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.

[flashbunny]

well it's nice to know you go against every other pro-2nd amendment law scholar too. But hell, interpret however you want. You're still wrong. So let's get to the other ridiculous part of your post:

First, for just about every instance, the SKS isn't full auto. It's semi -unless you want to include the chinese type 86 select fire rifle, but that's a combination of SKS and AK designs and not a "pure" SKS . If someone wanted to convert it to FA, it would be a poor choice due to being a 10 round clip fed weapon. And 30 round magazine conversions are generally unreliable, especially if you're going full auto. And it's a longer, heavy weapon with poor folding stock options.

But nonetheless, any joe schmoe with a C&R card can call up a gun store across the country and have as many C&R SKS rifles as they want shipped to them via ups. No forms to sign, no need to show up at the store. No waiting periods except as long as it takes UPS to get it to you.

You being so knowledgeable probably knew that, didn't you?

So johnny jihad can get his girlfriend or another person with C&R card to order as many SKS (bad example on your part, really, try harder next time) and have them delivered direct to their door.

Ooh, oh my god, people can do that now! Don't you think the country is in great danger? I'd suggest you propose a law. Better yet, have rudy campaign on closing the C&R loophole. I'm sure it would be a great hit!

Now onto your other ridiculous points: Making an AK isn't that hard. You can buy flats without any background checks because they're not defined as guns. You just need a jig to bend them and then you have to get the parts, all unregulated for purchase. Any person in this country can make as many AK's as they want without the government even knowing. And if they want to machine the parts that make them full auto, those are rather small and theoretically easy to make (I haven't made any myself, so I have to add the "theoretically" so nobody complains).

So again, what you are so frightened about can already be done simply. And it's not that complex. For pete's sake, they make AK's in the third world in mud shacks. They're popular for that reason - easy to make and maintain.

So that deflates you're other argument that it's too hard. It's not. If Johnny Jihad wanted to get 100 FA guns, he's not going to get an SKS. And he's not going to buy the guns and risk raising eyebrows when he can homebrew them for much cheaper and stay further under the radar.

And if you want to argue that you meant the much more complex AR15, you can buy 80% receivers with no government knowledge and finish them up on cheap and easy home mills. And all the other parts can be purchased with nothing more than cash or a credit card.

So there you have it. FA guns can be made / procured rather easily today without ANYONE from the government knowing about it. Do you want more laws to get into everyone's lives now that you know about this menace? Do you want to call it the "machine gun loophole"? Or do you realize that the only people who will be stopped from getting machine guns after outlawing them are those that would follow the law in the first place?

BTW, in case you can't tell, I have little respect for those who would piss our way our rights because they see danger in every exercise of freedom.

[NapkinUser]

Don't want you two to miss out.

[Politicalities]

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.

Of course, your original point was that it was important to have a President to raise the threshold from 51 votes. But don't let the facts get in the way of your revisionism.

[dirtboy]

Well, which is it, a 60 percent majority or a simple majority?

That doesn't matter in the context of the post. A veto makes it 67 percent.

Which is why we need a staunch 2nd-A nominee.

[spunkets]

"No one said the bill prohibited the "transport" of firearms. What the conservative web site link I gave you said is that the bill prohibited "carrying" arms."

Carring is a legal term when used in law, and includes transport. It's important to distinguish between them. I don't do bias. Carring includes transport of unloaded, cased firearms. Unless, transport is specifically exempt, it is forbidden if "carry" is forbidden. Also, I know CA has a may issue permit system, so even CCW is not banned. I suspect it never was.

Before Reagan did the gun owners protection act, anyone transporting arms ran a gauntlet of nutcases around the country, and whithin each State, that would and did bust folks for simple legitimate transport. In return, for that blessing from Reagan, new machine guns and critical parts were taken off the market.

"Now, if the conservative FrontPage magainze is wrong, just give me another link."

The quote is wrong, even if it's just bias for propaganda purposes. I don't have a link.

[dirtboy]

Of course, your original point was that it was important to have a President to raise the threshold from 51 votes. But don't let the facts get in the way of your revisionism.

Given the number of RINOs in the Senate, you obviously are unschooled in political reality.

[spanalot]

"What part of the people's right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does he NOT understand? "

Worth repeating!

[pissant]

I'm not going to explain "myself". I'm going to torpedo the nonsense that Reagan was a gun grabber, which the stuff you posted stated he was.

[flashbunny]

can you actually address what he did, or you think making a "clever" remark will make everyone forget what RUDY actually did?

How do you feel about yourself when you realize you have to engage in this level of intellectual dishonesty to defend a RINO like rudy?

[Politicalities]

I see no need to nominate a gun-grabber to be president. Otherwise, the threshhold for a gun law is 51 percent

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.

Those two statements are not inconsistent with each other, but they form a non sequitur. You stated "the threshold for a gun law is 51 percent." That is false. It happens to be true that the threshold for a gun law with a President who would veto it is 67%, but that doesn't make the 51% with a gun-grabbing President figure any less inaccurate.

[Howlin]

Leave me out of your tattling.

[NapkinUser]

On President Bill Clinton: Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, Giuliani told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." -Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett.

The Real Rudy Giuliani:

From Human Events:

An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate

In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.

Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OF GIULIANI'S LEFT-WING POLITICAL POSITIONS

[Politicalities]

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.

Direct quote, please. Don't twist my words.

[EternalVigilance]

Have you ever wondered where these screen names pop up from? You never see them anywhere and then BANG they're pimping for liberals at the speed of light. And interestingly, the preponderance of those who are here pimping for liberals never list their homestate or give any sort of information about themselves...

[cowtowney]

He doesn't give a straight answer, therefore he is not pro-2nd Amendment.

He also is pro-abortion.

Won't get my vote.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

OK, Rudy's position on guns is indefensible, fine.

Now tell me, as President, what will he do? Will he subvert the law, issue an executive order banning guns, what?

Will he lobby Congress for more gun control laws, which will be easily defeated by grassroots & the NRA.

Please explain how Rudy will somehow have the power to void the 2nd Amendment.

[Peach]

will demonstrate that, if you are interested and when I get time.

You said that, right? I just double checked to be sure.

So since I gave a host of links to the various gun limiting legislation that Reagan signed, and since you don't think it's accurate and you offered to explain, explain yourself. It's what you offered. SO whenever you get the time, I'm interested.

[Politicalities]

Neither of you would disagree with that, and that is consistent with both your positions.

It is not consistent with his position, which was, and this is again a direct quote, "I see no need to nominate a gun-grabber to be president. Otherwise, the threshhold for a gun law is 51 percent".

The foodfight ain't accomplishing anything.

He erred, I pointed out his error, and for my troubles I was accused of ignorance. I demand satisfaction. As long as he wants to continue to pretend that I was wrong and he was right, I'll continue to rub his nose in it, for the benefit of onlookers if not for him.

[houeto]

It's a disgrace what has been permitted here, but I can give as good as I get if necessary.

And if this is what the powers that be wish to see FR become, a lynch mob mentality such as we're seeing on this very thread, then so be it.

Peach, you've had your fair share in this 'disgrace'. You've called folks "extreme" conservatives because they were adamantly opposed to Rudy's anti-gun, etc. history. You've called others "metrosexual weenies" for other reasons.

You can't condemn the attacks when you are a part of them.

[Dog Gone]

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.

What would you call a President who instituted wage and price and controls on the nation?

You do know who I'm talking about, correct?

We can recover from anything in this country.