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.
Senator McCain, is that you?
(just kidding)
You may well be right... but the argument about Guiliani's alleged general leftism is way outside the scope of this thread, which is about Guiliani's stance on gun control. Anyone who wants a person who favors gun control anywhere near the Presidency can be only one of three tings: a leftist, incredibly ignorant, or cognizant of the system of checks and balances and capable of weighing competing interests.
Something you have displayed serious ignorance about, so why should we listen to you?
No one would blame ya. hahaha
Dang, I might just break my vow of not drinking more than twice a year...gotta have something to wash down those aspirins. Between the hot wings I ate, and this thread, it's giving me heartburn and a headache.
The mother's milk of his sense of order is not American, it is from the limited vista of the leftist haunts and kills his understanding of the nation at-large.
That's OK, to my knowledge neither State nor the FBI consider it terrorism anyway. Just a disgruntled individual. Like the Seatle Jewish Center gunman, El Al counter at LAX, Sirhan Sirhan. Just disgruntled individuals.
Says who? If somebody makes an argument, I reserve the right to respond, and I will not honor people who insist on getting their own say in and then shutting off debate.
That's forum rules.
Here are the forum rules; I must've missed that one.
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.
And I said not a word about the First Amendment, which you would realize if you weren't apparently illiterate in your native tongue. Here again are my exact words, which didn't mention the First Amendment or indeed any law: do not attempt to stifle my speech
http://www.jgsales.com/product_info.php/products_id/1077
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=232112�
You are misinformed but acting like an expert. There is not just one SKS that is C&R ellegible, but several. And BTW, you're the one that mentioned the SKS first.
See, that's the problem with being a "google expert". You don't know what you're talking about, but you look something up online for a few minutes and you think you more than someone who has been doing this for years.
They are still considered firearms, but a special collectible type that can be shipped direct to type 03 C&R holders.
So another fact you're wrong on (do you get tired of being wrong) is that C&R firearms can be shipped direct to your door!
http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/frequently_asked_questions.html
What is a C&R 03 License, or Curio and Relic?
A type 03 Curio and Relics (C&R) License is a type of Federal Firearms License granted by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to an Individual that allows them to purchase approved firearms for collecting purposes. A type 03 Curio and Relics License is a collecting license only; this license does NOT permit the holder to deal in firearms. License fee is $30 for three years. A C&R licensee may buy and collect C&R Firearms from all over the country, and have them delivered to your door! A C&R License is a great way to avoid sometimes lengthy background checks, and Dealer Transfer Fees. A firearm classified as a Curio or Relic is one that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has deemed to have significant historical value and worthy to Collect. C&R Firearms are always Military Surplus, and typically 50 years or older. Please check your state laws for additional restrictions regarding C&R firearms purchases.
So again, you're wrong. You might want to do a little more than 10 minutes of research before trying to say I'm wrong about something gun related.
BTW, just for you info, I've been doing 2nd amendment related work for about 5 years or so now. My work has been featured in NRA magazines as well as some others, numerous 2nd amendment web sites, etc etc etc. Too many to count. So if you want to try to prove me wrong on something 2nd amendment related, you're going to have to put in a little more work than you already have.
I'm going to work out now, but if I get board, and you don't get tired of being wrong, I'll come back later and continue spanking you around the board.
Yeah. That's baloney and we both know it. I don't know why they won't call it what it is, but until they do, things aren't going to get better. Somewhere, OBL is laughing that we can't even call an attack by a terrorist for what it is.
I know you aren't being snide, but you also aren't understanding my point. Your posts falsely paint Reagan as a gun grabber. he was not. I grantedd you that he has supported some measure of gun control over his many years in office. Focusing on that w/o the counterbalance of what he did FOR the 2nd amendment is not giving you the full picture. The two articles from the NRA paint a very differnt picture, don't they?
The bit you posted from KABA regarding the Mulford Act that
says "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." does not paint the full story. California had and has a concealed carry law. So obviously there were not only exceptions, but law abiding citizens, unlike the black panther criminals, could pack heat.
I see that you're just as ignorant of who's displayed ignorance in this thread as you are of everything else.
Your review has been scheduled.
Seems to me you're a yankee wacko like me. Unless you're one of the authentic Scottish rednecks, in which case you can live anywhere.
Let's count them up: the SCOTUS is 5-4 anti-second amendment. The Pelosi-Reid Cngress is anti-Second Amendment. President Rudy would make it a trifecta in opposition to the Second Amendment. That's all three branches.
Not a whole hell of a lot of checks and balances there, my confused friend.
I submit that if we (as a country) did not have such an anti-gun attitude--and had, in fact, allowed our pilots to be armed prior to 9/11--that it is NOT inconceivable that,,,
9/11 MIGHT HAVE NEVER HAPPENED (either because the terrorists might have realized their chances of success were then much less--or possibly because the flight crews could have stopped it)!!!
Speaks out of both sides of his mouth, like most politicians!
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.