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.
Thanks, but JimRob posted that comment originally. I simply replied to it that apparently Rudy understands everything except for the part that is written in English.
I'm just confused.........
The republicans lost the house and senate, in danger of losing the white house and further judiciary appointments in the next few years.
The best they can do is Rudy?
What part of conservatism do they not understand?
BINGO!
They'll shout "Well do you want Hillary instead?" Like those were the only two choices. (Though actually I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two on issues)
You have a lot of nerve, injecting fact and reason into this dustup! :^)
Apparently all of it.
Hey, Abundy, great to see you here again!
Almost a thousand post! I would say that MOST conservatives are going to protect their weapons above all else. Not a bad idea to start there.
Thanks for the great job that you do for all of us.
I note the level of support for Giuliani on FR and I am puzzled by it. Certainly all the Rudy fans here cannot be trolls and liberal moles. A large part of his support here seems to derive not from conservative beliefs and rational arguments, but from a cult of personality following. Disturbing.
Hard to keep track on a thread with almost 1000 posts.
So let's keep on reposting a beautiful defense of the Second: "What part of the people's right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does Rudy NOT understand?"
:-P
I heard him on Hannity's radio show and he said he felt gun control had been effective in NY. He also said it's different for each region and that each should decide for themselves.
But, how do you 'demonstrate need' for a weapon? And why should you have to?
In saying this he implicitly denies that you have rights. If he's for majority decisions in different areas, then he's saying that there isn't any fundamental right that supersedes the tyranny of the majority.
I've made the same observation myself. It's bad enough that so many people are willing to jettison core conservative beliefs to support the guy. But too many are turning around and trashing those beliefs as well, in a warped effort to somehow make Rudy seem more "electable" by saying his critics are misguided idiots. I've seen the motives of pro-life groups inpugned. Gun-rights activists accused of wanting guns to kill those who disagree with them. Critics of Rudy's gay rights beliefs referred to as Klan. It's really a sorry display, and it makes me wonder whether the conservatism of some people here is a mile wide and an inch deep. Or whether that inch of water has just dried up and shown the muck that lies beneath.
i am really surprised at some of the Rudybots myself. If you look back at their old post they are really pretty conservative. My belief is that they have fallen into the trap of the MSM. That is a dangerous place for Republicans to be.
I guess you have to get robbed first. Kind of a counterproductive approach if you ask me.
lol
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.