Posted on 09/21/2007 9:21:31 AM PDT by Froufrou
Glossing over the less appealing line items on his gun control resume, ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani presented himself as sympathetic to the aims of the National Rifle Association and pledged, as president, to protect gun rights.
"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said. He indicated that he would oppose new efforts to tighten national gun laws. "I believe that law endforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books as opposed to passing new extensions of laws," he said.
"A person's home is their castle. They have the right to protect themselves in their own home." Giulaini explained the lawsuit he initiated in 2000 against gun manufacturers by saying that he was "excessive in everyway that I could think of in order to reduce crime" but said that "intervening events" like September 11th had caused his views to evolve. "I think that lawsuit has gone in the direction that I don't agree it."
He cited a DC court ruling overturning the city's gun ban as instrumental to changing and "strengthening" his views on gun control. That ruling, Parker vs. the Distict of Columbia, was handed down just as Giuliani was beginning his presidential bid. Giuliani said that MoveOn.org's ad criticizing Gen. Petreaus was out of bounds and hinted that the group should face some sort of sanction.
"They passed a line that we should not allow an American political organizations to pass," he said. "We are at war right now, whether some people want to recognize it or not."
(Excerpt) Read more at marcambinder.theatlantic.com ...
It's not based on that either. It's just protected by the Constitution from government infringement. The right itself is God given, or a "Natural Right", depending on your beliefs. In any event, the Second Amendment's wording assumes that the right exist, it does not create the right.
LOVE your sig, # 60
Great question!!!
Historically the right to bear arms is based in the standard weapons of the infantryman at the time the Constitution was created.
SAWs, M-16’s, M-249’s and M-203 grenade launchers should be completely unrestricted. Also, where are my hand grenades, sniper rifles, medium machineguns and rocket launchers?
You are of course correct. I just CAN’T WAIT to see what kind of damage those weapons will do in the hands of the street gangs that roam/control large swaths of American cities.
How do you know you don't need one? Sort like of not needing a fire extinguisher because right now, there is no fire.
Better to have one, or several, and not need it/them, than to need it and not have it.
Now not being able to afford one, that's a horse of a different color. But a simple used gun need not be all that expensive either. One of the foreign copies (Philippines or Brazil for example) semi-clones of the Remington 870, Hi Standard, or Ithaca, can be had for about $150. A used one would be less and a Maverick (by Mossberg) not much more New In the Box (NIB).
A very versatile weapon too, with a large variety of available ammunition types.
Don’t call it an “evolution”, call it a “Romney”.
After all, “An armed society is a polite society,” says Robert Heinlein.
Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
“I’d like to see the damage I could do to those gangs with a 203 and a saw or two.”
First response, “Me too.”
Then when I sit back and think about it, I’d rather not live in an American version of Beirut.
Yes and "he can beat Hillary." Even if true, why bother? There isn't any substantial difference between the to of them, except Hillary is less dishonest about her attitude on the 2nd amend.
I don’t suppose being left handed would matter when getting a shotgun?
Jimenez is a decent modestly priced gun too, I’ve heard a lot of positives from owners.
How can 911 make a person change their views on the 2nd Amendment? Sure people may be more inclined to carry firearm because they feel insecure but the idea that a presumably thoughtful, reasoned person would CHANGE their view on the 2nd Amendment because of 911 is a joke (unless he thinks airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns on planes to ward off hijackers). The constitution is meant to serve in times of peace and war.
For the record I think Mitt’s newfound opposition to abortion based on the direction of stem cell research is a bunch of BS as well.
...and outside their home?
I rather like it myself. I've been using it for what 15 years, going back to the pre World Wide Web days of USENET(which still exists) and email lists. But as you see, I didn't come up with it. Doug MacKay did. I stole it, with his permission of course.
Excellent points made! I try to be reasonable. People change their minds, sure they do.
I just expect less of that from politicians.
Sounds more like his spin doctors looked at the polls and realized he should “change his mind” on a few issues..
Beirut was a society steeped in violence, with no powerful central controlling authority. I’ll bet ordnance ownership was illegal in Beirut too, but that hardly mattered. Do police officers and SWAT teams have better vehicle equipment and resources than criminals? By and large, YES. Because regardless of law restrictions, there are still cost and expertise restrictions that leave the “unwashed masses” still under sufficient authority by governing bodies to keep the peace. Also, it’s legal for a police officer to shoot a threat, but not for gangs to riot in the streets. Death or life imprisonment are both powerful motivators.
Furthermore, there will always be more concerned citizens than anarchist gangbangers. Once the concerned citizens are allowed to concern themselves with a Beretta 9mm, riots or break ins or terrorizing enemies becomes a far more risky operation. And if the gangbangers ever DO outnumber us, what’s legal and what’s illegal will be among the least of our problems!
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.