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?
"Hitlary will appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg/John Paul Stevens types to the Federal Judiciary.
Rudy will appoint Antonin Scalia/John Roberts types to the Federal Judiciary."
Says him. There is exactly NOTHING to backup his hollow statement! On the contrary, in a Foxnews interview http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html , he says he sees little difference between Roberts & Ginsburg. He says they both satisfy what is important to him.
Then there is his history as mayor. While he was the "Republican Mayor" of New York City he appointed more than 60 men and women to the Civil, Criminal, and Family Court benchs. In all of those judicial appointment not one of them was a Republican.
All of his judical appointments were either registered Liberals or registered Democrats. As the "Republican Mayor" he had appointment power over more than 70 full commissioners in more than 50 City agencies, yet at no time during his administration did REPUBLICANS account for more than 10% of those appointments.
He even appointed Chuck Schumers wife as the City's Department of Transportation Commissioner.
I don't think I get your point. Please explain again how he is so much better than Hitlery.
Or perhaps you are confusing "Speaking Ill" with disagreement on issues. It was not about disagreement on issues. It was about not using slander and character assassination when disagreeing with another GOP-er....like the "Anti-Rudy-Bots" around here do every day.
I'll support whoever wins the GOP nomination....and I'll support Rudy for that nomination because I think that
a. He would be the best president in the WOT of the crop of candidates and
b. He can beat Hitlary
OBTW, to 'dirtboy': Rudy was either slightly ahead of, or at worst tied with Hitlary in all the polls taken up to the point where he had to withdraw from the Senate race in 2000 due to being diagnosed with Prostate cancer...
I corrected your sentence. I believe you WERE referring to Hitlary, no?
No, Rudy isn`t the candidate yet. But he`s in front now. Let`s follow some that post he, and knock the stuffings out of him so that he can`t be elected. Hillorat will be so happy with our help. Then, we can move on and destroy Mitt, and McCain. The Rats will love us.
"Those that are such purists that they cannot bear to vote for anyone then the perfect candidate..."
Not demanding perfect. Do however expect at least a D+.
PS - Julie-Annie has no military experience. He got an exemption to keep out of the military (under questionable circumstances BTW). He was never in Congress. He never sat on a committee that dealt with national security issues or the military. The only invasion force he dealt with was the NYPD. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
No we won`t. Rudy is not Hillorat. Hillorat wants us to lose the War, Rudy doesn`t.
In beauty contest polls. Where it is clear that a large number of people have no idea what Rudy is about. And his support evaporates once they are informed of such.
Let`s follow some that post he, and knock the stuffings out of him so that he can`t be elected.
That's the problem. Every anti-Rudy poster on FR could stop this minute and it would not change the fact that Rudy cannot win the general election. The Dems will have no qualms about forming 527s to inform conservatives that Rudy clearly ain't one from his past actions. And that pro-life and pro-gun Dems have no reason to cross over to support him.
Hillorat will be so happy with our help.
IMO Hillary is counting on a GOP lurch to the left with Rudy or McVain. That's how her hubby won in 1992 when Pappa Bush drifted leftward and split the party.
Then, we can move on and destroy Mitt, and McCain. The Rats will love us.
Mitt is the only one of the three that even realizes he needs the entire party behind him. The other two seem to think they can lose large segments of the party and run leftward as pro-war candidates when anti-war sentiment increases dramatically the further left one goes.
A little off topic, but I may mix a few political topics in. Given the state of global warming, we'll have alligators in Lake Michigan soon, and we need firearms to fend them off.
Thanks to dirtboy. I've never done a vanity, and I was thinking of this very think in view of the Utah killings. A Bosnian muslim immigrant kills 5, is killed by an off duty leo, could have been a concealed carry permit holder.
How should government react.
In view of past statements, as "past" as last weeks interview, I think Rudy would move to restrict handgun ownership. And for good measure, semi-autos that look nasty and ugly.
Myself, as a law abiding citizen who spends his time in Illinois and Wisconsin, both non-carry states, I'd like a candidate who recognizes that if I perceive I'm at risk, I've a right to defend myself.
On that issue, an important one to me, I'll have to pass on Rudy.
Greatness? I don't think so. I was around back then too and I don't remember it being something akin to greatness. The spirit of the 11th commandment was inside Ronald Reagan. When he wanted it to be. Just not all the time. From my research, here is what I found out.
FACT! Reagan didn't create the 11th commandment. California state GOP chairman Gaylord Parkinson created that slogan in 1966 during the race for Governor. It was meant to counter the attacks on Ronald Reagan from his GOP primary opponent, liberal San Francisco Mayor, George Christopher. For the next ten years that slogan lied dormant in the political arena.
In 1976 Reagan challenged Pres Ford for the GOP nomination. Reagan savaged Ford with attacks on both his domestic and foreign policy agenda. This contentious campaigning went on through the primaries and into the GOP convention. In the primaries, Ford won 15 states and Reagan won 12 states in the closet primary election phase in US history. Ford beat Reagan for the nomination, 1187 delegate votes to 1070. Reagan lost the nomination by 60 votes!
So much for the 11th commandment.
With a punchline like that, you should write vanities more often. BWAHAHAHA!
" reasonable and sensible".
Rudy will take your guns - ALL of them if he can.
Gun rights are essential to national security.
"Imagine the NRA endorsing a democrat!"
BTTT
Sometime I think back in the early to mid 1970's or maybe in the 1980's a sniper went into downtown Knoxville, Tn and began shooting from the roof of a department store building. The city didn't go beserk except to get to saftey, and the mayor didn't start going around taking away peoples weapons.
"It happens all the time, the NRA is not owned by any party. "
I know. I meant for the presidency. My conressman, and one of my senators get good ratings from the NRA. They are both democrats & vastly more pro-gun than Giuliani.
The NRA endorses a number of Democrats. I don't see any candidates in Democratic primaries.
Rudy definitely has problems, so Newt Gingrich is the best known conservative in the race. Newt gave a speech recently about 2008 and conservative principles. If you didn't hear or see this speech, check it out here. If every American watched any 10 minutes of this great speech, Newt would win in a landslide.
http://www.newt.org/multimedia/default.asp?mi=394
Also be sure to visit http://www.DraftNewt.org
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.