extreme' conservatives. That's a crock and the tactics of the typical liberal... throw out the accusations and not back them up.
Reagan's history is not forgotten, or over looked. He did get the gun owners protection act though, that prevented the States, and lower jurisdictions, such as NYC, from busting folks for just passing through. He did not go after any personal arms, such as they're after now, nor did he attempt to turn a right of the people into a privilege.
Gawd, read Senate Rule 22 and get back to me. See also a whole lot of good judges who weren't confirmed because they didn't have 60 votes.
The same way you do it with their freedom or their life. You convict them, with due process under the 5th Amendment, of a crime and make it part of the penalty. The 5th allows for deprivation of property.
We have the concept of parole now. Technically parolees are still serving their sentence, and have agreed to forfeit some of their rights until their sentence is up. At that point, they should have all of their rights back in my opinion.
************
What makes you think that those who are promoting Giuliani want the GOP to be more conservative? My impression is that they prefer to be seen as moderates, and think those who want anyone other than him are right-wing crazies.
The comma should not be there in the headline.
Rudy: "You've got to REGULATE (gun control), consistent with the Second Amendment"He's saying that any firearm regulations must be consistent with the Second Amendment. The headline was mistranscribed. It should read:
Rudy: "You've got to REGULATE (gun control) consistent with the Second Amendment."In other words, any gun control provisions that are not "consistent with the Second Amendment" are unconstitutional.
Governor Reagan signed an Act which prohibited carrying guns in cars or on our persons (if in California) for crying out loud.
Of course. In Rudy Bizarro-World...
Rudy must be stopped. McCain must be stopped. From what I understand Romney isn't much better.
God! What are we to do?!?
Once again, if a president vetos a bill, please explain how both houses can vote with less than 67 percent to override.
You are a complete blowhard.
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.
Stick a fork in him... He's done.
Right -- LOL.
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.