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.
Why don't you show me where I libeled a poster. I'll be around and will check back to see if you can do it. tick tock
Don't worry. He won't. Because he's not going to be the nominee thanks to threads like this.
...
Each one of those situations (except the quartering -- Third Amendment) you gave has an amendment that has been "incorporated" per the Supreme Court. So no, according to the Supreme Court, Rudy couldn't violate those. The Second Amendment has never been judged to have been "incorporated" by the Supreme Court.
Uhhh, you libeled me. Post 725. I'll wait for an apology. Tick tock.
Yes. And it was a humorous parody of what a certain poster had been doing for hundreds of posts: Trying to assert that conservatives were a bunch of bigoted rubes, simply because they oppose the radical gay agenda and its political proponents. Straight out of the Democrat playbook.
My post also ended with an "/s" for the humorously impaired.
Since then, I've been pointed daily by FReeper friends to posts all over this board by Peach and other of her harpie friends who have been lying about the whole thing (not pinging me either in order to defend myself).
Frankly, I'm sick of it and would like it stopped.
Paging George Orwell...
Hey Peach. If you're going to post that, include the whole post. By not doing so, and not including the Leftwing posts I was replying to, you're lying.
I suppose I will, if you keep lying about it. That's why it's called libel and character assasination.
In fact, I recall that on one of the threads, one of the Giuliani advocates implied that those of us who oppose Giuliani are KKK members.
It was the same thread, in fact.
Somehow methinks a candidate with a history of unusually aggressive anti-gun activity has a much broader definition of "regulate" than merely saying felons et al can't have guns.
Oh, that's always the last resort of a person caught making a disgusting suggestion.
This phrase from the Bill or Rights: "Congress shall make no law ..." refers to the federal congress, but it does not allow States officials to ignore the "Law of the Land" in the writing and/or enforcing of State laws. - Read Article VI as to "the Constitutions or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".
When it was written it was intended to apply only to the federal congress, as a statement of the limitation of powers given by the people to the federal government, and not as a limitation of the powers retained by the states or the people.
You've forgotten powers -- "-- prohibited by it to the States --" Re-read the 10th.
The interpretation of the Supreme Court is that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the restrictions of the federal government onto the individual state governments depending on case law.
Yep, that's their 'opinion', one that ignores both Article VI and the prohibitions mentioned in the 10th, -- prohibitions which always included the entire bill of rights.
That's a different argument than arguing how those restrictions applied prior to the 14th's passage. It is also different depending on which amendments have received the "incorporation" blessing from the Supreme Court.
"Incorporation" is a 'legal fiction' made up by the USSC in order ignore the clear words of both Article VI, and the 14th.
The passage you cited about "the supreme Law of the Land" has no bearing on whether or not an amendment is "incorporated" by the USSC.
So 'majority rule' statists would have us believe. That precept allows State & local government to ignore our individual rights they insist on controlling.
You're the worst of the bunch. How many times have you lied about my exchange on that thread now?
Are you foaming at the mouth now? GEEZ, grow a pair.
Not yet. But I'm going to.
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.