Rudy Giuliani: Gun Control Works

[greyhouse]

He claims he understands the 2nd amendment, but clearly he does not. I think he should go read it again. It does not say "the right of the People to keep and bear arms for hunting shall not be infringed." I really don't understand how people can become this delusional.

http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO42897

[billamj]

Let me start by saying that I am not a Rudi supporter. There are several candidates out there who look interesting to me but I have yet to make up my mind as to who I will support. I think that in this instance, once again, the press has taken him out of context. I heard him on Sean Hannity's show last week and he stated that he used gun control that was already law as a tool to reduce crime as a mayor but that he had no intention of signing onto or supporting any type of gun control legislation himself. Being completely honest I can see his point. If you already have an arrow in your quiver, does it not make sense to use it? The laws were in place and he used them, it is kind of logical even if it is revolting. Just my .02.

[Emptymag]

I have to look into this further before making any decisions.

I did hear him being interviewed by Hannity on the radio and he stated "I believe the people have the right to bear arms"... Now, I don't know... it SOUNDED like he just left out the word "keep" by accident, and that he supports us but I can't be sure yet.

I DO recall when John Kerry was asked about the 2nd Ammendment...
He ALWAYS left off the word "keep"!
He was VERY careful to say "I believe in the right of the people to bear arms in the defense of this country"... Huh? What part of the constitution was that in?

[KeithPA]

Anyone from NYC is going to be Anti, or from NY in general. To get elected you can't be a Pro 2A. There simply aren't enough pro voters out there.

If you check out the GOA they don't even like McCain. It will be hard to find a Pro 2A canidate on either side of the aisle. Except Ron Paul of course, but I haven't even seen his name mentioned once on any network. Besides the fact the man is too smart and would most likely meet an untimely end.

[Lougotzz]

Don't believe this guy. He is a jerk. He will ban all your guns. Clinton also said he knew what the 2nd said. He also used the hunting line.

It is not about hunting. It is about protecting freedom!!!! That means full auto/semi auto military arms should not be infringed upon!!!!!!


He does not have my vote!!!

[josh]

Originally Posted by billamj

Let me start by saying that I am not a Rudi supporter. There are several candidates out there who look interesting to me but I have yet to make up my mind as to who I will support. I think that in this instance, once again, the press has taken him out of context. I heard him on Sean Hannity's show last week and he stated that he used gun control that was already law as a tool to reduce crime as a mayor but that he had no intention of signing onto or supporting any type of gun control legislation himself. Being completely honest I can see his point. If you already have an arrow in your quiver, does it not make sense to use it? The laws were in place and he used them, it is kind of logical even if it is revolting. Just my .02.

No it is not logical. What crime does he think gun control reduced. All of the statistics show crime is never reduced bty gun control.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by josh

No it is not logical. What crime does he think gun control reduced. All of the statistics show crime is never reduced bty gun control.

Actually in NYC under Giuliani they did actually jail people like felons who were trying to procure firearms and got nabbed by the Brady check. During his time in office he was able to reduce the violent crime rate drastically, something like 70%. Using a law that is on the books to help control crime is very logical and even someone who is very anti LEO should be able to see that.

[Frenchy]

If for nothing else, I respect the man for his ability to use all the resources he had at the time he was in power. The morning of 9-11 many other mayors would have resigned or decided to go on a trip. Come to think of it, many would have had a trip in the hospital, but not to visit others there. Like it or not, New York City is one of the larger populations in the US. Being the mayor there means ruling over a larger population then many countries have.

The ethnic diversity there is unlike any where in the world. The pressures that came along with his job are probably heavier then most senators live. Not withstanding his support or non support of gun control, post 9-11 I believe he could have taken the presidents seat and handled things very effectively. If any one knows how to manage a large group and can claim to experience in a crisis, it is he.

As to would I want him governing the country? That remains to be seen. Unlike a company owner who can decide what his company will or not produce, the president of the United States is really only the person who reflects what the people want. This generally is shown by what the mayors of cities and towns ask on behalf of the population.
No one will individually make the President do or undo anything. The people under him who send up the ideas and new laws do. So it is not so much who will be president we have to worry about, but who will be sending the information of what the people want to the president that count.
This is probably why a very important text in the Constitution of the United states wrote the Preamble...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This could easily be read..
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the presidency of the United States America.

We decide and our decisions are sent up by the offices and private groups that are under the Presidency all the way down to the local mayor/senators. They in turn recieve their information by groups such as the NRA and other non political groups.

Just to compare, other mayors actions in crisis, we just have to look to the south where the mayor saved his private helicopter by flying out and coming back safely after a major crisis, to talk about “Chocolate” and “Chocolate milk”! and disarming the population.

[josh]

Originally Posted by billamj

Actually in NYC under Giuliani they did actually jail people like felons who were trying to procure firearms and got nabbed by the Brady check. During his time in office he was able to reduce the violent crime rate drastically, something like 70%. Using a law that is on the books to help control crime is very logical and even someone who is very anti LEO should be able to see that.

I would really appreciate if you could post a link to these statistics.

If I understand you correctly,you are saying he used unconstitutional laws to lock away people who were already criminals.

I just cant get behind this at all.
Also please keep in mind being a "felon" does not make you some sort of monster.

[Emptymag]

OK, I heard Giuliani being asked by Hannity about the Second Amendment AGAIN - and again he only mentioned the part about "bearing" arms, no mention of the "keeping" part.
He also made it VERY clear that he is NO supporter of the constitution as it relates to our freedoms in that he stated that different cities should make their own laws relating to gun control.

Sorry Rudy, It (second amendment) doesn't read "except in Cleveland, Memphis, New Orleans (random cities) and any city that begins with the letter "P".

His way of thinking is really not much different than that of the Anti's who "say" they support your "right to hunt!"

Anyone who is satisfied with a candidate who will "let me keep my 30-30" is on the side of gun control. Well, OK, that's a bit harsh considering we may not HAVE a better choice than someone like that, but I think you know what I mean.

I'm guessing that when it comes down to the final choices, our best "pro gun" candidate won't be all that "pro gun" after all.
I hope I'm wrong.