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 ...
Who appointed Bill Bratton?
Even Al Gore knew to keep his mouth shut on the Gun Control issue.
"...but they also shouldn't be asking NYC to be forced to accept the same gun laws Texas has"
One cannot force freedoms on another. If NYC was "forced" to have Texas-style gun laws, that would simply mean an elimination of many restrictions. How does slimination of restrictions constitute force?
Also: everywhere CCW laws have been passed, the armed citizenry has contributed to a drastic decrease in violent crime. You think this would be different in NY?
["...do you realize how many 18 year old inner city "youths" would be carrying guns if they were as easy to buy as a can of soda,.."]
First off, when crimes are committed, if these crimes require the use of a gun, the 18 year old "youth" can already get one. It's only those who obey the law who are restricted.
["...such a system allows for no proactive use of law enforcement,.."]
You mean, if a person who had no restriction on the ability to carry a gun, ie someone who'd never been convicted of a violent crime, was actually armed, the police couldn't arrest them. Oh, the humanity.
If you're referring to ANYONE being allowed to carry, including violent offenders, then it is YOU who is misreading our system of law: through due process, a person can be stripped of any constitutional right, including the 2nd amendment.
["...the only check on such a system is that I have to carry my own gun and make like Wyatt Earp..."]
No, you can rely on the law, just as you now do. The only difference is that you may also, if you wish, arm yourself to defend your own life. You think criminals will only carry guns if it's legal for everyone, apparently.
["...that system may work very well for people in the rest of the country I don't want it in an urban environment...]
Fine, as long as you don't thrust that opinion on everybody else. It's not the pro 2nd amendment folks who are forcing anything on anyone, it's the gun-grabbers who are forcing themselves on us. There's nothing wrong with allowing people the freedom to defend themselves.
You obviously think that the law is going to prevent criminals from carrying guns, but all it is able to do is prevent those who OBEY the law from carrying guns.
"...if I could get a CCW permit in NYC, so could some 18 year old inner city youth gangbanger or MS13 member with no criminal record..."
Ok, so it's best if ONLY the MS13 gang member can get a gun, eh? Oh sure, you could too... if you don't mind risking jail, as it stands now.
Heck, the MS13 guy is already armed. Your solution is to have the police arrest you, if you also choose to be armed?
"...if I give it to him legally - I remove the ability of law enforcement to proactively fight gun crime..."
So, anyone who belongs to a gang is going to be arrested before they commit a gun crime, as it now stands? How's that been working, so far? Got all those gangs unarmed, or arrested yet?
You seem capable of evading any logic on this matter. The law cannot prevent criminals from arming themselves, it can only prevent the law-abiding from arming themselves.
NYC is essentially a giant victim-disarmament zone, thanks to people like you and Rudy.
"A cop can't do anything to him for weapons possession, they have to wait until AFTER he commits a crime with that gun. that's not what people, in an urban environment, expect..."
Like most gun-grabbers, you are woefully uneducated on the truth. Over 2 million crimes are PREVENTED, every year, by armed citizens. How many crimes are PREVENTED by law enforcement every year?
If you are relying on the police to protect you, then you are going to be in for a rude awakening if ever attacked.
Who will protect your family, if someone breaks into your house? Can you stop a killer with your phone? Can you pull a rapist off your wife/daughter with the 9-1-1 buttons? How long does it take the police to respond to a parking lot mugging? A car jacking?
You are living in a dream world, oceanview, where the police can actually SAVE you.
You are sadly mistaken. 6 people were killed by a shotgun weilding maniac, and many more wounded, in Salt Lake City today. None of those victims had a chance to shoot back, because gun-grabbers and their enabling media hacks have disarmed most of the law-abiding public, one way or another.
If ANYONE there had been armed, aside from the maniac, lives could have been saved.
If you're too chicken to arm yourself for self-defense, don't keep the rest of us from that right.
"Ok, so it's best if ONLY the MS13 gang member can get a gun, eh? Oh sure, you could too... if you don't mind risking jail, as it stands now. Heck, the MS13 guy is already armed"
The MS13 member who is armed now - is armed illegally. So if he's out on the streets carrying that gun, he's subject to police stop and frisk. If he could carry that gun legally, the only time the police could touch him - is AFTER he used that gun to commit a crime, not before.
You're absolutely right. We should all considered guilty until we prove our innocence.
But the difference is, if I give it to him legally - I remove the ability of law enforcement to proactively fight gun crime.
So if someone has a legal gun and uses it to rob a bank, that isn't a crime because they have a legal gun? Using your "logic", none of us would be allowed to drive because sometimes cars are used in the commission of crimes.
no, it simply means that if 50% of your populace are carrying legal guns - you can forget about policing against the "bad guys" using gun possession as a reason.
so when I walk into - let's say a mall in Utah - with a gun, law enforcement doesn't approach me. Only when I open fire on the crowd, can they do anything to me. The victims wanted the crime thwarted BEFORE it happened.
