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.
Uh, he was enforcing the laws that he was dealt with? Did Rudy co-sign or sponsor any gun-grabbing legislation?
That law was a mix of gun pros and cons.
LOL. The line of defense against rudy is that it was 10 years ago, now you're posting stuff from 20+ years ago?
BTW, reagan later said he regretted his support of the brady bill, and was basically doing it because of his friendship and respect for jim brady, not because it was a good law.
No, he called for much tighter gun control laws.
As well as taking guns away from long-term permit holders, as you have noted.
I don't see how his application was at all consistent with COTUS.
Disagree on both counts. And political history is on my side.
He couldn't even outpoll Hillary in the 2000 NY Senate race.
And the GOP loses when a pro-choice candidate is the nominee.
I don't doubt it. I doubt, however, that you know more about the Amendment than I do.
This quote you pulled out: Might give your argument credence IF you knew the details behind the case.
Actually, my own personal familiarity with the case (considerable) is not relevant to the credibility of my argument, but never mind, do continue.
Before the case went to the supreme court, miller split / died / whatever.
"Split/died/whatever." Thank you for showcasing your encyclopedic knowledge. For your information, Jack Miller died (of several gunshot wounds) before the decision was rendered, but that doesn't particularly matter... appellants generally do not appear before appellate courts.
So far you have yet to touch my argument. Let's see if you do:
So there was no defendant there to present his rationale for it being a valid militia weapon. If he was there, he could have shown evidence that the SBS was a military instrument (used in trench warfare in WWI) and therefore would be covered by militia use/ possession.
And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. The fact is that nobody did present to the Court any evidence that a short-barreled shotgun had utility in the preservation of a well-regulated militia, and the Court handed down its ruling: if an arm isn't relevant to the militia, it is not protected. It does not repeat NOT follow that if an arm is relevant to the militia it is protected. If an animal is not a mammal it is not a human; it doesn't follow that if an animal is a mammmal it is a human. Miller does not support your claim that all weapons of relevance to the militia are protected under the Second Amendment.
What the supremes actually said, in contrast to the lies spun by the anti-gun groups, is that if the gun is valid for use in a militia, then it should be legal for civillian ownership.
The anti-gun groups sure do spin a lot of lies, but you just spun one yourself. Justice McReynolds's opinion is here and he said absolutely nothing of the sort.
Let me guess: This is probably the first time you heard of US v miller, you spent a little time googling it, read some of the ruling, and then became an instant expert on it. Close?
Not close by a long shot. Would you mind telling me what lottery numbers you think will win, so I know to avoid them? You're not a very good guesser. As a matter of fact, I'm quite familiar with U.S. v. Miller as well as U.S. v. Emerson, Quilicy v. Morton Grove, U.S. v. Lopez, U.S. v. Morrison, and in fact most of the major case law relating to gun control in the United States.
Oh, and your ridiculous argument about johnny jihad buying 100 machine guns to launch a jihad. Highly unlikely, because that would raise red flags with the dealer.
Johnny couldn't just order his guns from CheapChineseSKS.com? Do you think the proprietors of CheapChineseSKS.com would particurly care about his intentions?
Plus they'd be ungodly expensive.
Yeah, because there are never any well-funded jihadi groups ::rolleyes::
What's more likely to happen is JJ has his cheap middle east / african AK's shipped over in a container of machine parts, because he can get them oversees for $25 to $50 a piece instead of $1000 each. Or he buys a CNC machine on the used market, and a lathe, and gets plans for an AK or AR from anywhere in the world via the internet. He does it all completely under the radar and undetected by the government.
No, what's likely to happen is that he'll buy them direct from the manufacturer, bypassing all the costs and risks of smuggling, and the costs, risks, and labor of manufacturing his own weapons. He can't do that today, because it's illegal. So instead he has to smuggle or build, and both are difficult, which is part of the reason we don't have a bunch of jihadi attacks here. (In places like Israel and Iraq, where weapons and explosives are readily available, the death toll from jihad is heartbreaking.) Under your absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment, it'd be perfectly legal for him to acquire his arsenal in this way. And even if it didn't go "undetected by the government", the government would have no right to ask, "hey, whatcha doing with all them explody things?"
Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws.
Criminals, by definition, try to break laws. It's a lot easier for a criminal to jaywalk than it is for him to destroy a building... unless of course he can freely acquire explosives with no restrictions whatseover.
So thinking you're only going to catch a jihadist with a law because he calls up, say, Armalite or Krebs custom and asks for a $100,000 worth of full auto rifles is rather ridiculous.
No, I'm saying that I think it's a good thing that he can't simply order $100,000 worth of full auto rifles with no restrictions whatseover. Sure, jihadis can still get fully-automatic weapons. But it's a lot harder and carries a lot more risk.
My guess is that passionate supporters of the Second Amendment rightly understand that nine @ssholes who wear black robes in Washington, D.C. are the last people we should ever rely on to protect our God-given rights.
I definitely signed the flag.
I also met Ted Nugent's wife there. Oh yeah, and I met Kristen from the DC chapter.
Just like you don't understand about a 2/3rds veto override?
Please. You obviously took a couple of writing classes in Junior College.
Please take a Poli Sci class as well and then come back here.
How about all the other gun bill legislation he signed? Was he sorry for that too?
"Uh, he was enforcing the laws that he was dealt with? Did Rudy co-sign or sponsor any gun-grabbing legislation?"
Well, he certainly did call for it:
"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones -- that exist for driving an automobile."
Mayor Rudy Giuliani's WINS address, march 2nd, 1997
Plus he field a junk lawsuit in june 2000 against the gun industry - a lawsuit that was later cited in congress as a nuisance suit intended to bankrupt the gun industry, giving rationale for passing the protection of lawful commerce act.
So he proposed not just a citywide ban, but a federal ban on "assault weapons" and federal licensing of handgun owners. And he filed a lawsuit intended to put gun companies out of business (who are very small businesses, especially compared to the bottomless pockets on the other side of a government filed lawsuit)
Man, my opponents in this thread are not big on citing sources. But never mind... would Guiliani's appointments be better or worse than Hillary Clinton's? Whose appointments would be better, and how much confidence can I have that he would beat Hillary?
You really might want to quit while you can still crawl
I'll continue as long as I can still tapdance on your battered form with me hobnailed boots.
I'm still waiting for you to get back to me about the percentage of votes required for a veto override.
Patience, grasshopper, I'm answering everybody in his turn. So tell me, were you completely ignorant of the filibuster, or did you just forget about it?
You might like this thread, then again, maybe not.
No one said Reagan wasn't good in the gun positions he took, but it's not like he never limited gun ownership. Because he did. Clearly. And not once but several times.
I know you don't like that little fact but it's true, I've given you links which proves it's true and so no, dirtboy, I'm not "busted".
You're just depressed and not thinking clearly. But carry on.
My state lost Rick Santorum and we ended up with Bob Casey, Jr.
I don't consider that a win for conservatism
Dude -- that's one of the best lines I've ever read here on FreeRepublic.
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.