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.
Get something straight here, sweet pea, the reference flogging was figurative and it's being handed out nicely while you skate around. If you're gonna talk about me please be woman enough to ping me to the conversation.
Oh, it matters a great deal, as I will show you.
A veto makes it 67 percent.
Okay, now suppose, just suppose, that to pass a law with a friendly President required 80 votes, and to pass a law over a President's veto required 81. Would it still be so critically important that we get a President who'd wield that veto pen? Would you consider the thread that there would be exactly 80 (not 79, not 81) anti-gun Senators to be sufficiently dire to justify overlooking all other considerations?
I sure as hell hope not. I sure as hell hope that you'd consider a candidate's likelihood of winning, his merits relative to his opponent, his managerial ability, and so forth.
There's a certain risk that between 51 and 67 Senators will want an anti-gun bill. There's a certain risk that between 60 and 67 Senators will want an anti-gun bill. The latter risk is lower than the former. There's less chance of it happening. Which means the risk that President Guiliani will sign an anti-gun bill is lower, with a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster. That's why your false statement that a Guiliani presidency would mean a 51-vote majority would enact anti-gun legislation was both relevant and false.
Might have to go to something a bit stronger. It's still almost a year until the first vote is cast.
Most of the guys who fought and died to bring us our nation's freedom in the War for Independence were gun-owning, anti-government, "redneck" wackos - from the point of the British.
Given your attempt to change the subject, you're obviously unschooled in the art of debate.
So true. He hasn't even had the opening salvo of the Clinton machinery yet. I heard his closet for skeletons is a walk-in, a very large walk-in despite those things that are fairly common knowledge.
Anyone who talks to any freeper the way you've talked to me will not get my courtesy or a ping and I will continue to discuss you behind your back whenever I feel like it. Got it?
With my mood today I am starting to think something like valium might be more up my alley LOL ;)
Noooo... because if there's RINO support, there's more than 51 supporters anyway. If the RINOs support the legislation, they must be counted towards the threshold... which remains 60.
So the critical issue is, will it be vetoed or signed? Which makes this a 51-67 issue.
Sorry, where does the 51 come in? If 49 Senators oppose the law, how exactly is it enacted? Any RINO who would not vote to sustain a filibuster cannot be counted as being in opposition to the law.
I'll just let that statement stand in all its hideous cravenness for all to see.
Given that the critical number is always 67 percent when talking about the Oval Office, you need to go back to JUCO.
M'kay, pumpkin. Whatever makes you happy.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
The President of the United States, in his person, is one-third of the government of our country.
He is by far the most powerful human being on the planet. Not omnipotent by a long shot, but vastly powerful.
Anyone who wants a leftist like Giuliani anywhere near that sort of power can only be one of two things: a leftist themselves, or incredibly ignorant.
Thanks for highlighting it; much appreciated. It's made so many freepers who weren't even thinking about Rudy have second thoughts so the more attention it gets, the more I appreciate it.
Do you really believe that unconstitutional laws that infringe on the fundamental rights of all citizens will make any difference to a criminal? Hint, criminals do not abide by the law.
Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype of gun owners being anti-government, redneck wackos.
Yes, I do honestly believe that but never thought I was "anti government". I am for small, limited government. The job of the government is to protect our borders and our God given rights as human beings. They are not to interfere in my own household unless I am hurting my children or other Americans. Yes, I do not want the government to tell me when I an take a piss then tax me for it. What are your beliefs?
"What part of the people's right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does he NOT understand?"
There you go with that pesky 2nd Amendment again.
Can't you see that Rudy and the rest of our Rulers simply want to do what is right?
It's for the chilluns after all!
(please, yes that was sarcasm)
I've seen a lot of that from your crowd of late.
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.