Posted on 02/18/2007 12:46:51 PM PST by dirtboy
Rudy Giuliani's interview on Hannity and Colmes, 2/6/2007
HANNITY: Generally speaking do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment
If there is a terror attack involving guns on US soil during the tenure of a President Rudolph Giuliani, will President Giuliani adhere to the sentiments about the right to bear arms that he expressed recently during his Hannity and Colmes interview? Or be more inclined to respond similar to his actions as mayor of New York City when his administration took guns away from long-term permit holders who had never engaged in wrongdoing? Some would say that we should listen to what a candidate says. Others say we should look at what a candidate has done in the past. As it so happens, Rudy did have a chance to express his opinions about what he thought was the proper federal response to a terrorism attack involving guns. The attack in question happened February 23, 1997 when a Palestinian opened fire on tourists at the observation deck of the Empire State Building. One person was killed and several injured. A note found on the terrorist said the attack was punishment against the "enemies of Palestine." So how did Mayor Giuliani respond to this attack? By calling for gun control and supporting Bill Clinton's proposed gun control law?.
Citizens Crime Comission
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
1095 Avenue of the Americas
March 6, 1997, 8:15 a.m.
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building.
The Empire State Building is such an important landmark... such an important symbol of America that, like so many other places in New York City, when a tragedy happens there, it receives a great deal of attention in the media.
[snip]
Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is gun control.
And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
[snip]
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements.
[snip]
I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can.
I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue. ---
-----------------
Now, Rudy Giuliani has said recently that federalism dictates that New York and New York City should be able to pursue avenues of gun control that are not needed in more rural areas. However, he did not adhere to that federalist sentiment in response to this terror attack
At City Hall, Mayor Giuliani attempted to shift the focus toward gun control. He was accompanied by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train that killed six people and wounded 17. In both that incident and Sunday's shooting, the gunmen circumvented New York's strict gun control laws by traveling out of state to buy the murder weapons, officials said.
"New York State, New York City have great gun control laws," Rep. McCarthy said. "But as the mayor said, we cannot control all the guns that are coming in from other parts of the country and that's what has to be stopped."
----------------
So voters concerned about the Second Amendment have to decide if what candidate Giuliani says now carries more weight than what Mayor Giuliani did back then. Candidate Giuliani recently said that gun control was a state issue. But Mayor Giuliani had no problem wanting to use federal power to overrule state laws about gun rights.
Gun rights advocates rightly decried efforts by groups such as the Brady Center and Handgun Control Inc. to exploit school shooting tragedies to push for gun control laws that had no relevance to the shootings.
And here we have Mayor Giuliani ... exploiting tragedy to push for gun control laws. And asking that gun control not just be applied to New York City, but other states. In complete opposition to his stated fealty to federalism when it comes to gun control laws.
So those who are concerned about 2nd Amendent rights to bear arms in self-defense, both of homes and of society when confronted in public by criminals and possibly terrorists, must decide what carries more weight.
What Rudy Giuliani says now as he runs for president. Or what he has done in the past.
Because the gun-grabbers are still out there, pushing for more laws, despite what Giuliani's posters claim to the contrary, that gun control is a dead issue. In response to the latest Salt Lake City shooting, Carolyn McCarthy was again calling for more gun control laws. So if Rudy Giuliani becomes president in January 2009, and there is a school shooting two months later, will he resist call for gun control? Or stand with Carolyn McCarthy as he did in 1997, exploiting tragedy to call for more federal gun control laws?
Slow down a second. Lot`s of us are life long Republicans and gun owners. I don`t want to have to hide my weapons and, so far, I don`t see Rudy wanting to and, even if he did, he can`t. But, that`s not the big issue, it`s the War on Terrorism and protecting our troops. The rest is secondary. Is that so hard to understand?
I hid some of mine, for 8 long years. My point is that if Rudy is claiming to be a republican, there must be some standard of proof. You seem to expect a pledge from me, but you won't get one.
It all boils down to how much Rudy really cares about the republican party, and republican ideals, I don't need to prove myself.
If I were in NYC, at this moment, I would have just committed a felony, I walked out to my mailbox, with an S&W M-59 on my belt. Hell, it even has one of those "assault magazines" in it, 14 rounds of "cop killer" hollow points. I didn't make those names up, but some damn fool in New York likely did! Damned old gun isn't "registered" either! It isn't going to be.
Are you purposely being obtuse? You speak as though I was threatening Rudy. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I'm confusing you, best we drop the conversation. Just don't ask me what I intend to do come election day, that is still up for grabs.
He says he is, so that should settle it. (/sarcasm) You know Rudy is a Republican just like Bloomberg is and Olympia Snowe is and Arlen Spectre is....
L
So he never created any gun laws? I thought he was a gun grabber. He used existing laws. As I pointed out in another thread....we have a loop hole here in florida that has allowed many convicted child molesters and other convicted felons to legally conceal and carry guns. Crist is now working to close that loophole. Is he a gun grabber too?
.....And George W. Bush.....
Great research, and very powerful material. If you have a ping list for these, I'd like to be added.
L
Nonsense. If we had a President that during a SOTU Address called on Congress to pass comprehensive gun control, would you still the issue is overblown? And what's worse, if the President is a Republican the chances of a procedural move to block the legislation in Congress will be nil.
Before January 2001 I seem to recall that this site believed that morals and ethics mattered in a President. It's sad to see people contort their logic to allow for that which we fought so hard against, all to allow "their team" to win.
First of all, Rudy took guns away from long-term NYC permit holders, backed Clinton-sponsored gun control legislation, supported assault-weapons bans and stringent restrictions on hangun ownership, and sued gun manufacturers. So his past is not consisent with your beliefs.
But, that`s not the big issue, it`s the War on Terrorism and protecting our troops. The rest is secondary. Is that so hard to understand?
First of all, a strong majority of the current candidates support the WOT. Second, I have seen nothing in Rudy's past that shows he is the best, let alone the only, guy to lead such - his one main contribution to the WOT was to push a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country. And third, gun rights are a critical and integral part of fighting terror AND crime - had pilots been armed during 9-11, 9-11 would never have happened - thugs with box cutters would not have been able to commandeer the planes. Likewise, many terror attacks will be better countered if more private citizens are carrying heat.
I don't ever see a real 100% die hard conservative ever making it again. The country is full (and constantly growing) of immigrants and illegals who want handouts. The Liberals have succeeded in dumbing down our schools and created a generation of whiny spoiled and stupid kids who don't care about 'America'.
You know....I think ALL of us want the best conservative possible to win. But what are the chances Duncan can beat Hillary? What about Newt? Now take a look at Rudi. What's your solution besides just trashing Rudi?
So let me get this straight. You are concerned about illegals. As you should be.
Rudy fought federal law and federal court rulings to stop NYC's sanctuary city policy. He even defied the courts when SCOTUS refused to hear a lower court ruling telling him to stop. And he's in favor of amnesty as well.
So Rudy is a key part of the pro-illegal cabal that helped create this mess in the first place. And you want to support him? That makes no sense.
The problem is, Rudy is no solution. He will not be able to hold the party together - he's just too far left on too many key issues. He will not pull in pro-life Catholic Dems. He will not pull in pro-gun rural Dems. In other words, he cannot deliver the old Reagan coalition - far from it, he will splinter it.
I don't know what the answer is. But I do know what it ISN'T.
I think you need to concentrate on POSITIVE threads endorsing someone else instead of putting down the only chance we have of defeating the dems....you're only working against us beating this same drum over and over.
Gawd, I have shown time and time again how Rudy has worked against core conservative issues - you raised the matter of illegals here. And instead of acknowleedging such, you just fall back to the bleat "He's the only one who can beat Hillary! Yet that too is a fiction.
History has shown that a leftward drift of the GOP leads to losses. And Rudy already ran once against Hillary - and could never outpoll her, even though he was the sitting mayor of NYC and she was a carpetbagger.
you're only working against us beating this same drum over and over.
You are damn right I am working against you. You seek to take the GOP into oblivion. And I keep banging the same drum over and over again BECAUSE YOU AND SO MANY OTHER RUDY BOOSTERS REFUSE TO SEE HOW YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS SHOW HE IS UNFIT TO BE THE NOMINEE.
Then don't do Hillary's bidding by pushing a candidate guaranteed to split the GOP. She's counting on that.
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.