Posted on 12/12/2007 10:21:10 PM PST by Skibane
An excerpt from Hugh Hewitt's interview with Rudy Giuliani:
HH: Let me ask you, Mayor, because it’s our last question, but it’s a big one. Where do people like this killer in Colorado, and the one the week before in Nebraska, where do they come from, and what do authorities have to do to stop them, and what’s media’s role in this?
RG: Well, that’s a real big question. I mean, these are such deeply disturbed people, it goes into the roots of their, sometimes their daily life. It could go into the roots of their environment, all the things that happened. I mean, the main thing is you’ve got to provide safety and security to prevent things like this from happening. I don’t think we’re capable of getting so far into the psyche of people, of being able to just regularly predict something like this from behavior. Maybe someday we will be able to do it. So you’ve got to have safety in schools, you have to have very, very good patrol programs. I think you have to look at your gun laws in light of these things happening within the Constitutional restrictions.
(Entire interview is at the link shown in the thread header)
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.townhall.com ...
I'd still vote for him over Hillary though. I just hope it never comes to that.
I think we had that right before the Constitution "gave it to us."
Rudy strikes again! Is there anyone left at F.R. who still supports him?
F### Rudy. After this stupidity, I won’t vote for the gun banning libscum even over Hillary.
Not me.
One thing I’ve come to know...the individual rights enumerated in the US Constitution, and those are not, certainly are NOT GIVEN TO US BY THE GOVERNMENT. They were rights long before there was a government, and we need to keep it that way.
Also, there’s been a lot of lip service in every election cycle about whether ‘litmus test’ issues are pertinent and appropriate. A strict constructionist view of the Second Amendment is a valid litmus test, IMO.
RKBA is there to allow the common folks to defend themselves, their families, and their property from nefarious types, and government run amok. It’s simple, it’s concise, and it’s not a matter of opinion...Rudy’s or anyone else’s.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
I thought Rudy was honest when he told us that he WAS a gungrabber, but if we’d just elect him, he would refrain from grabbing for a while.
I am so let down.
Actually, I recant. After reading the whole article, esp. the 2nd Amend parts, his position is pretty good. Imagine my surprise!
Rudy can’t make up his mind can he? His position on the Second Amendment depends on who he’s talking to. We don’t need another liberal gun grabber in office, and that’s exactly what he is.
Giuliani was referring to whether mentally ill people and people with criminal records should be allowed to own guns. My take was that he was saying there were constitutional questions as to how much you could restrict that.
I suspect most freepers would agree that some people should be restricted from buying guns. In the most extreme example, consider a mental inpatient who has a history of violent behavior. He gets a weekend release from the hospital. Should it be legal for him to go buy a gun during that weekend? Very few people would take the second amendment that far.
Where virtually all freepers agree (as do I) is that law-abiding citizens who are in their right minds should have the right to own a gun. But between this example and my extreme example of a mental patient is a lot of gray areas.
To take one example, should the Virginia Tech killer have been banned from having a gun? He was clearly mentally ill. Given that he hadn’t been found to have been mentally ill in a court of law, however, I would have to say that he had the right to own a gun. Reasonable people can disagree about how far the state can go in defining mental illness and what degree of mental illness is required before the state can restrict someone’s second amendment rights.
Having seen Giuliani speak on a number of occasions, I’ve noticed he’s very thoughtful in his answers. He doesn’t just rely on sound bites, so it’s unfair to grab a few lines and make assumptions about the context of his remarks.
After reading the article, I want to jump in there and ask if the 2A applies in New York city, or it in a special zone or something?
I believe that what I was doing as mayor of New York City was to reduce crime in New York. I had a terrible problem. I had 1,800-2,000 murders a year. I reduced shootings by 74%, homicides by 67%. I enforced the gun laws of New York very aggressively. I do not believe, however, that that would give me any right as a president to ignore the 2nd Amendment. I have respect for the 2nd Amendment.
This guy is a gun-grabbing liar.
The only problem is that Hillary is a gun-grabbing liar and a communist.
So, I will work against Rudy in the primaries, but if he is the nominee, I will vote for him over Hillary or Obama.
It depends on who he's running against.
Rudy vs Democrat - it's a no brainer to vote for Rudy at least he'll kill terrorists.
and babies.
A number of rep candidates are right on the W.O.T. as a matter of fact, I can only think of one who is wrong.
If you don’t really believe that God exists everything is up for grabs! Welcome to the world of secular humanism.
Rudy is less religious than the average tree frog in my yard, and even more dishonest.
I still like Rudy.
McCain is nuts, Thompson lacks energy, Romney’s too slick, Hunter can’t win, Ron Paul should stay in Congress where he belongs, and Huckabee...? I don’t know. I wasn’t even thinking about him until he suddenly shot up in the polls - but a lot of Freepers don’t like him at all.
I like Rudy because of the great job he did in NYC, the fact that he crushed the mob, he gets the WOT, he’s fast on his feet, he stands up to the media, and he wrote a great book on leadership.
I don’t like him on guns and abortion, but he has notably softened his positions on those two key issues.
I simply can’t abide the thought of Mrs. Bill, Hussein or the Breck Girl as Commander in Chief.
T’row da bum out!
Yep. And some would contend that people who want to own guns must be crazy.
So who defines "mentally ill" and at what point do we contend that the illness is sufficient to declare someone not able to own a gun? If they can't own a gun, then they should not be mentally competent to sign a contract, either.
There was a time we were not trying to mainstream every patient onto the streets, when there were institutions for the mentally ill. Now they are given a bottle of pills and released on their own recognizance. Those who decide to obtain weapons will find a way. So while this might keep them from walking into a gun shop and passing the NICS check, it will not stop the really determined person from obtaining a gun.
Criminals do it every day.
And when they continue to do so, the answer will be, as always, to ban their weapon of choice.
Look what happened in Australia after the massacre in Tasmania, perpetrated by someone who was mentally imbalanced.
Call me paranoid if you will, but at no time has any government been given an inch of liberty without taking a mile.
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.