Posted on 03/03/2007 3:16:02 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
I think you've made your points in favor of the "legitimacy" of Giuliani's gun control, and against the second amendment's intent and relevance in NYC very clear. Thanks for spelling it all out so clearly. The American people will have ample opportunity to consider this for themselves now.
"How many people are aware that GHWB imposed by executive fiat an "assault weapons" ban that applied to imported firearms rules even more strict than those of the 1994 AWB?"
Don't know know it doesn't matter what the president thinks about guns? They have to pass laws through congress, and congress isn't going to try more gun control now! (except for that new assault weapons ban by the dems in the house).
Well therein lies the rub. Once you admit that the state has some power to a reasonable interpretation of the 2d Amendment, who defines that limit?
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Judge Alex Kozinsky
Since you agree that reasonable limitations exist (though I've not heard what that means), then do you seriously think that you are keeping "reasonable" arms to take on the US government when it has become a dictatorship?
You can try and make these Nazi type comparisons all you want, but it is pretty meaningless, given the freedoms we possess and the government structure together with its balance of powers.
Most of the RKBA crowd believes in an unfettered 2d Amendment which "guarantees" them weapons of all type and for all people. They can never seem to get together however, on exactly when they would presume to launch an attack on the tyrant US, or who would make those decisions, and who would be in charge. Guess it would just be "every man for himself".
It's an irrelevant point. The government's duty is to protect the rights of its citizens, to provide for the common defense, and to ensure a safe and secure environment in which society can freely prosper. To permit what you describe would be to fail in that duty. This well-functioning citizen army would crumble into hundreds if not thousands of mini-groups, all vying for power, just as one sees in Iraq today. You would have Hispanic, Black national, Asian, White Christian, and numerous others battling each other and the government at the same time. The government has a duty to ensure that never happens. So the 2d Amendment, just as the 1st and 14th, are reasonably regulated to protect the rights of the people and guarantee a safe and secure society.
If it is no longer acceptable to give all free persons the right to acquire without restriction any and all such artifacts as could be used as arms in a well-functioning citizen army, then the Constitution should be amended to change that.
I disagree. No part of the Constitution was written to knowingly provide a means of effectively overthrowing the government it created. If the guarantee of equal protection of the law prevents all discrimination, then gay marriages could not be prevented, as they have in many states. Reasonable interpretation of the 14th by the courts however have found that if a state can articulate a compelling interest in the discrimination, it will be permitted. The same goes for restrictions on free speech, and will certainly be the case for the 2d Amendment.
I would expect that an amendment allowing Congress to restrict private ownership of significant quantities of fissionable materials, for example, could be ratified without too much difficulty if courts held that such an amendment would be required to impose such restrictions.
See my earlier explanation. If this country failed to restrict fissionable materials to "groups" of free people, it would have no basis for existence. The same logic holds for most other types of military weaponry. No court is going to find such restrictions unconstitutional, therefore no amendment is needed to clarify the obvious.
Thank you. It's always nice to know one has been successful. Unfortunately we weren't even discussing NYC, and my quote had to do with New Orleans, and the question of martial law in a natural disaster. In fact, in NYC, I believe I said that the reduction of crime was no doubt the result of a whole host of initiatives, rather than just the getting a handle on the 2 million illegal guns in the city. As for the intent of the 2d Amendment, I'm not sure how that plays into reasonable restrictions.
You don't think that people who had just overthrown two governments in less than 15 years wouldn't want to keep the ability to throw out the third government, should it become necessary to do so?
If the guarantee of equal protection of the law prevents all discrimination, then gay marriages could not be prevented, as they have in many states.
A gay man has the right to marry a gay or straight woman, if such person would consent to be his wife. Likewise a gay woman has the right to marry a straight or gay man, if such person would consent to be her husband.
A marriage consists of one man and one woman. The notion that a marriage need not contain any men, nor any women, is simply bizarre.
If this country failed to restrict fissionable materials to "groups" of free people, it would have no basis for existence. The same logic holds for most other types of military weaponry. No court is going to find such restrictions unconstitutional, therefore no amendment is needed to clarify the obvious.
If the Constitution may be freely disregarded in manners the Founders clearly never intended, provided only that the Men in Robes think there is sufficient need, how can it really mean anything? While there may be some dithering about what certain things meant when written, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that those who wrote the Second Amendment indended it to be anything less than absolute with regard to free people and militarily-suitable weaponry.
