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.

[OMalley]

Yes it is.

And the worse part is that the one that are the loudest and nastiness get on these threads and claim to have not picked anyone yet, as if somehow they can take back what they said.

I dont think anyone that runs on those threads 24/7 is only guilty by "association". but thats just me;)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

And there are far more why we do not.

I'm still puzzled as to why those who oppose Rudy said basically zilch when career Republican Congressmen did nothing to stop the proliferation of anti-gun legislation and cities enacting gun bans.

[Peach]

Well, I would hope, for starters, that maybe Rudy wouldn't ban as many guns as President Reagan banned. LOL

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

[alarm rider]

Amen to that!

[dirtboy]

I'm still puzzled as to why those who oppose Rudy said basically zilch when career Republican Congressmen did nothing to stop the proliferation of anti-gun legislation and cities enacting gun bans.

I'm still puzzled how that compares to Rudy's aggressive advocacy for gun control.

[visualops]

bump

[pissant]

If Rudy were wise, he'd insist on it. But its too late now anyhow, I think.

[OMalley]

Its a great place to be:)
Gillette may not be the prettiest in Wyo, but we are the redest city and the redest county here! Good ppl.

[DownInFlames]

If these Socialists try to infringe on the 1st or 2nd, Al Queda will be the least of their worries.

[dirtboy]

Followed one of your links. It said this:

But I will say this: Reagan probably was the best president in terms of the Right to Arms

You're busted, yet again.

[Alberta's Child]

And if it's between Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton, they will vote for Rudy.

Take my word on this one, Hildy . . . If you are a Republican, YOU DO NOT WANT TO BET ON THAT ONE.

[baubau]

"He's "electable", that's all that matters around here.

Not only is he electable, but he's the only hope we have to preventing Madame Hillary from setting foot in the WH, again.

[No.6]

Yep, I heard that bit of the interview. If he doesn't get the most important amendment, nuts.

There does exist worse, unfortunately. It could conceivably come down to him or Hillary - could we allow by action or inaction to let someone who would gladly go right by the 'regulation' stage into the outright taking of guns, given a chance?

I certainly am not supporting Rudy in a primary vote.

[Beagle8U]

"Are you begging the question, or do you have a crystal ball which tells you that Guiliani would not appoint strict constructionists? And where can I get one? A crystal ball would be really useful."

Look at his record. Didn't he appoint some judges when he was mayor? Weren't they all Demonrats?

You can run from his record if you wish, but he can't.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Funny, I don't recall Reagan supporting an assault weapons ban or a handgun ban.

---

Actually, Reagan SIGNED the worst ban of all, the 1986 Volkmer Mclure Act that ensured that never again would American citizens be able to go out and buy a modern military rifle of the type carried by modern troops (the true "assault weapon").

Consequently, there is one machine gun for every 1000 adult males, and they cost 10x+ what they would without the Reagan Ban, and are at least 20 year-old technology and hardware, usually cobbled together to fire full auto, not the way they were designed by the manufacturer. (And if you want one of the old ones that costs as much as a decent car, you have to go through an onerous approval process.)

Aside from gun registration/databasing, THAT is the most egregious threat to the intent of the Second amendment to date.

[houeto]

So the solution is to: (pick one)

1) Tighten the borders, crack down on the gangsters, and work to keep the number of automatic weapons in the hands of criminals and terrorists down.

2) Remove all restrictions on the import, sale, and possession of automatic firearms, silencers, explosives, short-barreled shotguns, and other items under the control of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Remove requirements that gun dealers be licensed and that they keep track of their sales. Forbid the federal government to even question why Abu al-Rashid and his friends are amassing firearms and explosives. Justify this insanely reckless policy on the grounds that "shall" is absolute beyond reason in the Second Amendment, even if it isn't in the First.

3) Encourage the establishment of local militias by citing the urgency for their need due to 9-11 and the onslaught invasion taking place from the southern border. Repeal all legislation banning any weapons for responsible citizens in good standing in order to fully equip the militias. Sponsor training for the effective use of such weapons and encourage County Sheriffs to deploy such militias in order to SEAL the borders, eradicate the gangs and remove ALL illegal weapons from the hands of criminals and terrorists.

I'll go with number 3. Thanks.

[Dog Gone]

Save your insults for someone who gives a rat about what you think, tpaine.

I described the current state of constitutional law in this country. Your denial of that and your typical resort to name-calling doesn't impress me at all.

[Osage Orange]

So Dave....you've several replies.

Have you been muzzled?

[rintense]

I find it ironic that you can definitively state the reasons the GOP lost, especially since there are countless theories out there as to why. In fact, your theory is directly challenged by Bush's poll numbers and the number of people against the war in Iraq. Of course, polls are just as much crap as anything else.

Yes, the GOP lost. But conservatism won. Even Rush agreed with this. Of those who did win, they ran on conservative principles... even some of the democrats who won.

[flashbunny]

Well let's see:

If rudy signed a law outlawing all political speech in new york city, would it be constitutional?

If rudy signed a law eliminating the right against self incrimination in new york courts, would it be constitutional?

If rudy signed a law allowing police to search anyone and any residence or business at any time, would it be constitutional?

If rudy signed a law saying defendants can be held for several years without a trial in new york city, would it be constitutional?

If rudy signed a mandating quatering of soldiers (or police) in new york city homes, would it be constitutional?

If rudy signed a law allowing cruel and unusual punishment in new york city, would it be constitutional?

I think that pretty much takes care of the "the bill of rights only restricts the federal government" line of argument, don't you?

BTW, the funny thing about this line of defense is that rudy supports both campaign finance reform at a federal level (1st amendment infringement) and federal assault weapons bans and handgun licensing at a federal level (2nd amendment infringement). So that takes care of the "it's okay because it's only at the local level" line of defense as well.

Don't you agree?