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.
NO, I DON'T! I'M AN AMERICAN!
Thanks, guys .............. FRegards
I hope we don't have to drive off that bridge when we get to it.
It was TEN years ago!!! Did you miss that date?
We always hope that people evolve and then when they do, ya'll don't trust it.
I guess it's a good thing for the nation you all believed that Reagan evolved from someone who was a Democrat and signed abortion legislation.
True.
Miller was dead (you sure he hadn't just disappeared?)
He was definitely dead by the time the opinion was handed down, but again it doesn't really matter because he wasn't really interested in Constitutional rights. It wasn't him who made the argument that the NFA violated the Second Amendment in the first place. The case was provoked in a way similar to the way Scopes was provoked, except in this case rather than having the ACLU challenging the law, there was one federal judge who didn't like the NFA. He basically told Miller, "Go ahead and plead guilty, I'll toss the law out" whereupon the federal government set the appellate machinery in motion.
Only one side showed up. Not a recipe for good law.
I agree 100%, which is why Miller is very bad law, which is why I would never cite Miller in support of an argument. Flashbunny did, but as it turns out, even if Miller is accepted as controlling, it doesn't support flashbunny's argument.
Ungh...
A waiting period is not the same as a ban on handguns. And the arguments presented in the info you posted for his support of gun control are flawed. I will demonstrate that, if you are interested and when I get time.
Yes he supported some measures of gun control through his public life. But you do not get an NRA endorsement and awards for being a gun grabber. That he was not. And he FIRMLY believed in the original intent of the 2nd amendment.
Reagan is a mythical figure for a very good reason. He earned it. He was larger than life, even the libs have figured that one out.
Easy to do as hot as it was there.
I signed it too. I was honored too.
I met him too. I met a lot of FReepers there.
That statement you made about being for gun control because of your fear of muslims with machine guns seems pretty much emotion-based to me.
(run away with your tail between your legs)
So that is what you call having to drive home, huh? And I don't think I'll reply to you again because I don't see the point talking to people with whom I can't even agree on the definition of "infringe". Besides, I have work to do.
The best gauge of political candidates is from their past actions.
In the case of Reagan, he made up for earlier failings.
Rudy has yet to do that. His 2nd Amendment answers to the H&C interview were underwhelming.
Rudy, don't take our guns away.
If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, we are screwed as a country no matter which way you look at it. One is slower, the other is faster.
So, for all of you "vote for the CINO, we are so scared" bunch, ponder that, because if Rudy passes as a "conservative" it's only a matter of time until the final curtain. If we cannot figure out a way to defend our country by electing someone who gets Americanism, then nasty things are coming, from all sides, directions and angles.
Take that to the bank.
Well, which is it, a 60 percent majority or a simple majority? It's a 60% majority, which is why the President doesn't change the threshold from 51 to 67, he changes it from 60 to 67. Which is exactly what I said. Which you made an utter fool out of yourself making mock of.
So yes, if there are between 60 and 67 Senators who want an anti-gun bill, Rudy would be bad to have as President. I'll take my chances. Even after the shellacking the GOP took in 2006 it could probably muster 41 votes to block an anti-gun bill, and if Rudy is elected, it'd almost certainly be accompanied by an increased number of Republicans in the Senate thanks to the coattails effect anyway.
I'm very interested in how you think a conservative web site like FrontPage got it wrong that Reagan signed legislation limiting gun control.
And that's not the only web site that says that, btw, but it's one I thought would be respected around here.
And Reagan didn't just establish a waiting period on guns. It was gun CONTROL and limited the kinds of handguns permitted.
But when you get the time, please, by all means, explain yourself.
Politicalities appears to be a legend in his own mind.
Well, here I was against him, now I know he's a lawyer, makes me want to vote for him all that much more. Ummm, no...
I think I've seen things you've written in the past and a little surprised, you are FOR a gun grabber? A second amendment right given away for a city boy who wants to be President? You have looked at Hunter Duncan? No more pansies for me.
This whole subargument is silly. It takes 60 senators to pass a controversial bill. It takes 67 senators to pass an obnoxious bill if a reasonable President objects.
Neither of you would disagree with that, and that is consistent with both your positions.
The foodfight ain't accomplishing anything.
> He wants to REGULATE away your right to keep and bear arms.
Not quite sure that's what Giuliani is saying, Jim. I read this (as an outsider, not a US Citizen) that regulations have to fit within your Second Amendment. No objections, yeronner.
But then again, that's why he's a Politician: he can say the same thing to two different like-minded people and have them take away a different message: whatever suits the purpose...
That said, I think the US Right is in serious trouble. The Left have *at least* two credible candidates in HillBilly and Obama. The Right, so far, have Giuliani and McCain -- either will lose.
This particular issue is a good reason why.
The Right needs to front up with a credible candidate, Real Soon Now. Else the Right is Stuffed. Either Left-side option looks dismal: Billary looks worst of all, and most likely.
WHO WILL RUN FOR THE RIGHT?
Worried from DownUnder
*DieHard*
Yeah, they sure did...
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." - Mitt Romney
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudolph Giuliani
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.