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.
His dad was the last of the great pro-life Dems, and Bob Lite had the name recognition in that department and didn't say anything stupid enough to convince voters otherwise.
I've read just about every thing on Reagan available.
Chew on this a bit.
The passing of President Ronald Reagan cast a pall over the nation`s capital in June. Partisan bickering gave way to somber remembrance as political leaders--from our country and all over the world--gathered side-by-side with a steady flow of American citizens to pay their respects to a great American leader.
Reagan`s firm principles and unrelenting optimism about the future of our country marked a sea change in American politics. Dispensing with the national self-doubt and "malaise" of the Carter years, Reagan united Republicans and Democrats alike in the pursuit of common-sense policies that put a new face on the goals of the conservative movement.
"[T]he Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says `the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.`"--President Ronald Reagan
I still see the Reagan legacy at work in the nation`s capital every day. Few and far between are the politicians willing to call themselves "liberal" today. John Kerry, for instance-- who reluctantly drags behind him a 20-year voting record more liberal than even Ted Kennedy--calls himself a "centrist." It was Bill Clinton who pioneered the still-ongoing effort to appeal to so called Reagan Democrats by embracing Reaganesque objectives such as welfare reform, and by draping candidates in manufactured coinages like "New Democrats."
Labels and parties have never been meaningful in the debate over Second Amendment issues, but the insincerity of these repackaging efforts has echoes in the debate over our freedoms. Clinton and Kerry both claim to be supporters of the Second Amendment, but the Reagan legacy clearly outlines the difference between true support and the postcard politics of the New Democrats. Clinton and Kerry have both donned hunting garb to project their false Second Amendment credentials, but Ronald Reagan knew the difference between words and action.
In fact, President Reagan, the owner of an AR-15, was a strong and consistent supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. He was a long time member, joining NRA in December of 1972 and upgrading to Life Member in August of 1979. He actively courted the NRA`s endorsement in both of his presidential campaigns, and was the first presidential candidate in history to receive that endorsement. He appeared on the cover of NRA magazines four times. In 1983 he was offered, and accepted, an NRA Honorary Life Membership, the highest honor bestowed by the NRA.
He was the first, and to date, only, sitting president to speak at our Annual Meetings, and his remarks clearly illustrated his core support of the Second Amendment. Reagan told the cheering crowd that: "The NRA believes America"s laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says `the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.`"
Reagan felt at home before the assembled membership, saying "I`ve always felt a special bond with members of your group. You live by Lincoln`s words, `Important principles may and must be inflexible.` Your philosophy puts trust in people. . . . Good organizations don`t just happen. They take root in a body of shared beliefs. They flow from strong leadership, with vision, initiative and determination to reach great goals."
President Reagan shared our pursuit of great goals through the 1980s--the rollback of the most onerous provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. And in 1986, President Reagan proudly signed the landmark Firearms Owners` Protection Act (FOPA) into law.
Sadly, some gun-ban advocates have callously exploited Reagan`s passing to misrepresent his positions, staging scripted interviews with the most biased of national media outlets to insist that he supported their anti-gun agenda and even claiming that he never held an NRA membership. I can feel only sadness at these crass and desperate lies. They merit no response; the historical record is clear and amply documented.
I will share with you, however, one additional anecdote that sheds light on Reagan`s core belief in our rights and freedoms. Little noted until his ascendance to the Presidency, the story takes place on an autumn evening in 1933, in Des Moines, Iowa.
Melba King was a 22-year old nursing student, and was walking home one evening when she was approached by a mugger with a gun who demanded her money. Reagan, then working as a local radio sportscaster, espied the confrontation from his second-story rented room. Leaning out the window with a .45 caliber revolver, Reagan sternly directed the mugger to "leave her alone or I`ll shoot you right between the shoulders." The mugger ran off, and Reagan calmed the woman, escorting her home safely.
Melba King did not encounter Reagan again until 1984, at an Iowa political rally. Iowa governor Terry Branstad knew of the incident and invited King to the event to surprise Reagan. After King and Reagan hugged on stage, Reagan laughed and told the crowd, "This is the first time I`ve had a chance to tell you the gun was empty. I didn`t have any cartridges. If he hadn`t run when I told him to, I was going to have to throw it at him."
May we all aspire to the same degree of courage, both in our convictions and in the face of adversity, and may Ronald Wilson Reagan rest in peace.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=140
Or Rudy, or Romney....
You know, it is so much fun to work my way through these responses one by one. By now you've almost surely seen your error, that I was referring to the ability of 41 Senators to block legislation, not to override a veto, but I believe this is the third time that you've mocked me for your own error. How many more will there be, I wonder?
That Santorum lost was practically a national tragedy.
That's why we are always hearing about rudy, he's there to split the GOP vote.
Of course, my original point was to the importance of having a president to put the threshhold for passing a given objectionalble bill up to 67 percent. But don't let the details get in the way of your rants.
Why did you ping me to that post?
I have no problem voting for a social conservative in the general, even though it'll probably be a rerun of the 1964 presidential race. Will conservatives swallow their pride and vote for Rudy in the general, who's at least fiscally conservative and pro-defense, who openly supports the troops, is all I'm asking, despite the fact that he wins the primaries fair and square.
So many of his responses were double and triple negatives that I had a hard time figuring out what his final answers were.
I'm not sure why you posted that, although it was a nice post.
But it in no way negated the fact that Reagan signed legislation that limited gun ownership in this country. And not just once, but a few times. And then when he got out of office, he actively advocated for Clinton to sign the Brady Bill (which didn't take much persuasion. LOL)
I believe Rudy addressed that issue and so did Mit
Casey,Jr didn't .. all he would say is that he was for less abortions while claiming to be a pro-lifer
Now, that there was funny! ;-)~
Four!
Are you completely oblivious of the vote required to override a veto?
I wonder, have you actually gone back and reread what's started this all? I'll repeat it for you:
I see no need to nominate a gun-grabber to be president. Otherwise, the threshhold for a gun law is 51 percent
No, it's not, because if 49 Senators oppose a gun law they can block it in the Senate. So could 41. You were wrong.
you're just re-inforcing your growing reputation as an uninformed blowhard
Do you believe that I could care less about what the likes of you thinks of me?
I copied Hildy's ping list from the thread I referenced.
Actually my point was about electibility, which is why you quoted me out of context.
And that is not inconsistent with what I have posted. If a non-gun-grabber sits in the White House, the threshhold is 67 percent.
When it comes to electibility, Rudy supporters cannot be quoted out of context.
He calls for uniform gun laws, praises Clinton's policies, and rejects the common understanding of the Second Amendment among a host of other things.
There is no defense of his position.
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.