OUCH!!
mark
Yes, as with all Constitutional revisionists, it's always up to future generations to decide based on expedience. That's the argument used by our more liberal politicians, who suggest that the Constitution is a "living" document fit to be endlessly interpreted. And with firearms, we simply must be reasonable above all else, correct?
I'm more interested in the Constitution's authors' original intent, and maintaining it against the onslaught of our "benevolent" protectors like Giuliani. That's the conservative viewpoint.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison in The Federalist Papers : No. 46Madison was the original author of the second amendment. Madison would have been a staunch RKBA supporter today. He wouldn't offer his support to a Giuliani, either. None of the Founding Fathers would have. He would have said, much as he wrote before, Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
I'd ask you think look deeper than his impact on NYC's morale. He's liberal on 9 out of 10 issues. That makes him liberal by just about any measure. Are you seriously going to support a liberal?
- Rudy tossed Arafat out of a city sponsored celebrations saying, "I would rather not have someone who has been implicated in the murders of Americans there, if I have the discretion not to have him there”.
Frontpage Magazine
- Rudy did the same to Fidel Castro at a Dinner.
Answers.com Personalities – Rudy Giuliani
- When a Saudi prince donated millions to 9/11 relief efforts and later suggested that United States policy in the Middle East may have been partially responsible for the attacks, Rudy returned the money.
CNN
- Rudy refused to meet with racial arsonist Al Sharpton.
Right Nation
- Rudy as mayor was strong on law and order. Rudy said that "government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering". And Rudy backed this all up by going after both quality-of-life crimes and serious crimes. Total crime went down by some 64 percent during the Giuliani years, and murder went down 67 percent. Auto thefts went down on average about 80,000 per year.
Bureau of Justice Statistics – U.S. Department of Justice
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy supported the police when the police had to enter and deal with Muslims at a mosque.
Village Voice
- Rudy closed down many porn shops across the city and specifically shutdown porn shops in residential neighborhoods.
Reference.com – Rudy Giuliani
Bureau of Justice Statistics – U.S. Department of Justice
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy went after both low level and high level drug dealers for the first time in the cities history.
City Journal
Bureau of Justice Statistics – U.S. Department of Justice
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy had zero tolerance for quality of life crimes such as squeegee extortionists, graffiti vandals, panhandling and public urination.
City Journal
Samoa
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy launched a welfare revolution, removing illegal recipients, cutting the rolls by 20% the first year alone and dropping the welfare rolls by 600,000 over the course of his plan.
NY POST
Mayor Giuliani Delivers Eighth And Final “State Of The City” Address
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy launched a work requirement program for the remaining welfare recipients. the NY Times called it slavery.
Mayor Giuliani Delivers Eighth And Final “State Of The City” Address
NY Times
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy constantly spoke out against illegitimacy and fatherless families. One of many things that Rudy said on the subject was the following: " If you wanted a social program that would really save these kids, . I guess the social program would be called fatherhood.
" Rudy Giuliani “State of the City” Address
Mayor Giuliani Delivers Eighth And Final “State Of The City” Address
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy objected to affirmative action. Rudy ended the cities set-aside program for minority contractors.
CA Political News
- Rudy rejected the idea of lowering the job requirement standards for minorities and woman. - Rudy said. "it was unfair to expect middle-class kids to work their way through college by holding down jobs and going to classes while exempting students on welfare from working.
" CA Political News
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy reformed the public school system and forced out liberal chancellors who wouldn't install his reforms.
A Plan to Reform our Public Schools-and the Commitment to Go Further
- Rudy tried to privatize 5 of the cities worst public schools.
Heartland
A Plan to Reform our Public Schools-and the Commitment to Go Further
- Rudy was for school vouchers Rudy said, "The whole notion of choice is really about more freedom for people, rather than being subjugated by a government system that says you have no choice about the education of your child,".
A Plan to Reform our Public Schools-and the Commitment to Go Further
- Rudy fought against public money for an art display that defiled Christ and he fought against other obscene so-called works of art.
Daily Nebraskan
- Rudy played hardball with city unions winning concessions from city workers that other mayors had failed to do.
NY Times
Union Politicking in the N.Y.C. Elections
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy strong armed state leaders to merge the cities Housing Police and Transit Police into the NYPD saving the city hundreds of millions. Rudy did this by threatening to fire every housing and transit officer and rehire each as a city cop if legislative leaders did not go along.
NY Times
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy did the same with the city’s garbageman, many of whom worked only half days because the department was so overstaffed with union jobs. Rudy won $300 million in savings from them by threatening to contract out trash collection to private companies.
City Journal
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy cut or killed 23 levies and taxes, saving taxpayers $9.8 billion during his terms.
Manhattan Institute
GoVote.com
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy cut NYC's top income-tax rate by 20.6%.
A Budget for a Strong and Stable Economic Future
GoVote.com
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Local NYC taxes on a family of four dropped 23.7% during Rudy's term.
Manhattan Institute
GoVote.com
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy cut the commercial-rent tax.
Columbia.edu
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy cut sales taxes, including taxes on clothing.
A Budget for a Strong and Stable Economic Future
GoVote.com
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy cut the marriage penalty on taxpaying couples.
GoVote.com
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review>
- Rudy cut taxes on commercial rents everywhere outside of Manhattan’s major business districts, and various taxes on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers.
Mayor Giuliani Delivers Eighth And Final “State Of The City” Address
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy's expenditure growth averaged 2.9% annually, while local inflation between January 1994 and December 2001 averaged 3.6%.
Urban Futures
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy privatized municipal assets.
Reason Public Policy Institute
- Rudy sold WNYC radio for $20 million, WNYC-TV for $207 million, and NYC's share of the U.N. Plaza Hotel for $85 million.
Scripps Howard News Service
- Rudy divested the City from the New York Coliseum adding $345 million to city coffers.
Second Inaugural Address by Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
- Rudy let the private Central Park Conservancy manage Central Park.
ABC News
- Rudy cut NYC's hotel tax from 6% to 5%. Consequently, hotel tax revenues increased from $135 million in Fiscal Year 1995 to $239 million in FY 2001.
The Entrepreneurial City Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani The Manhattan Institute
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- When asked if Rudy would raise taxes after 9/11 Rudy said that would be "a dumb, stupid, idiotic, and moronic thing to do.
" American Spectator
- A quote from Rudy on his economic philosophy: “City government should not and cannot create jobs through government planning. The best it can do, and what it has a responsibility to do, is to deal with its own finances first, to create a solid budgetary foundation that allows businesses to move the economy forward on the strength of their energy and ideas. After all, businesses are and have always been the backbone of New York City.
” City Journal
- Construction permits increased by more than 50% in the city per year during Rudy's terms.
Mayor Giuliani Delivers Eighth And Final “State Of The City” Address
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Tourism increased 50% in the city per year during Rudy's terms.
NYC.GOV
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- City jobs increased by 430,000 to an all time high of 3.72 million during Rudy's terms.
City Journal
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- City personal income increased 50% during Rudy's terms.
CapitalCA News
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- The percentage income that city residence paid in taxes declined from 8.8 to 7.3 percent during Rudy's terms.
City Journal
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Unemployment in the city went form 10.3% to 5.1% during Rudy's terms.
The Claremont Institute
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy was an outstanding leader during the 9/11 crisis.
Time Magazine
- Rudy has been a strong supporting in our WOT including supporting the mission in Iraq.
Counsel on Foreign Relations
- Rudy was chosen by Ronald Reagan in 1981 as an Associate Attorney General placing him in the third highest position in the Reagan's DOJ.
Wikipedia
- In 1983, Rudy was appointed by Reagan to be U.S. Attorney for the SD of NY. In that position, Rudy amassed 4,152 convictions including the heads of NY's so-called "Five Families". Rudy also prosecuted terrorists and illegal immigrants.
Wikipedia
Bookmark.
In other words, if we look beneath the glossy image he's acquired, we find that he's unwilling to confront the true problems facing our entire nation.
First, I'd hardly call the RW an overthrowing of the British government. They successfully overthrew local British authority but I believe the British Crown somehow survived. Secondly, I hope you are not calling the constitutional convention somehow an "overthrowing" of a government. If anything, it was the putting together of a more central government, because they realized that the loose confederation of states was a disaster waiting to happen. So if they feared government so much, it seems strange they would opt for one substantially more powerful than the one they were replacing.
A gay man has the right to marry a gay or straight woman, if such person would consent to be his wife. Likewise a gay woman has the right to marry a straight or gay man, if such person would consent to be her husband.
Well, you see I agree with that, but if states did not make such distinctions, then prohibition of a gay/gay marriage would be unlawful discrimination. As it is, states can articulate a compelling reason for that discrimination, one reason a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
If the Constitution may be freely disregarded in manners the Founders clearly never intended, provided only that the Men in Robes think there is sufficient need, how can it really mean anything?
Fair question, but what do you mean intended? Who determines intent? You ever read the Anti-Federalist Papers? If so, you will recognize that there was little common agreement on the meaning of much of the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers were the product of 4 of those involved only, and reflected their particular views. But given the importance the Founding Fathers put on the new government and the Constitution, I doubt many had in mind giving every citizen the means to overthrow the government if he so desired.
While there may be some dithering about what certain things meant when written, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that those who wrote the Second Amendment indended it to be anything less than absolute with regard to free people and militarily-suitable weaponry.
Hang on to that thought. I seriously doubt you will find a judge in the Country who will agree with you. I believe someone said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
RUDY ON IMMIGRATION
Weekly Standard
Just doing the best I can, on a limited budget!
In the final analysis it IS, "every man for himself"!
"I will die on my feet, rather than live on my knees"!
Hell , don't you know that humans existed long before the invention of formal government, and did just fine?
Government did not invent rights, and does not possess, the authority to limit my rights!
Yes, and those revisionists include those who believe that the 1st Amendment protection of free speech doesn't mean flag burning, or that the 14th Amendment doesn't necessarily apply to those whose sexual preference is different. Even those right here on FR who are on your side of the issue, even on this very thread admit that there are "reasonable restrictions", but just not as far as Rudy went. So whose expedience shall we accept, and whose shall we deny?
I'm more interested in the Constitution's authors' original intent, and maintaining it against the onslaught of our "benevolent" protectors like Giuliani. That's the conservative viewpoint.
The conservative position would be a respect for the Constitution and especially the Nation that was made possible. I hate to tell you this, but if you believe that completely unfettered access to any military style weapon desired is a guaranteed "right", don't look to any of your candidates, including the most ardent conservative out there for suppoort.
- James Madison in The Federalist Papers : No. 46
Yes, I've read all of the Papers as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers. A couple of points. First, Madison was not appointed by anyone to proffer the "intent". They were his viewpoints and those of the other 3 authors of the Papers, which were written to help advertise the new Constitution and get it ratified as early as possible. Why should his viewpoint be any more official than anyone involved in putting the Constitution together and who assisted in the ratification process? Second, a reading of that paragraph which refers to the militia and the local governments which exist in a republic, shows that those institutions if manned by the people, which they are, would help to prevent some unknown "ambition of enterprise...". I agree, though it seems to say nothing of private armies of every type outside of any organized subordinate governments or militias. In fact, what would emerge in a nation of private little armies, armed to the teeth would be just the "ambition of enterprise", Madison warned of.
Madison was the original author of the second amendment. Madison would have been a staunch RKBA supporter today.
Perhaps, though it is not apparent from that writing. Nor do I believe anyone who had the respect for this Nation that Madison had would countenance a thousand little armies running around the Country with every conceivable type of weapons system imaginable. No, I don't think so.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
He probably wouldn't have been talking about those who made up the Whiskey Rebellion under President Washington. It does seem strange that Madison believed the best way to preserve the freedom we had was by a substantially strengthened central government. To what end, to permit the people, whom he trusted, to arm themselves so well as to bring that very government down? Hardly. His vision could not countenance the weaponry that exists today, and while RKBA folks say that's an irrelevant point, I don't think any judge anywhere would agree with their viewpoint on it.
Actually, it was the formation of local villages that was the beginning of civilization. And when the first real weapon system, chariots, was developed around Iran, it became clear that consolidation of villages into defensible larger enterprises was necessary. From that point on, governments have existed everywhere. Even when the barbarians defeated the organized cities and city-states, they fell into organization, which was the government. That meant taxes, defense systems, religious structure, etc. So I don't know what you are referring to, unless it was prior to about 12,000 BC.
If the militia in some area decided it dodn't like the government, but the militias in all the nearby areas decided they thought the government was just fine and that other militia was out of line, then the latter militias would act against the former and, outnumbering it, likely quell any attempt at rebellion. On the other hand, if the other militias also though the government was in the wrong then unless the government could summon together a large enough group of militias to act against those that opposed it, it would have to back down.
As I see it, the Constitution was meant, in part, as a guide so that people could know when to fight against rogue militias who opposed legitimate government action, and when to join with militias who legitimately opposed rogue government action.
I may not be smart enough to keep up with your ass, are your really sure that you are smart enough to keep up with your ass?
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.