Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"

FOX News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes

[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.

[rintense]

Thank you. You do not advance conservatism as a whole by becoming more liberal.

[Politicalmom]

Honor and character are not the only criteria, but I WON'T vote for someone without them.

Legalizing them is bypassing the required punishment for invading this country, and rewarding them for it instead.
Why don't actual citizens get any of these tax breaks and so on that are being offered to illegals?

I won't vote for him. Period. If the Republican party doesn't even stand for the beliefs it purports, then I am done with them.

[Peach]

It's a disgrace what has been permitted here, but I can give as good as I get if necessary.

And if this is what the powers that be wish to see FR become, a lynch mob mentality such as we're seeing on this very thread, then so be it.

[SJackson]

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.

As I also noted on a recent thread, there's a body of informed opinion that says just that. That as an individual right, the 2nd amendment covers anything an individual would be likely to use in war. Including crew served weapons. I've not seen the arguement extended to stingers or RPGs, but the logic could take you there, though i wouldn't support it.

[pissant]

yes he did. He pissed on the plums.

[dirtboy]

Governor Reagan signed an Act which prohibited carrying guns in cars or on our persons (if in California) for crying out loud.

Here to trash Reagan yet again. I wonder how this most recent claim of yours will hold up to your claim that Reagan signed two abortion bills and your claim that Reagan never asked to have a PBA ban sent to him?

[tpaine]

Dog Gone ignores Article VI:

"-- The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the Federal government, not a limitation on state or local government. --"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Dog Gone ignores "life, liberty or property":

"-- It [the 14th] doesn't explicitly say that, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled that it says that. --"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Article VI explicitly says that States officials are bound to support our Law of the Land.
And Supreme Court opinions are not "rules" or laws.

You've simply swallowed the 'majority rule' statist line/hook -- and are too proud to admit it.

[processing please hold]

BTW, that was taken at the "Support the Troops" rally in Crawford Texas. I was very hot that day.

If it was the one in August, it was hotter than hades. I bet we drank a million bottles of water.

Did you sign that flag?

[rintense]

So now that NYC is a utopia, I wonder if Rudy would conisder repealing the gun laws he approved? I wish someone would ask him.

[rintense]

So now that NYC is a utopia, I wonder if Rudy would consider repealing the gun laws he approved? I wish someone would ask him.

[Cobra64]

Several points, not necessarily in any order of priority:

Guiliani was Mayor of one of the largest cities in the country. The city was in a shambles from the past several administrations. He cleaned up a huge portion of the welfare, cut spending, cleaned up the streets, and enforced EXISTING state and city weapons laws.

When he was interviewed on H&C, at the beginning of the show he said that he (paraphrasing) grew into the role as Mayor and that his beliefs and policies had changed over the years. That statement leads me to believe that, in terms of gun purchases, ownership and "assault weapons," that his views have shifted more towards RKBA and the Second Amendment.

His views then were certainly more seen through the prism as a "city boy" and that is understandable from that perspective... at that time

However, I THINK that if his views have not changed, that they will change as he UNDERSTANDS exactly what is at stake for gun owners and their right to KBA and the Second Amendment.

He was a Federal prosecutor, meaning he was a lawyer, who deals in facts, not fiction.

Given the stats of CCW holders, and crime going down in those states and cities where CCW is legal, he should come to the logical conclusion that firearms ownership decreases crime.

Furthermore, as he tours the homeland, he will discover that firearms owners don't go around shooting people, and that when perps are confronted by armed citizenry, crimes are thwarted. Dave, you post a half dozen articles a day.

Rudy appears to be a man who will listen to facts, logic, and reasoning, and his view of firearms will change.

As for "assault weapons," no one in the United States has been killed by a fully automatic Class IV(?) weapon since the days of Al Capone. A person is just as dead from a single shot Thompson Contender as he is from an M16 with a 30 round magazine.

