Posted on 02/20/2006 11:20:31 AM PST by neverdem
State attorney general candidate Jeanine Pirro has made a surprising admission.
The former Westchester County district attorney told the state's Conservative Party leadership that she owns three guns. Pirro says she believes in tough gun control laws, but doesn't want to take the rights away of gun holders who are legal. Pirro says her main goal has been to keep illegal guns out of circulation, not curtail legal gun ownership.
At a Monday meeting in Albany, the GOP candidate told Conservatives, "I have done everything I can to get them off the street, to make them accountable, to increase penalties for those who have and traffic in illegal guns." Pirro had been a candidate for the GOP's Senate nomination to challenge Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton's re-election bid this year.
Pirro quit that race in December in the face of fundraising problems and a lack of support.
(Albany-RNS)
What is an "illegal gun". Probably something like this:
Illegal Gun === yours
Legal Gun === hers.
Typical elitist gun grabber. Just like Fienstein, Schummer (who seems to like shooting "illegal guns".) the Bradys, etc. etc.
Not clear to me what an "illegal gun" is. Do you know? Maybe there are gun owners who have lost the right to legally own a gun because of a felony conviction, but to say a gun is illegal in and of its own right is just wrong. The Second Amendment is quite clear, except to those who have a strong desire to get around its plain meaning.
Well said.
You can have all the guns you want, no matter what the laws are, if you're rich and powerful enough.
Gun control laws will only effect law-abiding citizens. People with something to lose will think twice before they violate the law. Criminals who utilize guns don't care. A person who will participate in criminal activity that already carries severe sentences isn't going to be deterred by a gun control law.
the state's Conservative Party leadership that she owns three guns.
Mental note: Don't attempt to rob/burgle her, I may be shot.
What's next? Giuliani appearing on Times Square with a pair of six-shooters and a Right to Life button on his shirt?
The terminology should be changed to illegal ownership of handguns.
Only cases I would consider are:
1) Convicted of felony (we take away voting rights so this is consistant)
2) Immigrants
3) Minors without parental consent and supervision
Good point. So good, in fact, I just came up with a new bumper sticker: "When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns" ;-)
46 states give them back after the felon has served his time.
Well neither does Sarah Brady.
All hinges on your definition of "legal" though, doesn't it?
Somehow I don't think her definition and mine are much alike.
Why would anyone need three salad shooter guns?
Your not referring to people like Sean Penn are you![just joking]
Gun rights are actually more important than voting rights.
The only way taking rights away for felony would be acceptable is if it was part of the felon's sentence from the beginning. But even then, it really wouldn't make much sense. If he can't be trusted to exercise the rights of people in society, then he shouldn't be in society. Release from jail should be an indication that he is fit to rejoin society.
But regardless, if they do decide to make it illegal for felons, no one should have to prove beforehand that he's not a felon before he can purchase a weapon. To require people to prove that they don't belong in prison before they can exercise their rights, is to essentially extend the prison walls around the entire society.
And Schumer has a CC permit.
Sounds suspiciously like Gov Pataki (aka the weasel) when he was running against Cuomo. That tune didn't last long after he was elected.
I disagree. By saying no voting rights we are not allowing someone to participate in how they are to be governed. I say they are equal.
If you buy a gun then you are supposed to register it. Registering a gun as a felon earns you a trip back to the slam. Now, I could see making that part of a sentence for violent crime vs white collar.
Yeah, the owners complied with un-Constitutional state and local paperwork schemes and fees.
And by saying no gun rights you can't defend your property, your dignity, and your life. Your one vote, by contrast, isn't likely to have much of an impact on your life.
If you buy a gun then you are supposed to register it.
And that indeed is the problem. It's none of the government's damn business who's armed and who isn't. It should assume that everyone is, and act accordingly.
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.