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.
I agree 100%
Oh, puh-leeze. That is clearly rhetorical.
And regarding EV's post, that was rhetorical as well.
But, then again, I expect someone who relies on Wikipedia as their primary source for anti-Reagan material to not grasp the subtleties of what opponents are saying.
I'm sure he would.
Therein lies the crux, all he has left to do is impress voters who no longer vote on issues. He needs to look pretty and charming. A regular Miss America. If only we could vote on politicians based on experience, strength and issues, we'd have already won.
Yet another lie. I'll tell you what. You post that link of mine that went to that site and I'll apologize. Otherwise, you don't mind being labeled a liar, do you?
SNORE.
If you don't understand constitutional law, please don't try to teach it, because you look ridiculous.
You liberal law school 'constitutionalists' are a real hoot.
Its a wonder to see you guys ignore your oath to support and defend the Constitution & the 2nd Amendment. - You look ridiculous.
It's a hurdle he has to cross.
Another weasel statement of yours. You posted a link that cited Wikipedia.
Its not about guns, its about liberty. Personal ownership of arms is one of the most potent indicators of an individual's liberty. Why? An armed citizen must be reasoned with, he cannot be forced without great risk.
Also, the fact that criminals use arms (or any other device or invention you can think of) in the commission of their crimes is of no import. Why should peaceful citizens going about their lawful business be deprived of any good and useful thing because of what a criminal may choose to do with it?
(And yes, a gun is a good an useful thing. Estimates are that between 1,000,000 and 3,000,000 violent crimes are prevented each year because a citizen was armed. See: More Guns, Less Crime
Clearly the author of that is speaking of a rhetorical flogging. If those are the types of comments to which you're taking offense, then I stand by my original comment.
Hey Rudy, the quote that follows is my reply.
TO BAN GUNS... ...because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding. (Jeff Snyder)
The 2nd Amendment protects us from tyranny. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is our most sacred heirloom from our Founding Fathers. Protect it...indeed, protect it at all costs...even under pain of death...it is that important
Rudi can go take a flying leap!
BTW...recieved that package! Thank You my FRiend!!!
I noticed that too. He was obviously afraid Rudy would get the answers wrong.
I would sum up your questions in a simple question - do you believe that criminals follow gun laws?
What the he** does this mean? Anybody?
It's a parrot squawk. One parrot squawked it in the distant past and now the whole gas bag flock is squawking it. Not one of them has examined it to discover what it really means let alone whether it makes sense.
Legislate morality? In the timeless words of Judge Robert Bork: "We legislate little else!"
You might just as well say we can't pass laws against pedophilia or murder because one person might find these things morally acceptable.
Put Rudy in the White House and you'll see a whole lot of morality being legislated and enforced--morality of the social liberal variety: hate crimes, environmental crimes, gun crimes etc.
Yes, we indeed legislate morality. But let it be morality in consonance with natural law and good sense. In short, let it be pro-family, pro-life, socially conservative morality.
Rudy is not up to the task.
Good point -- I didn't even look at it that way. I just saw the entire interview as a staged campaign appearance -- in which Hannity was basically a campaign prop.
LOL. Tired of being proved wrong?
Afraid that your "google expert" credibility has vanished and you've been exposed for what you are?
Or do you still insist you were right about C&R licenses?
BTW, still gonna cough up that $50? When I post the info, you can send the money to JPFO.
I think I'll immortalize your attempt to be a "google expert" and how wrong you were by putting it on my home page. Then everyone can have a good laugh!
Are you going to answer the numerous questions?
Which one is better in your opinion (freedom calls is such an ironic name, btw) - Is it better when rudy violates the BOR as a mayor, or when he calls for the BOR to be violated at the federal level?
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.