Nonsense. If 95 percent of the people drive cars, does that mean the cops can't crack down on illegal driving?
["Only when I open fire on the crowd, can they do anything to me. The victims wanted the crime thwarted BEFORE it happened."]
So, is that what happened? Was it thwarted BEFORE it happened?
No. Because the victims were all disarmed by their government. By such well-meaning nannies, who only want to do to us what they think is best for us.
So, forget the right to protect yourself... it could lead to bad people carrying dangerous weapons, with no consequences.
So, how's that working out for those victims? Were they all grateful that they were disarmed, when the bullets were flying?
actually - that's my point. when murders in NYC went from 2200 a year to 700, those were 1500 dead people that DIDN'T DIE - their killings were thwarted BEFORE they occurred. not each individually, but collectively, the crime reductions meant they didn't die. and it didn't require arming 5 million people.
This is exactly why I am getting my AR-15 with a 30 round clip before 2008
I never said that an armed citizenry was the ONLY tactic to decrease crime. It is, however, the most effective. "An armed populace is a polite one," is, I believe, how the old saying goes.
But, by all means, continue to put criminal miscreants behind bars, and keep them there as another tactic. I have no problem with Rudy's OTHER tactics. Imagine how effective they would have been, if combined with a "must issue" CCW law.
and all I am saying is - yes, I agree with you that's its effective - in most places. let the citizenry decide through the election process, what their CCW laws should be.
the only 2A issue I have a problem with - is the issue of straw purchases - people who buy larger quantities of guns in "loose" states, then bring them in to sell them on the street in urban areas. what do you do about that problem? let's face it, people who do this aren't exercising their 2A right, they are trafficking in guns.
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
"In fact, the Second Amendment clearly gives each and every American a RIGHT that the federal government doesn't even have!"
I have to take issue with this... the Second Amendment does not GIVE us ANYTHING. It merely requires the government to recognize a PREEXISTING right, granted by our Creator. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant ANYTHING to We, the People. Rather it is a grant of authority FROM We, the People TO government, to do certain, VERY LIMITED things in our names and on our behalf. Government is our agent, and like any other agent, may do NOTHING MORE than what is in the grant of authority. There is one further caveat: No agent may EVER do anything beyond what his principal may properly do himself. In other words, I cannot hire someone to do what I myself may not legitimately and properly do and if my agent goes beyond his limited grant of authority, he becomes a rogue and an outlaw himself. Other than this quibble, your post is correct and well said.
you realize that even the NRA doesn't want to challenge the idea that the 2A, as applied to the states, provides a blanket right - as you say in your post: "EVERY current gun law in this nation fails that simple test".
now, this is not to say that there aren't some legitimate concerns with Rudy over 2A issues. But there is no republican candidate who believes what you posted.
I hardly care what the NRA does or doesn't do. They are NOT on the side of the Constitution, most of the time. They are just scared that their HUNTING rifle or shotgun might get taken away. But they are willing to compromise away virtually every other part of 2A. Just like you seem to be.
If you want to see a gun-rights group that WON'T compromise, look at JPFO.org and see what they have to say. I guarantee you a gun-grabber such as you seem to be will have nightmares about them. Also, we had Emerson which the NRA did not support but a LOT of us did, which the Supremes ducked because they did not want to have to rule against the gun-grabbers.
And there is at least ONE Republican candidate who DOES believe the Second Amendment (as well as the whole Constitution thingy) means EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. That candidate has my wholehearted and unstinting support.
The Congress is authorized to grant letters of Marquis and Reprisal ~ that is, to contract with private parties to bring in the really big guns.
Reading the intent and understanding of the Founders, it's pretty clear the right of private individuals to have any sort of weapon they wish is recognized in the Second, and the limitation on the federal government in regard to the same sort of weapons is necessarily limited in the authority for the "letters".
Obviously it's not all that realistic for a private individual to own and rent out modern aircraft carriers, but virtually the entirity of the military equipment industry is privately owned.
This is not the case in other countries.
I am aware of all that you stated and I agree with it wholeheartedly! My sole criticism was just that one tiny thing.
I would love to be able to afford the toys I used to play with --AND have the land to play with them ON!!! The M-79 Blooper, Ontos, the old 3.5" Bazooka, flamethrower, Ma Deuce, and so forth... The 106mm recoilless with the .50 cal spotting rifle... the one that sent the message, "Hey, if you don't like THIS, you SURE ain't gonna like what's coming next!!"
We have disagreed on some things, but on this we are united!
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.