Since there are >20k gun laws on the books, obviously there is no need for any more if the current laws were enforced. Politicians call for more laws since they have nothing better to do, and want their name on a bill because they're too stupid to do much else except raise taxes. I do not believe that Guiliani will call for any change in the current weapons status quo. If I were he, I'd eliminate all Federal firearms laws, and leave it up to the state and local levels.

BTW, my weapons collection is sizeable and I do not want them confiscated or have to have them registered. Unfortunately, every new gun I buy is registered since I have to fill out the silly form that asks me if I'm a crazy, alcoholic, dope-smoking, heroin-shooting, acid-dropping, child-molesting, convicted fellon.

Just my $.02. Cheers.

[Diddle E. Squat]

That's rather melodramatic. If any limitation whatsoever on gun issues inevitably leads down the slippery slope to diminished and then extinguished 2nd amendment rights, why has the trend been towards an expansion of the ability to own and carry firearms? Plenty of marginal restrictions on guns have been passed (and some ridiculous ones), yet conceal carry and shall issue has spread to several more states during the last 2 decades. Even with setbacks, as a whole the trend is an expansion of states recognizing and expanding gun rights. Poll after poll have shown that we've won the debate on guns, and even the Democrat Party is switching to pro-gun candidates in competitive areas. This isn't Britain, and I have zero worry of the feds or Texas or any local jurisdiction ever keeping me from being armed. California is of course another story.

Now that doesn't mean that I won't have to be on guard and oppose attempts to nibble away at the margins, such as trigger locks or bans in schools, but the claims that we are on the edge of confiscation if assault weapons continue to be banned or similar hysteria cries are silly. The slippery slope never occurred, and in fact as a whole has turned the other way.

I understand if one feels that Rudy or another candidate differs from them on too many issues and just can't be supported in the primaries. But I also know that conservatism as a whole, considering all the issues, will suffer far more from a Dem president than under any of the GOP candidates. A GOP presidential win in '08 may have coattails and turn Congress, but a Dem win certainly will not. With almost 2 years to go we can't know for sure who can or cannot win in the general, but it will become increasingly clear, and has to be a consideration.

[Peach]

I never said that Reagan signed two abortion laws; we debated which year he signed what was then the most liberal abortion law in the entire country.

But carry on.

[rintense]

Well one thing is for sure, the left is loving it. I'm sure they have the popcorn all ready.

[Charlespg]

Well I am not voting for him

[processing please hold]

I'm counting down the days on that one myself and I'm in Louisiana.

[dirtboy]

If any limitation whatsoever on gun issues inevitably leads down the slippery slope to diminished and then extinguished 2nd amendment rights, why has the trend been towards an expansion of the ability to own and carry firearms?

Gee, I dunno - because conservatives have put a hurtin' on gun-control advocates?

It seems, in that vein, that it would be counterproductive to nominate a gun control advocate to be the GOP presidential nominee.

[FreedomCalls]

It's a right to be regulated unconditionally by local government.

That's the exact opposite of what he said. He said "[The right to bear arms is] a 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." He's saying that any laws that regulate firearms can be enacted only if they are "reasonable and sensible" and "consistent with the Second Amendment" otherwise they are unconstitutional.

[dirtboy]

I never said that Reagan signed two abortion laws;

You said exactly that. You said he signed one in 1967 and one in 1970. Yet again, you deny your own posting history.

[adopt4Him]

Jim, I am a Republican thru and thru -- generations of it in my family. I believe in the principles. But can YOU please help me understand what sense it makes to lift all restrictions on gun ownership in our country, given the kind of world we live in, here in 2007? Do you really think that's going to reduce crime, and make it a safer place for me to raise my four children in?

The gun issue is the one I never understood...why Republicans hold to it so tenaciously, knowing the evil and crime we live with every day. So many evil people. How can lifting all restrictions possibly make our world a better place?

Thanks, Jim. My question is sincere. I am sure lots of people will blast me, but I really want to know. I haven't an answer that makes sense, and is logical.