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.
Thankfully, the reality is, at least for right now, those who would give such an order to our troops would be doing so at their peril.... That realization is one of the few things holding them in relative check. That may change.
Dadburnit and I was so excited. Always a bridesmaid never a bride. *sigh*
My best friend's great grandfather, Robert Morris, was one of the signers of both the Declaration and the Constitution. He not only owned weapons, he owned the most powerful weapons of mass destruction of the day: warships.
He mortgaged his mercantile empire, including his ships, to the French, in order to buy supplies to save the Continental Army at a little place called Valley Forge. He was never able to recover his capital, either, and died a pauper.
He certainly knew that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. Game, anyway.
"Plenty of marginal restrictions on guns have been passed (and some ridiculous ones), yet conceal carry and shall issue has spread to several more states during the last 2 decades..."
The problem here is that, little by little, an unqualified RIGHT is being converted into a VERY qualified and regulated PRIVILEGE. When Gov't at any level demands that you get their PERMISSION to exercise your RIGHTS, it is no longer then a right but a privilege, subject to withdrawal at the whim of the next session of the legislature or some "executive action" or other by the mayor, governor or president. Thus it is very dangerous to consider these things "wins" for our side.
I agree with you.
The Pubbie Party lost because they were too busy becoming Rats Lite. They were seeking power simply to exercise it, not to reduce government, which was both their original goal and the mandate they got starting in '94. They pissed on their base and the base didn't stand for it any more. Then the middle decided, apparently, that they'd rather have RATS than RATS Lite.
I think what I said on 9-14-02 is still quite apt, in the context of the continuing threat from Islamist terrorists, and this thread:
*SNIP*
I know it isn’t PC to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway, because it is the truth—and it is a truth that every American had better understand—the sooner the better: Islam doesn’t mean ‘peace’, as some claim—it means ‘submission’. They have made no secret of the fact that their goal is to enslave the entire world—and that their plan for those who won’t submit to their tyrannical rule is the same fate suffered by nearly 3000 Americans just 368 days ago. In short, Islam is incompatible with our American institutions of government.
No, my friends, they didn’t serve God when they walked up behind the pilots of those planes and slit their throats, starting the process that would lead to even greater horrors—men, women, and children trapped in burning towers—helpless to escape—some being forced to jump to a certain death rather than endure being burned alive.
They didn’t serve God when they cut off Daniel Pearl’s head live on videotape.
They don’t serve God when they walk onto a crowded bus or a busy pizzeria in Tel Aviv and detonate explosives that are full of nails and rat poison—designed to cause as much suffering to their innocent victims as possible. Well—actually they do serve ‘A’ ‘god’—the god of death and destruction—but certainly not the true and living God who said, “Love one another”.
Now, let me contrast their hideous acts to what was demonstrated by Americans on 9-11:
Firemen and policemen going up the stairs when everyone else was going down; office workers who, instead of taking their chance to escape, stayed to try and help others get out of the doomed buildings; the heroic passengers of Flight 93, who, when they learned what had happened to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, immediately knew that the hijackers were in all likelihood taking their aircraft to a similar target, probably the Capitol or the White House.
So, what did they do? Did they do what crews and passengers of hijacked planes have always been advised to do, and what the poor crew and passengers on the other three flights did; stay cool, go along with them, and wait for the cavalry to come charging in to save them? NO, they had the information—the intelligence—they needed to know that the war had changed—the enemy had changed the rules. They also knew that ‘the government’ wasn’t going to help them. They knew there wasn’t a policeman on the corner who was going to come with sirens blaring and strobe lights flashing.
So, they, like other Americans before them, formed a militia on the spot--choosing leaders and instantly deciding on the mission. They knew that if they failed to overpower the terrorists, one of our national landmarks would very likely be destroyed, and thousands of people were probably going to die. So, they looked around for any weapon they could find—and settled for what they had—a serving cart, and dishes of boiling water heated up in the microwave, and their bare hands—they waited for their moment, and then attacked when they heard the now famous words, “Let’s roll!”
You know the rest; they paid for their defiance with their lives; but God only knows how many lives they saved that day in Washington, D.C.
I'm offended at those who would, through lying spindoctoring, make a gungrabber like Giuliani into some sort of "hero" of the fight against terrorists.
Those who would hamper the American people's right to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their country are traitors, not heroes.
In America, the people are sovereign. We are the government. In the final analysis, only we can guarantee our own safety, the survival of our republican form of government, and the security, freedom and prosperity of our posterity.
It's very easy to forget, but the only people who stopped terrorists, killed terrorists, on 9-11-2001 were regular citizens who went to war, no matter the odds, no matter the resources, no matter the chances of success. They saw that they had no choice, and found the courage to act.
They've provided the one great example of our day. We'd be wise to follow it.
There are a few of us around who have said for some time that Rudy is not the gunowners friend. Thanks for posting this.
Wow, are you and your pal like, 150 years old? 125?
I agree. Shall-issue concealed carry is a must.
Declare 'open season' on violent criminals with castle doctrine laws, and laws which ensure no criminal can sue an individual for injuries they receive while involved in the commission of a crime.
There should be enough data out there to prove what really works, and disarming honest folks has never been the answer.
Add a few 'greats'.
NOT New York? How can Bloomberg justify his anti-gun, anti-RKBA actions, then?
Different rules?
Yep, heard that before. Some animals are 'more equal' than others...
RUDY? FUHGEDABOUDIT!
Looks just like him, too. And no, I didn't see it for myself! ;-)
On the walls of the National Archives, where they have the founding documents, they have a portrait of all of the signers of both documents, one on each side. Robert Morris is in both pics.
The older my friend gets, the more he is the spitting image of his forebear. Pretty cool.
Banned.
"I didn't call anyone redneck wackos but the said stereotype is being promoted when gun owners worry about a Republican presidential candidate who'll probably do next to nothing about guns."
Key word here is PROBABLY do next to nothing. I refuse to take that chance. His record is clear enough, though his responses to that hannity sycophant were about as clear as mud... I'm going with his record, thanks. NO to McGiuliRomney, always and forever. He and they are unfit to hold any further public office and ESPECIALLY that of POTUS.
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.