Rudy on gun control: "You've got to REGULATE consistent with the Second Amendment"

FOX News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes

[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.

[BunnySlippers]

You and I agreed. Now you're justifying your terrible accusations! Why?

[EternalVigilance]

Just follow Jim's instructions and drop it.

[BunnySlippers]

I never complained about the patch.
So why are you lying about the conversation?

[BunnySlippers]

So your lying 793 post about me was okay?

[rintense]

He supported CFR???? Oh man. Now he's closer and closer to McCain in my book.

[Chena]

Hi NittanyLion. Don't you think it would be more productive if everyone stopped trying to attach false labels on their fellow FRiends and debate the issues we face with respect and dignity for other viewpoints? Peach is no more a liberal than you or I, and I think you know that. If not, you should. I don't know much about you, NittanyLion, but I do believe that you are passionate about what you do believe in and there is nothing wrong with that. But the biggest enemy any of us have will not be found on Free Republic, with the exception of the "trolls" who enjoy nothing more than attempting to create dissent within the Republican party. We may not agree on everything, but the beauty in that is that we don't HAVE to agree on every issue.

[Howlin]

I don't care. They're all the same.

"They" who? Name some.

[flashbunny]

was sunsong the software tester girl who was very pro-animal rights as well?

Or was that sungirl?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

A "stereotype" pushed by many of the Rudyphiles on FR lately, I might add. Eh, Squish

Show me a post where I disparaged gun owners.

You guys are living in an LSD-soaked, mind-numbing dreamland.

[flashbunny]

yes, he's worse than you thought!

I think the RCP piece I linked to sums it up best:

For nearly five years Giuliani has enjoyed near mythical status as the embodiment of American leadership and courage in response to September 11. Giuliani's star is etched in the country's psyche as deeply as any in modern history, and it will carry him a long way down the path to becoming president - but not all the way.

Eventually Giuliani will have to climb down off the pedestal we've placed him on, go to Rotary Club meetings in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, shake hands and tell conservative Republican voters what he stands for beyond just being a symbol of resolve in the midst of a national crisis that happened half a decade ago. We'll have to wait and see whether Rudy can convince conservatives that he shares enough of their values and philosophy to win their votes. At this early stage, all I can say is that it's going to be a lot tougher than some people think.

[Chena]

You really are passionate, EternalVigilance. I'm bored and decided to google your screen name. Wow.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/751303/posts

[processing please hold]

Your welcome and thank you.

A-10's my baby.

This is one pic that I'd like to see happen to every one of the Baghdad Bastards and Tehran Terrorists:

You and me both and that's the one that'll do the job.

[WKB]

Bump To The Top

Way to go JR

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I am for small, limited government

Why don't you take the time to read Rudy's record as Mayor of NYC. The guy cut taxes and cut welfare rolls, limited city government and cracked down on crime. If this isn't conservative, then what?

[notes2005]

I don't care what rudy says, I will never vote for him. Anti-gun, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights..... NO WAY... not to mention his divorces and adultery issues
if he can't honor his marriage vows, then how can we the people expect him to honor his political vows?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

That line of reasoning is utterly nonsensical.

The fact that career Congressional Republicans failed to adequately define the 2nd Amendment, end cities' gun bans and gun control laws, and let local municipalities run roughshod over the 2nd is indeed relevant.

But have fun trashing GOP Presidential candidates who merely upheld the laws written and/or co-sponsored by those in Congress.

[Petronski]

I apologize for calling them your buddies, then.

Accepted.

[Abundy]

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.

If he was in favor of the AWB, he doesn't understand the Constitution and does not deserve to be a police officer, forget about POTUS.

[omnivore]

A couple of thoughts

1. Liberals including Rudy get a lot of mileage out of the false concept of gun ownership being a "privilege." States are vociferous and neurotic about drivers' licenses being "privileges" not rights, since the right to drive was unaccountably forgotten in the 18th century.

So they try to create this false analogy between licensing to drive a car, and licensing to own a gun: huge levels of bureaucracy, filling out of forms and giving of extremely private and personal information which is of no business to People In Government, especially for gun ownership.



This must be emphasized above all: Keeping and Bearing Arms is a Right, NOT a privilege.

2. Politicalities brings up the good points of NFA 1934 and GCA 1968: could either of them pass constitutional muster in court? I doubt it, but they haven't been tested much, because lawyers with brains are loathe to bring cases when the Supreme Court is stacked with so many anti-2nd-Amendment people sitting as jurists.

Regardless of which side you're on regards the issues Politicalities brings up, you have to admit, it would be really good, if we could get ONE candidate for president to take the side opposing all the federal regulations which have been promulgated with the justification of NFA '34 and/or GCA '68. Just to have the debate. How on earth can ANY of the regulations that have been spawned by NFA '34 and GCA '68 be justified, when the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed."

However it comes out, we've been more than a generation since these most fundamental issues have been debated, and I think the debate itself would do us good as a nation, to get back to our fundamentals and our roots.

3. I can't understand how "shall not be infringed" could possibly be mis-interpreted either, except by people who are bent on deliberate falsification of the intent or meaning of the Bill of Rights.

4. Contra Politicalities in his post 153, I have no doubt that the US military could easily disarm the American people of their small arms, if someone of the Democratic persuasion were to give the order, such as by executive order. It may take a while, possibly longer than the pacification of Iraq, but maybe not nearly that long. The US Army and Marines have become quite adept at neutralizing pockets of armed resistance. Doubt our troops at your own peril.

5. I would love to see all these things argued out in detail in political debates between the Repub candidates. Not only to see where they stand individually, which we largely know, but to see where their party stands overall, which we really don't know, with respect to these issues. Aside from a very few individual politicians, I don't know where the Repub party stands as a whole, regarding a strict construction interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And I'd like very much to know that.

6. Without ruling anyone in or out of consideration, I can't comprehend how Rudy Giuliani can say "People have the right to bear arms," and then come out for any degree of gun control or regulation. If it's a RIGHT, that means it's not subject to the abusive regulations that are heaped on "privileges" like driver's licenses. If it's a right to BEAR arms, that doesn't mean keep them at home, or keep them locked up, or other abusive restrictions, it means a RIGHT to CARRY THEM AROUND ON YOUR PERSON. End of story. Period. So I can't comprehend what he's gassing on about with "regulations," once he's admitted a right to bear arms.

[Mr. Mojo]

Rudy to Sean: "So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate."

Gun-banning is inappropriate anywhere, Rudy.