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.
I hope so, but as evidenced here so frequently, Pubs will still be voting for him 'because he is our only hope'.
We might have some disagreement there regarding gun ownership for violent felons. But nothing that couldn't be resolved in sentencing. Aggravated assault by a 20 year old in a bar fight is different than murder from the perspective of recidivism. It's a minor part of the discussion.
Yup. Playing right into the hands of the left. Fools.
I like 3 candidates and 2 of them are in the top position in the polls; I'm delighted to be where I am instead of against everyone which is what I'm seeing here.
Or, if they are for someone, it's for someone who is registering at 1% in the polls. And yes, I know it's early, but a candidate hasn't come from 1% in the polls and gone on to win.
Those are completely disingenuous arguments, fella.
So does "Congress" mean "Congress" or does it refer to all levels of government?
I think you're wrong but you what? I don't care.
How right you are. Bookmarked.
Really. So you think there is no difference between a foreign army invading and occupying territory and then kicking in the doors of the citizenry, and an existing government doing the same? You don't think they would pose different logistical challenges, maybe?
Analogies are always fraught with peril, and the further apart the two situations, the more perilous the analogy. Here are the four different situations you compare:
How can you think that all of these situations would have the same outcome? How can you even compare #4 to the rest? Here are some of the more glaring differences:
I hate to say this, but you verge on paranoia. American gun owners will never be "disappeared" in the middle of the night. I don't believe this because I trust the government, but because I trust Americans and I especially trust American gun owners.
I am for no one yet. Too early. But I do know I will NEVER vote for McCain. Even if it means Hillary.
Spoken by people that have no idea how long a political year can be and how tides can change quickly.
You guys go on and have your little fun supporting your social conservative candidate and posting the Rudy in drag pic.
apparently we are. Thats the mantra of the Rudy folks, non stop 24/7.
Its getting REALLY old.
During the 2000 debates I saw McCain in action 2-3 times. He's got serious mental problems. When the camera isn't on him, it's quite evident.
I saw your comment regarding the '67 CA law. The law did not prevent anyone from transporting arms, unloaded and in a case. As I said, his record is known, and he was no where near the grabber Rudy is. I'm also sure the law applied to conceal carry, and maybe sidearms strapped on. That law may have even been when they turned CC into a privilege, and required a may issue license.
Amazing, isn't it.
That's why the morons in California tried to ban them. :>)
And that, quite frankly, is the biggest black mark against Giuliani in this debate.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he sees severe gun ownership limitations as a way to fight crime.
Do we really want a guy to be president who is so impervious to basic truths? And that goes well beyond gun rights. Look at the problems with Bernie Kerik. Rudy made him Police Commisioner. He made him a business partner. And he pushed him for the most important anti-terror job in the country.
All the while completely oblivious to Kerik's serious (and easily discovered) ethical problems.
I really don't see how the Rudy boosters can say Rudy is a hotshot executive when he both flies in the face of basic, documented 2nd Amendment wisdom AND pushed a corrupt crony for head of DHS.
So -- in terms of gun rights alone -- Hillary Clinton would be safer than Rudy Giuliani.
What a surprise.
Yet again, Peach distorts the Reagan legacy.
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.