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.
A ggod attempt at sarcasm.
They harp endlessly on their perceived slights. They really don't have much else in this debate.
Every word of it.
To support Rudy is to not only abandon the core beliefs that define us, but to trample them by casting a vote for someone stringently opposed to those values.
Now, that might be perfectly dandy for others to do, but many won't, neither will I. Gun "regulation", SSM equal to marriage, growing federal nannyism, and legalized murder of the unborn will never get this one's support.
He suggested that freepers who like Rudy wear it. Nice you left that little part out.
And who is slandering you with it? Certainly not me, although it would have been nice if you'd posted the entire truth of what he recommended.
And you're onboard with the armband suggestion? Good to know.
I'm putting you in the group of people who clearly has problems which pushed that percentage up.
Then you and Rudy are soulmates and I wish you well together. But evil is still evil and your support for it takes away my interest in ANYTHING else you might have to say.
It's a lie.
And you now what, even if it was the truth, gasp, I posted a link to something like an encyclopedia which has had some problems. Just like your posts. LOL
Get lost. You're a waste of bandwidth.
Feel free to point out where I said that. I only addressed the "flogging" comment. The only thing I can contrue from your above comment is that you're devoid of intellectual honesty, even to the extent where you'd libel other posters. How sad for you.
I've already said here a hundred times I will never vote for Rudy. This adds to my "I will never vote for Rudy" rant.
Good point and something for me to consider. My point always was, if someone considers choosing abortion, I think they must first be required to view an ultrasound. If they then still thinks it's ok, would one be up for a murder charge?
Still, I think it's something to be considered as a state choice subject to the 14th amendment, this is not stated in the Constitution.
No - Rudy would (IMO) only sign anti-gun legislation if a Dim congress passed it; Hillary would write it up and force it through Congress. There are other reasons (like not ----ing our troops) not to allow any Dim in office.
That having been said, Rudy is now my 2nd least favorite Republican in the race, above only McVain. He won't get my primary vote.
Hey, do me a favor. Quit lying about me, twisting the facts, making me out a racist, and doing it without pinging me. K?
Damn straight; you'll take care of that all by yourself, so you don't need any help from her, right?
ggod = good
He's lying about being a middle of the roader.
He is as left wing as Mussolini.
your posts on this thread have been the most sensible by far.
I guess you didn't search very hard, Delpinium.
Petronski says posted this:
Is this the point in the thread where we post the profoundly offensive Nazi quotes? Great. Here goes:
Eternal Vigilance:
"No, I think they, and all Giuliani supporters, should be forced to wear this on their sleeve:
[picture of large GLBT pink triangle]"
--EternalVigilance, 1-29-7
253 posted on 02/03/2007 6:59:08 PM EST by Petronski
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778726/posts?page=253#253
So Petronski got your little suggestion, EV, that Rudy supporters should wear identifying armbands. Just like the Jews were forced to wear. Very nice.
But keep running to the mods and forum owner to whine. You're going to have a hard time living that one down. And rightfully so.
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.