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 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?
Different logistical challenges doesn't give 'invade' a different definition.
You guys just don't get it.
The GOP lost the mid-terms largely because it abandoned economic issues and didn't go all out on the War on Terror. There are a lot of people who just aren't conservative nor think like we do here on FR.
Tom DeLay was just on CNN less than 5 minutes ago wondering the same thing.
I would much rather see Hitlary as the pres than Rudy, because, at least my enemy is standing in front of me, rather than behind me.
And there are far more why we do not.
I don't know if Newt would win the general election, but I'd rather have Newt unite the conservative movement, get everyone on the same page, and lose than to run and win with the likes of Rudy or McCain.
For what it's worth, I think Laz's sexually perverted posts are usually hilarious. He definitely brings a unique voice to this forum.
Do you realize how depressing it can be to read words like this. They should ban anti-second amendment speech as hate speech.
Absolutely, I understand your concern.
Gun restrictions restrict me. I am a law abiding, honest citizen. If, I cannot legally own my sidearm in a county Or state in which I live, I have two choices. I can give up my gun, or I can move. For, if I continue to possess the gun, I am a criminal.
The criminal has no such concerns. He uses a tool (gun) to commit crime and disregards any laws that would restrict him from ownership.
Does this help at all?
nothing makes me think that. It was just the contrast of his post about making the GOP more conservative within AND then supporting Rudy the rino. The two concepts do not compute.
Thanks, JR
The "Go Rudy" crowd isn't going to be happy with you now.
Hollywood's version of Constitutional powers.
The Marshal has no such "right". He's sworn to support & defend our "Law of the Land", just as are all the other town, county, or state officials.
They cannot restrict ownership, and their powers to regulate where arms can be carried are being constitutionally questioned to this day. -- And 'they' are losing in favor of 'Alaskan style' concealed carry.
Good. Thanks, and sorry I misunderstood.
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."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3605
The import of some shotguns was prohibited by President Reagan?
The 1994 "assault weapons" ban will sunset in 2004 unless Congress re-authorizes it. All those firearms that were banned because of their appearance (and because they didn't meet arbitrary, bureaucratically defined, and highly changeable "sporting purpose" criteria) are scheduled to become legal to manufacture again. All those magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds will be legal to manufacture again. It will once again be legal to import the group of shotguns administratively banned by Ronald Reagan and the group of semi-automatic rifles similarly banned by the first President Bush. (Both of these executive bans were codified in the 1994 law.)
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20021007.htm
Since the KABA poll was released, additional information has resurfaced concerning President Reagan’s support for the 1994 “assault weapon” ban: “Kenneth J. Cooper & Ann Devroy, Backers of Assault Weapons Ban Make Final Push for Undecided Votes, WASH. POST, May 5, 1994, at A5. Former Presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan announced their support of the ban in a letter.”
With this clear evidence of Mr. Reagan supporting the Brady Bill, a ban on shotguns and semiautos, and a ban on carrying firearms in public, it seems fair to ask:
Why is NRA republishing their 1983 resolution (issued, incidentally, 16 years after he signed the Mulford Act) where they proclaimed “President Reagan has forcefully stood by his convictions in support of the second amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense; and…vigorously rejects the myth that gun control is crime control…”?
http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2955
Explains the Mulford Act:
http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2004/06/16/who_can_gun_owners_trust.html
Read my reply.
my limit is around the area of "does it explode after it leaves the barrel?" Then there is probably some case for government oversight. And interestingly enough, you can get certain "destructive devices" with government approval and tax paying.
Maybe Rudy can't read...the 2nd Amendment only uses the word "regulate" in reference to the militia - not the right to keep and bear arms.
This isn't about lifting any restricctions whatsoever. It's about losing it all. Regardless of what anyone says, when the right is reduced to a privilege, only attainable to an elite group of high end folks, it's gone. No more self defense. No nore freedom.
"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."
Those evil people are not your fellow citizens, that may just want to be able to defend themselves against those evil people. There will always be evil people. There is no justification to deny the right of reasonable folks to keep and bear arms.
Rudy Giuliani has been so utterly repudiated and beaten like a drum on this thread that I'm wondering if Hannity is going to have him back on again before the end of this week -- to "clarify his clarifications of previous clarifications" on this specific issue.
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.