Rudy Giuliani's unclear views on gun control?
I have read this a few times, but I am still not completely clear on what gun control regulations he would support. "Reasonable and sensible" gun control regulations could mean that any regulation is possible. The last paragraph is extremely worrisome. There are obviously many important issues in determining who one supports in the election, but this is not the state's rights view that I thought that Giuliani was going to take. That is my biggest concern, not his particular views on gun control.
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.
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.
Labels: 2008PresidentialRace, Giuliani
posted by John Lott at 5:48 PM
8 Comments:
It was clear to me ... unless he changes it's a no go for me, I had rather take a pass than vote for a gun banner. He thought the AW ban, that meaningless charade, was good and useful in big cities.
Funny, I didn't see that written in the second amendment.
I'm confused by his belief that population density should, somehow, be a consideration when strict gun control laws are applied. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance.
Exactly how does population density matter to the one law abiding citizen being attacked by an armed thug who doesn't care that, while he's commiting this crime, it's illegal for him to be armed?
Are there some statistics, I'm not aware of, which show that a large proportion of these violent crimes involving guns occured in crowded locations? I'd be willing to bet just that the opposite is true, that most occur at night, in apartments and crackhouses, back allys and subways where the density of his population doesn't mean diddly squat!
You either believe in one's right to bear arms or you do not. I fear the "fence straddlers" far more than those who firmly stand on one side or the other.
He's every Democrat's "dream Republican".
Rudy is very vague on the Second Amendment, but he's really good at grinning.
As much as I want to like Rudy, he's on the wrong side of the gun issue.
Giuliani's conditional respect for the 2nd Amendment is likely to have the following effect on pro-gun voters: they'll like him more than any Democrat, but they won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a gun-grabber whom they suspect might side with the UN and George Sorros in a global small arms confiscation drive.
I personally think Rudy could be talked into registration, and registration is only useful if the final goal is confiscation.
The result would be a Republican defeat in 2008, by shrinking the size of conservative Republican vote. Giuliani needs to reverse his position now on the Brady Bill and on assault rifles (the best defensive weapons to own in the post-Katrina gulf coast area), or he'll force conservative Republicans to stay home on election day.
No vote from me! Where does it say "hunting" in the Second Amendment. Do these people even read the Constitution? Sad. I like Romney!
The limits of Federalism (really, here, the principle of subsidiarity) should be discussed.
Rudy's right on the principle--that localities are best positioned to make decisions about local conditions (same goes for States, if locals can't resolve the issue)--and the Feds should be involved only when it's truly a national issue.
But there are niggling practical details; and the right to self-defense, it seems, should trump local ordinances.
Of all of the places in the United States of America, I can think of no better place to allow law abiding citizens the "right" to carry a weapon for personal protection that New York City. Apparantly the personal safety of a police officer (who can carry 24-7) is more important to him and the city than your life is to you or your family.
Post a Comment
<< Home