Posted on 04/18/2007 3:15:15 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
[SNIP]
A look at positions and records of the presidential candidates on gun control:
[SNIP]
REPUBLICANS:
_Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: Voted against ban on assault-type bans and against requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits.
_Rudy Giuliani: Now says states should decide appropriate gun controls. As New York mayor and Senate prospect in 2000, favored variety of federal controls, including ban on assault-style weapons and waiting period for purchases. Also favored a federal mandate to register handgun owners and require handgun buyers to "demonstrate good moral character and a reason to have the gun."
_Mike Huckabee: Former Arkansas governor supports state laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons and a national "right to carry" law that would require states to recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other states.
_California Rep. Duncan Hunter: Voted against requiring background checks at gun shows, in favor of shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil suits.
_Arizona Sen. John McCain: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits.
_Mitt Romney: As Massachusetts governor, supported state's strict gun-control laws and signed into law one of the nation's toughest laws against assault-type weapons. Also supported regulatory changes favored by gun owners and sellers, including setting up appeals process for people denied gun licenses. Previously supported federal ban on assault-type weapons and federal waiting period for purchases.
_Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: Lawmaker from the district that includes Columbine High School voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits, to lift restrictions on gun ownership in the District of Columbia and to ease restrictions at gun shows.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Rudy/Mitt/Hunter/2nd Amendment ping.
Sorry, Rudy. You cannot modify the Bill of Rights. I suggest you take a course in History and Government, and learn what the Constitution actually says. Come back in about 20 more years.
“assault=bad, stupid electorate=good.”
How can any voter with even a single digit IQ consider voting for this idiot Giuliani? Do they not realize he has no regard toward upholding the Constitution? Good grief!!
**** Sorry, Rudy. You cannot modify the Bill of Rights. ****
Maybe that's why he Dodged The Draft during Vietnam - he didn't want to be around all those 'icky, scary looking' guns.
;-)
Giuliani is a Liar (vanity)
Various | 3/29/07 | Pissant/various
Posted on 03/29/2007 7:21:40 AM PDT by pissant
Sean Hannity Interview, 2007:
HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
So if you’re talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it’s appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
From a 2000 interview with Tim Russert:
Tim Russert: How about registration of ALL handguns?
Rudy Giuliani: Uh, you know I’m in favor of that. I’ve been on your show many times, talking about, uh, the program that the president (Clinton) talked about in his state of the union speech - I have been giving speeches about and talked about on your show for the last 10 to 15 years. Which is, I believe, is that we should treat the possession of a handgun the way we treat driving an automobile.
And therefore a person who wants to possess a handgun should pass a written test, should be able to pass a physical test in the actual use of the gun, and should have to demonstrate good moral character and a REASON to have the gun.
That those should be, essentially there should be a UNIFORM LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS that says that every state has to administer that, the way we say that we’re not going to let you drive an automobile if you’re too young, we’re not going let you drive an automobile if you had a bad record, and uh, every state has a slightly different variation of that, but every state has a uniform law that guarantees our safety. I think the two things are good analogies, and I’ve been arguing for that since at least 1980.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808686/posts
There are other categories. For example; non-citizens, mentally retarded, and people who have demonstrated other signs of irresponsibility.
What are the signs of responsibility? People who work, pay their bills, obey the laws, go to church, are considerate of others, people who don’t wear nails in their eyebrows or otherwise deface themselves. Exhibitionism is a form of pathological unbalance.
We would not catch them all, but short of a totalitarian police state there is little we can do in an open society to prevent the occasional maniac from running wild.
Exactly.
I see they left out both Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel, both with very strong pro-gun records.
Also, it was amusing reading the Democrats virtually identical positions, and then the sharp contrast of Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM). He’s better on the issue than any of the GOP frontrunners. That’s kind of sad.
My favorite quote, lately.
“Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” — L. Neil Smith
You Rudybots can join in anytime now and support your candidate.
