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.
Whatever Jim.
Rudy worked within his perimeters. NYC is simply not Texas. I'm sorry that Rudy wasn't an out-and-out conservative, but the thousands of minority lives, other potential victims, the babies not worrying about their daddies being killed or in prison, and the businesses that flocked back to NYC says otherwise.
Rudy also is one of the few Republican candidates who support the troop surge 100%. While the Republicans in the Senate were busy wringing their hands and sticking the ole finger in the wind, Rudy supported the President.
Lots and lots and lots. I do not handle the fireworks. lol
Exersize? Ah yes, its the "post, lunge, downward step, flip, turn, stir, upward climb, sit, refresh and repeat" exersize plan. burns lots of calories LOL
You're talking to a woman who has smokes laying all over the place, a half eaten box of Whitman's, a bag of chocolate donut gems, a container of Oreo's and cheetos sitting next to her. We won't talk about the tootsie rolls in my desk drawers.
I imagine I do all you do in the way of exercising when reaching for my stash. Just not on the same scale or recieving the same results as you probably get.
Id gladly swapped you for the wings
I shouldn't have dipped them in all that Tobasco sauce. Damn Dragon sitting in my chest. :-)
You're welcome. I know they do too. Bless them all.
Amen.
I agree with your firm stance on the Second Amendment.
Are you sure? That sounds too close to hemorrhoids.
B/S.
Rudy doesn't support the troop surge Jim?
The Constitution is a specific LIMIT ON THE POWER AND AUTHORITY GRANTED TO GOVERNMENT. It spells out what government (mostly but not strictly limited to FedGov) is ALLOWED to do. Then the Tenth Amendment says that if some authority is not specifically granted to FedGov, then that authority is NOT THEIRS TO EXERCISE, period. Simple. Easy to understand. But 90% of the power exercised by FedGov (and the States) is usurped and unconstitutional. And your buddy, Rudy, is just another big government usurper.
My post also ended with an "/s" for the humorously impaired.
Since then, I've been pointed daily by FReeper friends to posts all over this board by Peach and other of her harpie friends who have been lying about the whole thing (not pinging me either in order to defend myself).
Frankly, I'm sick of it and would like it stopped.
Well, you're right. Rudy's a RINO. I'll just donate my $100 million to Duncan Hunter's campaign then.
He wants to be the "TV Wyatt Earp". "Leave your firearms at the picket line..."
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.""
Those are both bad, very bad positions. Maybe show-stoppers. However the present Republican President also said he would sign an assault weapons ban were it given to him and he was the one who actually signed McCain-Feingold into law. So you're actually saying he's no worse than Bush.
Yeeeehawwww. When can I let the Hunter campaign know about your generous donation?
It'll be awhile, I just have to dig deep underneath my mattresses and car seats.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong. I doubt Ron Paul (the libertarian with a big "R" after his name) supports the surge, but are there any others?
Which in essence means that ANY regulation is utterly INconsistent with 2A. The ONLY legitimate form of regulation is when cities or states set rules on when and where weapons may be discharged in other than emergencies. There is NO role for FedGov in any of this, except for the militia part... since by law and custom, the General Militia is every able bodied male, 18 to 45 or better and females who are also part of the organized militia (National Guard and State militias), FedGov does have a constitutional role in ensuring that the whole of the Militia does have a sufficiency of weapons, ammunition for same, and some training in the use thereof. That's it and all. During the early days of the nation, it was mostly a "come as you are with what you own" sort of thing. You were expected to have a rifle and a minimum number of rounds for it, or a cannon or something to bring to the party.
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.