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.
Banned. Guess he was wrong, to use your tagline.
Rudy's gun-grabbing will look awfully counterproductive the next time the Islamofascists kill Americans on our soil.
I'm not Jim, but here are MY answers to your simplistic and overly broad questions.
"1. So you think seven year olds, 2. the mentally ill, 3. the severely retarded, and 4. convicted felons ought to be able legally own and carry a firearm? 5.Do you believe a business has the right to prohibit anyone carrying a firearm from entering their premises? How about a 6. church or 7. government office?"
1. I got my first .22 at eight years of age, never committed any crime or vandalism with it. So if the kid is mature and responsible they can have all the guns they want.
At exactly what age do you grant children the right to defend themselves?
We had a kid locally who saved his mother, sister, and himself from probable death at the hands of a stalker who was attempting to beat his mother to death, only hours after the assailant was released from jail.
The kid was about nine as I recall, he killed the thug with a .22 rifle, after tackling him did not work.
2. Can you define your terms more narrowly? Some people might be technically "mentally Ill" who are actually quite sane and responsible. Raving lunatics clearly no, but your term is imprecise.
3. Severely retarded? Again, your question is unclear. Retarded only means behind the curve for "normal" mental development.
A thirty year old with the mental skills of a twelve year old could probably be trusted with arms if being retarded is their only problem.
4. Convicted Felons? Convicted of WHAT felony?
"Felony" now covers so many things that it is a wonder anyone has escaped the label!
Do all felons lose their right to defend themselves, or their families?
Is it OK to assault a felon's wife or children at will?
Are all felons marked for assault at the whim of anyone who feels like attacking them?
Your question is too broad.
5. Generally, NO! Such prohibitions only serve to make that business a "Target rich environment", leaving the workers defenseless when some nut does decide to commit mayhem.
6. Same as 5.
7. Generally the same as 5, and even then lockers should be available for checking your gun until you leave, as is done in Arizona.
There is nothing inherent in this remark by Rudy counter to Second Amendment issues as they now exist in law and practice.
There ARE restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms. These have been adjudged reasonable by society and especially by law enforcement bodies.
For example:
- Convicted felons are not permitted firearms.
- Those of us with Concealed Carry permits have gone through a background check to determine if applicants have a criminal record.
To read more into Rudy's statement(s) than is actually there is wrong. Period.
We might give just a little attention to what any of the Democrat Presidential candidates, especially Clinton, will do to the Second Amendment in coordination with a Democrat House and Senate.
I have come to despise the term "single issue voter", but our RKBA has been a VERY reliable litmus test for candidates.
If they are unable or unwilling to strongly protect our RKBA, they cannot be expected to protect any other of our rights, particularly our unenumerated rights.
"Gun Control" is a signature of totalitarian leaning vermin of all types.
As I have said before, "F" RUDY!
The election is TWO YEARS AWAY!
This overheated speculation on '08 is WAY too early, and despite my many disappointments with Bush I find this early hype utterly disrespectful to him and his office.
He's still the president for two more years, treating him as irrelevant is shameful on many levels.
I wouldn't be onboard with making you wear an armband of any sort... My suggestion for Rudy lovers would involve a bit of tar, some feathers and a ride out of town on a rail... but I have often been accused of being too soft hearted for my own good...
Jim,
I am going to say it again, this time forcefully: as a foreigner (not eligible to vote in the US) but extremely concerned with what is going on over there:
WHO IS THE RIGHT, THE "CONSERVATIVES", GOING TO FRONT???
So far, the Conservative Candidates to date will be eaten alive by either HillBilly or Obama. They won't even need to try hard.
This is a worrying thing, a matter of sincere concern to the rest of the Free World.
I know we don't get to vote, and that we don't also get to pay for the cost of your Democracy (or at least, not monetarily in a direct way)... but Shivers! The Conservative candidates so far have *got* to be a worry!
And the Liberal Candidates have *got* to be an international menace!
