Posted on 02/11/2007 1:33:49 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Giuliani: Gun control helped lower crime
5 minutes ago
Rudy Giuliani addressed a potentially troublesome issue with conservative voters, saying his policies as mayor to get handguns off the street helped reduce crime in New York.
"I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."
He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.
Addressing another potential trouble spot with conservatives, Giuliani spoke in favor of a border fence, saying, "You have to have secure borders, you have to have a fence, and the fence I think has to be a highly technological one."
The nation needs to know, he said, who is coming into the country and why. But he provided scant details on how he would deal with illegal immigrants already in the country. Citizens, he added, should be able to read and write English.
Giuliani was to make an address Monday in Silicon Valley and he was to appear Tuesday at an agricultural fair in the Central Valley.
Asked when he would make a formal announcement that he is a candidate for the Republican nomination, Giuliani said: "Well, formally announce? I don't know."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That's right. Since when is prior restraint valid, or conviction w/o trial? Since when has reducing the entire population down to the lowest common denominator a good thing?"and the gang may be criminal enterprise"
May be? They are criminal enterprises! There's none that aren't.
" how do I know who is a member? "
It's never been all that difficult for me to tell.
"you are right, many urban police forces don't work well. and in those situations I agree with you, the choice between an ineffective police force, and broad gun carrying is an easy one - I'll take the gun."
It has nothing to do with ineffective police at all. It has to do with Freedom and a person's right to defend themselves. No one is justified in taking that right away, regardless. Criminals don't hit when they note police are around, or when it look dangerous for them. they hit when one least expects it, as a sneak attack, or after they size up an easy mark.
"Rudy didn't reduce murders in NYC from 2200+ to 700, by arming 5 million people."
He didn't reduce it by taking the guns away and leaving folks defenseless either. In fact he increased the number of those folks that got hit, because they were defenseless. Remember Bernard Goetz. How many times was he beaten, and had his gear stolen, or destroyed before he decided to mount the "illegal" self defense? He shot the perps, because they were going to stick him with a screwdriver. The bliss ninnies in NY got on him hard for that, because he was "violent". So, they held a candle light vigil party for the poor victim perps.
Also, the crime reduction resulted from the institution of aggressive police action, which replaced the former laxity. Again, disarming the citizens did nothing, except ot leave them vulnerable.
I'm with you - I did it in 2000, 2004, and 2006 (with that RINO Corker who shouldn't have even been on the ballot) and I won't do it any more. I've already cut the party off from any financial support. I will support individual candidates only, and they'd better be conservative.
yes, we might be able to "tell" who is a gang member - but we aren't going to be able to say "you don't look like you should get a carry permit, we don't like your haircut and tattoo".
the "stop and frisk" policy was the single most effective thing NYPD did to lower crime. why did it work? because it put some fear into all these thugs carry guns, that they would be profiled and stopped by the police for little cause, and if the gun were found they were going to do time. so they stopped carrying them. other urban police forces will not do that, NYC didn't do that in the past either.
you will not be able to recover the country from a Dem serving two terms in 2008/2012. you'll get a national health care plan, and once americans are slid into it and lose their employer provided care - the program will never be able to be dismantled. if a Dem wins in 2008, those SCOTUS picks will effectively end any conservative advancement on the social issues (abortion, gay marriage) until 2040.
Finally! Someone posts a viable couple of candidates that conservatives can get behind. Hunter/Gingrich or vice versa.
And don't give me that BS about Newt's baggage, as Rudy and McCain are carrying much more than he. Wait til he gets a chance to be in a debate with them and he will set things straight, with who really has the conservative bona fides.
21 y/o, clean record, then he should get the permit. That's the way a just govm't and Freedom works. I don't see any criminal activity being done by permit holders anywhere that's not resulted in the permit being revoked, and those rare instances didn't involve shooting during criminal action. Ever read Lott's More Guns, Less Crime?
" "stop and frisk" ...other urban police forces will not do that,"
They do it all the time, as they see fit. I've been in felony stops in these places, for simply having an NRA sticker.
"because it put some fear into all these thugs carry guns,"
They were illegal. Then the citizens were disarmed, and left up to the mercy of both kinds of thugs. Remember Goetz?
"so they stopped carrying them."
No, most left town.
"Gun control helped lower crime"
You continue to believe that, Rudi, you RINO.
Setting aside the Constitutional argument right now for the sake of discussion: I live in an urban area, and the RKBA works here to prevent crime and help residents protect themselves.
But let's accept that because of its size and unique character, NYC requires very different governance than the rest of the country. Doesn't that mean, by definition, that Rudy's experience as NYC mayor isn't relevant to the experience he would need to lead the entire country (Texas and its loose gun laws included)?
on abortion and gay civil unions - at best those are going to be decided by the states. most states that have put the gay issue to the voters, it has been defeated. abortion is one SCOTUS pick away from returning to the states as well. but if a Dem wins in 2008, forget those two issues - they are gone. Roe will remain in place, and the federal defense of marriage act will go.
The Rx program for medicare was a logical extension of it, given how prevalent drugs are to treat illnesses today.
the republican House was the only body standing in the way of amnesty - and enough conservatives "sent a message" in 2006, and shot themselves in the foot by helping to oust the one body that was blocking it. that's a perfect example of how the "cutting off your nose to spite your face" approach in politics doesn't work too well.
I don't think RKBA is a social issue -- I'm a small government conservative with little interest in seeing the federal government meddle in social concerns, yet Constitutional issues such as the Second Amendment are central to me.
The problem is, social conservatives are a fair-sized segment, and small-government/fiscal conservatives are a fair-sized segment, but the two are often in opposition. Would it be possible to find common ground by electing a fiscally conservative president who would send social issues to the state level? Yes, that would preclude passing social conservative bills on the federal level, but it would also mean that federal-level liberal mandates would (inlcuding Roe) would be opposed. I'm interested in your thoughts.
when he proposes federal gun control restrictions like NYC has - for everyone - then we'll talk.
the most likely outcome on this issue would be - the status quo. if Rudy were to be president, the status quo on the gun issue would be retained, I doubt it would move in either direction.
what has Bush done on the gun issue?
they were "illegal guns" - yes, because they couldn't get permits for them. but allow an easy permit process in a place like NYC, and they would. oh sure, we'll revoke that permit after they conduct their first killing or robbery - once they are caught and convicted. again, that's not the expectation people have regarding effective urban policing.
That's kinda what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
even the NRA doesn't believe that, or won't dare test it in federal court.
So basically, you don't trust minorities with guns.
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.