Actually, I don’t agree with your arbitrary characteristics of responsibility (although I meet them all). Nor do I agree with a lot of the categories you list which should prohibit ownership.
For instance, what defines someone as underage? Right now it’s under 18 years for long arms, but there are plenty of children who’ve been taught proper gun use before reaching this age. Remember, this isn’t like driving a car (a “privilege”). Gun ownership is a right—nowhere in the 2nd is age mentioned (although the militia is defined as 18-45 white guys in the Militia Act IIRC).
Furthermore, while I think that some felons such as murderers shouldn’t be able to purchase firearms (I think they should be executed), many so-called white collar crimes shouldn’t warranty a deprivation of this right.
I personally find self-mutilation abhorrent, but in no way do I believe this reflects on the mental stability of the individual involved. I’ve seen plenty of such people live normal lives.
As for non-citizens, why should they be denied this unalienable right? Are they any less deserving of the right to defend themselves, their family, and their interests? Fortunately, non-citizens can still buy guns, provided they have documentation.
The NRA and Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) endorsed the firearms reform bill in Massachusetts signed by Governor Romney in July, 2004. In fact, every gun bill signed by Gov. Romney was endorsed by the NRA and/or GOAL.
The full contents of the NRA-ILA bulletin endorsing the 2004 legislation is reprinted at the bottom of this post (please pardon the length of the post).
Carefully read the bulletin, especially the list of Myths and Facts explained by the NRA. The NRA bulletin makes it absolutely clear why the NRA, GOAL, law enforcement, Republicans in the MA Legislature, and MA gun owners all supported the bill signed by Romney.
The facts are surprising given the misleading information from Romney's opponents written about the 2004 legislation.
I don't want to make this post any longer than necessary, but please visit my section on Romney's record as governor regarding the 2nd Amendment where more information on this bill and other legislation is provided. Romney left the state of MA in better shape concerning the 2nd Amendment than he found it and that's remarkable given he had a fiercely anti-gun, 85% Dem Legislature.
I have added some emphasis below to guide your eyes to important points most frequently misunderstood or unknown about the 2004 bill.
Massachusetts - Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s DeskTuesday, June 29, 2004
On June 24, 2004 at approximately 11:20 AM , the Senate took the last legislative vote on S.2367 and sent it to Governor Romney`s desk for his consideration. Representing the greatest set of firearm law reforms since the passage of the Commonwealth`s worst in the nation gun laws, S.2367 is a breath of fresh air for law abiding gun owners. Governor Romney is expected to sign the bill into law later this week.
While not perfect by any means, this bill represents a step forward for gun owners in Massachusetts. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 36 - 1 in favor and the House passed it with no amendments or debate on a "voice" vote. This represented by far the broadest support a reform bill has ever seen in the Massachusetts State House. Only one legislator in the entire building voiced opposition to the bill.
S.2367 does the following:
- Instructs the Executive Director of the Criminal History Systems Board to make the Firearms Identification Card and the License To Carry a Firearm the same size as a driver`s license;
- Changes the term of a Firearms Identification Card and a License to Carry to six years;
- Creates a grace period of 90 days, if the Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry holder applies for renewal before the expiration date, and if the application for renewal is not denied;
- Creates a Firearms Licensing Review Board. Applicants disqualified by a misdemeanor record, from obtaining a License To Carry or Firearms Identification Card, may file a petition for review of eligibility with the board, five years after conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole;
- and in the case where an officer is confiscating the guns of a person with an expired license, requires the officer to provide a written inventory and receipt for all guns.
Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new "Assault Weapons" ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms. The three sections referencing them merely dealt with re-affirming the definitions of what an "Assault Weapon" could be.
Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.
Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.
Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts. The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called "assault weapons," but made no changes to the number of guns included.
Myth: The gun ban was extended.
Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September.
Myth: The legislature somehow "won over" gun-rights supporters by including reforms.
Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.
Myth: Those legislators that wanted to expand the semi-auto gun ban claimed that they "spearheaded" S.2367.
Fact: Credit should be given to Senator Stephen Brewer (D- Barre) and Senator Richard T. Moore (D - Uxbridge) for the reform language.
Myth: The Massachusetts House approved a new version of the ban that would decouple the state definitions from the federal ones.
Fact: The bill merely takes the existing state references to federal law, and fixes the language to a point in time in 1994. Because that is the federal language is currently in effect, the net effect on Massachusetts gun owners is zero. No new gun bans are banned. Keep in mind that the state language in effect before this bill was NEVER set to expire.
With that in mind, NRA members should be very pleased in knowing that their efforts to educate and work with their local representatives and senators resulted in a successful reform action.
Thanks to you and the Gun Owners` Action League, lawful gun owners can now take advantage of this first set of real reforms in over five years.
For more information concerning this legislation you can contact ILA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683 or the Gun Owners` Action League at 508-393-5333.
Don’t forget he’s a lawyer! Why would he care about that out of date document.
And so is Mclame.
Let's win in 2008 with Thompson, Romney, or Brownbeck, so we can save our Country from being thrown under the bus.
It’s missing mention of Newt. ...Hunter’s not bad. The others are affected goddess worshipers—lefty social program drivers.
*
The National Rifle Association on Fred Thompson:
“U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, announced he will not seek re-election this year. His support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms will certainly be missed.”
- NRA-ILA Fax Alert Vol. 9, No. 10, 3/8/2002
http://nrawinningteam.com/0203/thompson.html
*
Fred Thompson’s Senate votes on Gun Control:
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
*
Fred Thompson’s SenateMatch responses on RKBA:
Strongly Favors topic 10: Absolute right to gun ownership
(10 points on Social scale)
YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks: Strongly Favors topic 10
YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows: Favors topic 10
NO on background checks at gun shows: Strongly Favors topic 10
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson_SenateMatch.htm
*
NRA President campaigned for Fred Thompson:
“Fred... voted for numerous measures in support of Second Amendment rights. (Charlton Heston campaigned for him in ‘94.)”
- Mark Alexander, HaveGunWillVote.com
http://www.havegunwillvote.com/index.php?sec=news&id=420
*
The GOP Candidates on the Second Amendment
“The NY Sun reviews the position of the serious GOP presidential candidates on the most battered of all constitutionally-enshrined God given rights, that of self defense from crime and tyranny...
By comparison [to Romeny, guiliani and McCain], Mr. [Fred] Thompson’s relationship with gun-rights groups is sterling. A 2000 report from a campaign-finance watchdog group, Common Cause, found that the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC donated $188,954 to Mr. Thompson between 1993 and 1999; the groups donated more only to Dr. Frist.”
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2007/04/05/the_gop_candidates_on_the_second_amendment.php
*
Fred Thompson, the actor and former U.S. senator, wins plaudits from the National Rifle Association and others who defend firearms access. He said in a Fox News interview last month, “Well, I’m against gun control generally.”
By contrast Mitt Romney as Massachusetts governor praised his state’s tough gun laws, though he’s since joined the NRA. Sen. John McCain has had scrapes with the NRA, though he’s generally been protective of gun ownership. Giuliani, as New York City mayor, supported strong government restrictions on all firearms
Dan Janison, Newsday, April 9, 2007
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-lispin095164260apr09,0,4516399.story
*
Former Sen. Fred Thompson on ‘FOX News Sunday’
WALLACE: Gun control.
THOMPSON: Well, I’m against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You’ll find I’m pretty consistent on that issue.
WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you’d be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?
THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.
- Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday,March 11, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html
*
H'mmmm. It is an "unalienable" right that citizens have had point-blank denied by the gun-grabbers for 70 years... alienating it in as many cities and states as they could get away with...not to mention Federal laws.
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.