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?
It is still early....maybe Duncan or some other Superstar will shine through.
He was mayor, not Governor, or President, or a Judge so to my knowledge he didn't "create" law.
He did revoke the handgun permits of many formerly law abiding NYC residents, turning them into instant criminals unless the surrendered their handguns.
He did file a large civil suit against legal firearm manufacturers, which went no where, but was an attempt by the Mayor of NYC to "legislate" throughout the country.
He is supportive of ugly, aka assault, weapon bans, as well as handgun bans on a local and state level. That's irrelevant as Mayor, a significant issue as President.
As to Florida allowing felons and child molesters to posess firarms, in violation of federal and I'm sure state law, I don't believe you.
If felons posess firearms in Florida, and of course some do, that's a failure of law enforcement. And the greater the failure, imo the greater the need for citizens of Florida to have the means to protect themselves.
Rudy's position would simply be to ban firearms in florida.
Read your own article.
Unfortunately these are not felons individuals, they should be, but sentences were pled down or withheld.
Legal experts said judges typically withhold convictions of first-time offenders so they are not forever branded convicted felons. But the practice has extended to repeat offenders as courts grapple with clogged dockets."It's a quicker way to resolve cases," said Sen. Democratic Whip Dave Aronberg, of Greenacres, a former assistant attorney general.
That's not a loophole, it's lazy, inefficient law enforcement. The solution has nothing to do with guns. You should write your state representative and Governer and let him know how you feel. But it's not a federal or gun control problem.
It's worth noting unconvicted, unarmed child molesters are a risk too. They should be in jail, not walking the streets. Shame on Florida.
So, you're in favor of withholding guns to these people? Taking them away?
These people are people who may have been arrested for a crime, charged, but not convicted of a felony which would criminalize firearms ownership under federal law, or a crime which would bar it under state law.
So no, I'm not in favor of barring their right to own firearms because in the eyes of the judicial system they haven't done anything to warrant that.
The judges and prosecutors involved know full well what they're doing, and that's where the criticism should be aimed. As I noted earlier, the danger of an "unconvicted" child molester roaming the streets doesn't lie in the possibility he might buy a gun, rather the probability he might molest again.
The response has been strong, don't count him out.
You do know that Rudy also has not announced, but he's running?
OTOH, not only has Newt done NOTHING ( no lining up of big money, political backing, forming teams ) he has been in PRIVATE talks with Rudy and Rudy's team.
If Newt DOES eventually enter the GOP presidential primary, he's not nearly as intelligent as people claim he is. He has a 64% negative rating and more than a 50% negative rating amongst GOP voters. HE CAN NOT WIN THE PRIMARY!
Gingrich is getting a lot of exposer, getting positive reviews from ALL quarters, speaks brilliantly, and surprising most with his common sense. There are hurdles even with me, but I don't count him out.
Newt has done every thing, except make a formal announcement, which is coming after labor day.
:^)
While I disagree, if Rudy wins, Newt's presence enhances that victory. There really isn't another viable conservative in the race, the onus is on Hunter to disprove that, and Thorin is absolutely right, Newt is running.
If you both feel that Hunter is the ONLY "Conservative running", he is a terrible person to hang that label on. Hunter is going nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.
The now heavily front loaded primaries make this a very different kind of election cycle.
If someone has committed a crime that shows they would pose an unacceptable danger to society if allowed to acquire a gun, that person poses an unacceptable danger to society period. Trying to prevent such people from acquiring firearms will not effectively mitigate any danger they pose.
Efforts that are supposedly aimed at keeping guns away from criminals invariably harm mostly law-abiding citizens. Not just as a side effect, but as a design function.
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.