Kia Kaha
*Chieftain*
bookmarked
just to save us from a different gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, liberal lawyer from New York.
No thanks.
I'll bet some of the RINOs here are responsible for losing the House
and the Senate.
Just look what they've done and the damage they wish to cause.
/Bah
You make a very good point. We were just talking about that today.
you people need to understand that new york city is not like the rest of the country and you cannot govern NYC the way you would govern the rest of the country. i am a reagan republican and from what i am seeing rudy is the only one who can win the republican ticket. if you continue to chastise him you should get ready to repeat one phrase over and over:
PRESIDENT HILLARY.
i am a new york city cop and believe it or not, i am no fan of rudy. he did a lot to put us back decades in terms of a police force. but he did get results because he was so powerful of a mayor. all i am saying is give the man a chance.
The Democrats message and what it would result in should they win the election is all about defeat for America, tax increases, wealth redistribution, service crippling socialist health care systems, bankrupting SS (or us) instead of privatizing it, crippling our industries and economy over the phony baloney global warming malarkey, race baiting and pandering, loss of personal freedoms in regards to the first and second amendments and other basic rights, pushing for abortion "rights," gay marriage and other special gay "rights," etc, etc, etc.
In other words, their message is all about doom & gloom, pestilence & disease, perversion & godless degenerate society, the culture of death, surrender of our national sovereignty to foreign cutthroats and subservience to the United Nations and other socialist world bodies, while our message is about optimism for the future, victory over evil, prosperity, good health and freedom for our people.
We are about securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, secure in our unwavering belief in The Almighty and thankful for His blessings and gifts of life and liberty for us.
Our candidate well be a fully qualified, experienced, knowledgeable, articulate conservative of high character and integrity with the right message for America, which, not surprisingly, is 100% opposite to the democrat agenda and their socialist plans for us. At least, if we select the right candidate, his message will be 100% opposite to the socialist democrat agenda. That's the way we win. Give the electorate a clear choice and make sure they see the differences and understand the distinction.
It's kinda like the choice between living in a broken down third world socialist hell hole with no individual freedom and no prospects (say Cuba for example) and a shining city on the hill.
Keep the faith!
What capacity do/did you have with the Warthog?
C'mon, the man proudly bills himself as a social liberal. What do you think a social liberal is? Hint, he's not a conservative. Why do you try to deny his positions? He clearly states where he stands. He's for a "woman's right to choose," he's okay with half delivering, poking a sharp instrument into and sucking a helpless innocent unborn baby's brains out, for gay rights and for "regulating" guns. Constructionist judges? Sheesh, the man thinks Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a strict constructionist. Give us a break!
By the way, why do you think he's not worried about losing the conservative vote and not worried about admitting his social liberal ideology? It's because he hopes to attract millions of social liberals to his side. And what does that do to our conservative cause if he's elected? Think about it.
The only "regulation" which would be consistant with the 2nd Amendment would be specifications on what model and caliber of arms we, as the Militia, would be required to keep on hand.
Robert Morris! I went to a school named after him, when I lived in New Jersey.
Jim, you write:
> Keep the faith!
As they say, "from your lips to God's Ears." I do so sincerely hope that you are correct. Because it will take all of that and more to get America and the rest of the world on track, on time.
So now it comes down to finding the right Conservative candidate. Who???
That person has not yet appeared. If ever there was a case for Sir Galahad to arrive, as per the Arthurian Legends, now would be a pretty good time.
Kia Kaha (Maori: Stand Strong!)
and God Bless America,
and may He keep Her safe from all enemies
Domestic and Foreign.
But most of all, most importantly,
God Bless America.
*DieHard*
JulieAnnie will let you keep them all - you just won't be able to buy ammunition for any of them. He will see to it ammunition makers are sued out of existance since his suing gunmakers into extinction was canned.
BUTTTT, the POTUS does have the power to veto gun grabbing bills.
Will Guiliani veto such bills????
Judging from his past record, one would have to say NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
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.