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.
Amen.
Well, I can see that you're hellbent on becoming the victim, and no amount of reason or logic will change that. I see this often in my dealings with liberals, and my reaction is generally to end the conversation because I know there's no chance of changing their mind. Unfortunately that's the point we appear to have reached. Good luck to you - I suspect you'll need it if you continue down this path.
Well, you're doing better. You've posted a little more. Pretty soon, folks might be able to actually see the truth about your little campaign of character assasination.
I pick option 2.
Have you any objections to republication here of a jpeg of the entire post?
I saw your home page. I like your laid back personna. Especially the beer, cigarettes, and helos.
This is one pic that I'd like to see happen to every one of the Baghdad Bastards and Tehran Terrorists:
And a few A-10s strafing mosques loaded with bad guys and weapons.
It was an in-your-face sarcastic response to someone who acts an awful lot like you do. I was caricaturing their view of conservatives, which is that of a bunch of bigots. I can see from your posts over and over again that you share that view. In fact, you could be them.
I know we disagree a lot on the President but could you imagine "A Day in the Life of Rudy" thread every day? Good grief!
You are correct and I appreciate you pointing that out. Spoken like a true originalist :)
Oh, yes, he's GROWN... LOL.
And I reserve the right to rub it in your face via a PING. Thanks.
Ugh, if I was going to play victim, I wouldn't be arguing with you that you're being a bit of a circular logic clown.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good agenda driven post.
Drop it. It was a dumb post and it was removed along with your nazi smears.
Thank you. Salute.
That's an unfortunate and false characterization.
But others who saw the post agree with my characterization.
Howlin, Phikapmom, Bunnyslippers, cyborg to name four. I presume your words apply to them as well.
The 2nd Amendment as issue #1 folks are all hot and giggly. Don't take anything said too seriesly today.
Another thing if you wanted to go the "incorporated" route, and say that if it hasn't been incorporated, it only limits the federal government (this is all WRT rudy):
March 2nd, 1997: Rudy calls for a FEDERAL ban on assault weapons and FEDERAL handgun licensing.
So if the 2nd prohibits only the feds from banning guns, Rudy wants the federal government to do something unconstitutional.
First amendment: "As he was contemplating a run for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a "very, very strong supporter of Campaign Finance Reform," adding that he'd been "a very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now.""
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/deconstructing_giuliani.html
So he's in favor of federal limits on the first amendment as well.
And he's had problems with going against the first amendment as mayor as well (which is an incorporated amendment, so he shouldn't have violated it). There are several actions that happened under Giuliani's tenure as mayor that were later overturned as 1st amendment violations.
Now forgetting incorporated laws, and going on to the other argument (was it yours or someone elses? I forget) that the supremacy clause only applies to local governments having to obey federal laws and not the BOR:
Rudy is pro-illegal immigration. He fought to maintain NY city as a 'sanctuary city' where illegals didn't have to worry about being deported. To quote fellow member jla:
"Giuliani also continued the 'sanctuary city' policies of enacted by his Democrat predecessors. He welcomed hundreds of thousands of criminals - illegal aliens - into his city and refused to work with the INS on enforcing immigration laws. In fact, so annoyed with the pressure that INS was putting on him to cooperate and uphold law and order, he actually sued the Federal Government to try to be able to just ignore the law and continue coddling hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens. His lawsuit failed, and failed again on appeal, but he flouted the law anyway and continued to coddle the hundreds of thousands of criminals in his city."
So providing that the supremacy clause only applies to federal laws, it is apparent that Rudy is willing to violate this as well. Not just violate it, but fight it in the court to avoid complying with federal laws. And this is the candidate that his supporters like to call "law and order".
I certainly took it that way.
You favor suppression of your actual words while you continue to mischaracterize them.
Hardly.
It was a dumb post, as Jim said. I should known better than to hold a mirror up in front of trolls.
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.