Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rudy Giuliani: Welfare Reform Bill Does More harm Than good
NYC Mayoral Archives ^ | 11-11-1996 | Rudy Giuliani

Posted on 02/27/2007 6:53:52 AM PST by TitansAFC

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last
To: dirtboy
Here's the part I picked up on from the gun speech:

Using the hotel address, he was able to obtain a photo ID card, and that was all he needed to buy a gun, a .380 Beretta, capable of firing 14 rounds in 4 or 5 seconds.

Because in Florida, although they have relatively strict regulations to obtain a gun license, gun licenses are only necessary for carrying concealed weapons. A license is not required to buy a gun. To buy a gun all that is required is a photo ID.

Is this not a problem?

Ivan

41 posted on 02/27/2007 7:48:36 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Reagan passed gun control legislation. More than once.

And after his presidency was over, he pushed for the Brady Bill.


42 posted on 02/27/2007 7:50:29 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Additionally, here are the measures Giuliani lauds -

prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns;

I think we can agree illegals buying guns would be a bad thing.

requiring proof of residency, including photo id. and something like a utility bill in the buyers name... similar to what is required for a drivers license;

A measure which supports point one.

making cop killer, or Teflon coated, armor piercing bullets illegal;

How does this violate the 2nd Amendment?

and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal Officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands

This is a rule applying to Federal Officials, not private citizens; employers have a right to put in "health and safety" restrictions on their employees.

I'm really not seeing what the fuss is about.

Ivan

43 posted on 02/27/2007 7:50:53 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for Giulinai and I never voted for a Democrat.


44 posted on 02/27/2007 7:51:19 AM PST by LongViewSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LongViewSC
Then you really don't understand what is going on. Read this and then come back.

Ivan

45 posted on 02/27/2007 7:52:34 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LongViewSC

Spoken like a true Republican. /sarcasm


46 posted on 02/27/2007 7:52:48 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I think we have to keep in mind a few things - first, this is New York politics we are talking about - appearing at NARAL is one of their stations of the cross. That said, this view is moot if he appoints an appropriate justice to the Supreme Court

I'm sorry, but his views about federal action overriding state laws are quite consistent. I pay less attention to what someone is willing to say to gain power and more what they have done in the past when they had power. And Rudy was very, very bad about taking guns away, supporting abortion "rights" and pushing for federal gun control laws to supercede those of other states.

47 posted on 02/27/2007 7:52:52 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

No but don't just pick a quote. Roe v. wade is law and all government officials have to go by the law. When the law is changed then things will be different. Rudy had to follow the law and still has to so do all the others until the law is change. When people violate the law with violence then forget it - we might as well live in a third world country.


48 posted on 02/27/2007 7:53:43 AM PST by areafiftyone (RUDY GIULIANI 2008 - STRENGTH AND LEADERSHIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

The point is, he is pushing for a federal law to override state laws. Which means he ain't the strict constructionist federalist he claims to be.


49 posted on 02/27/2007 7:53:54 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; dirtboy
MadIvan,
Why do you care soooooo much about Rudy?

You're a British Subject and cannot VOTE in our elections.

50 posted on 02/27/2007 7:55:39 AM PST by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a 'Right Wing Extremist'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
There is a constitutional argument to be made in so far as guns are concerned - the federal government does have the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. If illegals are buying guns in state A and using them in state B, the governor of State B would be negligent not to say something about it.

Ivan

51 posted on 02/27/2007 7:56:16 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: LongViewSC
Here's a bumper sticker for your car...

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

52 posted on 02/27/2007 7:57:34 AM PST by AdvisorB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
There is a constitutional argument to be made in so far as guns are concerned - the federal government does have the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce

Ah, so now you are taking the position used to justify 90 percent of the usurpation of federal power - abuse of the Commerce Clause.

Which shows yet again that you and Rudy are not federalists and not strict Constructionists.

53 posted on 02/27/2007 7:57:37 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Smorch

LOL.


54 posted on 02/27/2007 7:58:03 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
You're a British Subject and cannot VOTE in our elections

I think this is about the 360th time I've explained this. One last time: the election of the American President has a huge bearing on my family's safety, security and prosperity. If you put in someone who surrenders in the War on Terror, safety and security in Britain are diminished, as the Islamists will come just as hard at us as you. Britain is also the single largest investor in the United States, appoint a tax raising dingbat and we're buggered.

I don't have a vote, but I'm speaking up because a good number of you simply don't know or don't want to know the international implications of what you're about to do. There are many - those who want America to retain its leadership role, don't want a Democrat. The best chance of keeping the Democrat out is to utilise Rudy's popularity and skills.

Ivan

55 posted on 02/27/2007 7:59:15 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
No but don't just pick a quote.

Say WHAT? I'm not even allowed to QUOTE RUDY to make my point?

Roe v. wade is law and all government officials have to go by the law.

That's far different from declaring it establishes a Constitutional right. It does not. It was judicial usurpation. But if Rudy took THAT strict constructionist position in front of NARAL in 1997, I doubt they would have invited him back in 2001 so he could praise Margaret Sanger.

56 posted on 02/27/2007 7:59:45 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Which shows yet again that you and Rudy are not federalists and not strict Constructionists.

Sophistry. You ignored the second part of my argument. If illegals are able to buy guns in State A, which they use in State B, do you really think the governor of State B should just lay back and put some ice on it?

Ivan

57 posted on 02/27/2007 8:00:34 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Sophistry. You ignored the second part of my argument. If illegals are able to buy guns in State A, which they use in State B, do you really think the governor of State B should just lay back and put some ice on it?

Once again, that is not a federalist or strict constructionist argument. A strict constructionist would call on the State of Florida to tighten up its gun laws and not demand federal action to do such.

You and Rudy are pushing the strict constructionist standard. Not me.

58 posted on 02/27/2007 8:04:22 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Once again, that is not a federalist or strict constructionist argument

Why not, as Rudy points out, the words "well regulated militia" are in the 2nd Amendment. Note "regulated", not "unfettered".

Ivan

59 posted on 02/27/2007 8:09:04 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
You quote this from a speech: "Because in Florida, although they have relatively strict regulations to obtain a gun license, gun licenses are only necessary for carrying concealed weapons. A license is not required to buy a gun. To buy a gun all that is required is a photo ID."

And then you ask, "Is this not a problem?"

Answer: No

60 posted on 02/27/2007 8:09:21 AM PST by Doodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson