Posted on 02/07/2007 2:40:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
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.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Conservative Republicans do not support gun grabbing socialists whether they be mayors, governors, legislators or presidential wannabes!
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these SOBs not understand?!?!?!??!?!
Okay, fine. Let's have a look-see at some words I will quote from memory:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, Rudy believes that the word regulated implies the Constitutionality of things such as the Brady Act. As it so happens, I disagree with this interpretation. In fact, I believe that the Second Amendment ought to fall under the category of "incorporated rights" under the 14th Amendment and thereby apply to the states as well. But Rudy's interpretation is reasonable. It's undoubtedly in good faith. He's not trying to ignore or rewrite the Constitution to push an anti-gun agenda, he's applying what he sincerely believes is the meaning of the Constitution. I can respect that.
If GWB had bothered to read the US Constitution and use it as his guide, he would have vetoed CFR and many other things.
...and later, by flashbunny:
But if a democrat controlled congress passes anti-gun laws, will Rudy the Rino sign or veto them?
Indeed. The Constitution provides three bars to bad legislation, and the President with his veto pen is the second of them. The first is the Legislature. When bad legislation is enacted, it's because Congress passed it and the President didn't veto it. Bad legislation is a problem. I prefer to attack it at the source: the legislature. Get Rudy a good solid conservative Republican Congress to work with in 2008, and he'll never have the chance to not wield his veto pen on a gun control bill.
Rudy, what you're saying is that we, the people, do NOT have the right to bear arms if the local government says we can't. The Constitution be damned. People do NOT have the right to defend themselves with a gun. That right the people must forfeit to the government...so who will protect us from the government? Can I sue the government if they fail to protect me, since they say I MUST defer to them the right to protect myself?
couldn't have said it better myself.
I couldn't agree more. As if we should support a gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, liberal lawyer from New York,,,just to save us from a different gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, liberal lawyer from New York. No thanks.
Where in Wyoming?
That's a pretty difficult quote to reconcile with a federalist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment.
I was going to post about the fallacy of equating rural to urban America, then reread you tagline and thought better of it.
Which is exactly correct, which is exactly why the MSM is trying desperately to annoint Giuliani as the Republican candidate.
If Hillary! wins, they get a liberal Democrat. If Rudy wins, they get a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican.
Don't fall for the rigged game.
> ...only a tyrant would fear his subjects.
That's why DC has a complete firearm ban--the culprits don't want the militia anywhere near them!
"-Rudy Giuliani
The Mayor's WINS Address
Sunday, March 2nd, 1997"
Oh come on now, That was 10 years ago. Can't you find anything more recent? People can change. Look at Hillary.
Thanks, Jim.
You almost had me. hehehehe
Did we really? And this was because the President has the power to unilaterally abrogate the Constitution?
When you start with a false premise, it negates the rest of your screed.
Indeed, for example if you start with the premise, "We had an Assault Weapon Ban solely because of the President." We got an Assault Weapon Ban because we had a staunchly anti-gun Congress. (And, ironically, it's because of that Assault Weapon Ban that we got a staunchly pro-gun Congress for twelve years... until the Ban expired. Funny that.) If you want legislative progress, focus on the legislators.
Who in their right mind would even take the chance? At the very least he would enable further erosion of the 2nd. Just say no to Rudy!
Glad to see you've come to your senses. A little late in Arnold's case though.
"People can change. Look at Hillary"
You fergit yore sarcasm tag there, pilgrim?
(she changed for the worse, alright)
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.