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.
Nah, he's just being obtuse on purpose. The critical number when your guy is in the White House is 67. That is the importance of electing a guy that shares your vales.
go away and bug off
Same way Clinton did. He will get up and use the MSM to plead for gun control ie bans. He will talk of the NRA as a extreminist group one most citizens do not agree with. It is for the Children. The right wing gun nuts are going to get us all killed I tell you. The right wing militias are rearming and we must stop them or another OK bombing is going to happen etc.etc.etc. The MSM will be all for it. The laws will get passed. Those who know what is happening will be pissed. Some will smile and think Gosh that man is protecting me. I so love him.
Let's look at what I actually said, which is as follows:
"If a group of young, devoutly religious male Muslim Americans started accumulating machine guns, I'd want questions asked. I think you would too."
I included the particular demographic in order to elicit the most likely positive response to "I think you would too"... was I wrong? You wouldn't? If a group of young, devoutly religious male Muslim Americans started accumulating machine guns, you wouldn't want any questions asked? Really?
But in actuality, I don't mind the Feds asking questions of old, secular female Jewish Americans who start accumulating machine guns, either.
I will not reply to you again.
That is your right.
Do not talk to me again.
Do not attempt to tell me what to do, and especially do not attempt to stifle my speech.
Perhaps not 9/11, but terrorism, you bet he did.
Ali Abu Hassan Kamal, a palestinian from Gaza City, came to the Empire State Building to kill Zionists. For some reason they think New York is full of them. And yes, he acquired the gun illegally. The shop who sold it to him should have been prosecuted. The law was already on the books.
"...Shall not be infringed" means JUST THAT. Before GCA '68, you got ALL your rights back after you got out of the pen (except the right to vote, IIRC). It was GCA '68 that kept felons from getting gun rights back. There's no good reason for that. Once someone has served their entire sentence they still have their basic rights, INCLUDING the right to self-defense. If you can't trust them not to be criminals, KEEP THEM LOCKED UP until they learn better. No parole, no probation for violent crimes, OK? ELIMINATE ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL Victim disarmament laws (which means ALL of them, at ALL levels). RKBA is UNCONDITIONAL excepting ONLY when you are actually serving your time for your crime. That can be the ONLY condition that meets Constitutional muster.
The only POSSIBLE issue that the States (NOT FedGov) can pursue is the improper USE of a weapon, no matter what it is. Ownership and possession of ANY weapon (excepting, IMO, nukes and chemical/biological weapons) is covered by the Second.
Please learn to read - I didn't call anyone redneck wackos but the said stereotype is being promoted when gun owners worry about a Republican presidential candidate who'll probably do next to nothing about guns.
This from the man who suggested freepers who like Rudy should wear identifying armbands.
I truly believe the mid-terms were lost because of the failure of Congress and the Administration to close the border and the disenfranchisement of the base (and all Americans, for that matter) that followed.
I read it; thanks. That's why I was specific that it didn't relate to 9/11 terrorism. And that's what the freeper to whom I was responding thought, so I corrected it.
If your daughter has a gun, and your son has a gun, and you have a gun, maybe you don't need to spend every penny you have on a security system.
BTW, in my view 2nd amendment rights don't apply to aliens even if they are here 90 days, the standard, which Kamal wasn't. I'm OK with barring them from firearm ownership for a long period of time.
If not, unregulated speech could be hateful, disrespectful, and downright inconvenient, especially if launched just before an election. We all believe in free speech. But a few sensible regulations here and there to make sure it's appropriate for all will help keep us free from anything offensive forever!
Oh, ditto. And long period of time in that case could mean years, until they get legal and pass some sort of test.
Dream on.
I'm beginning to think you're incapable of comprehension. Do you not recognize that the probability that between 60 and 67 Senators will support a bill is provably less than the probability that between 51 and 67 Senators will support that bill? Perhaps it is you who would benefit from a good junior college.
Bug off
cow dung has that fresh country smell though, you should think of a better analogy
Sorry, but if an FR poster asks you not to post to them, you should honor that request. That's forum rules. Has nothing to do with First Amendment rights, which you would realize if you had more of a clue on the overall subject of the Constitution.
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.