For Rudy Giuliani Fans and Girlianites Only

P

publius42

New member
Tell me whether you agree or disagree with Rudy's idea that Congress should pass a law saying we should show a need for a handgun before being allowed to own one?

Or, if you're going to tell me that Rudy does not hold that position any longer, tell me where is the evidence to support your contention?
 
Last edited:
I viewed the video. I will give you my take just limited to what he said on the video interview.

I don't have a problem with the statement about demonstrating the ability to use a firearm or passing a reasonable test. I have had CCW in 4 different states and I am glad to see people train and pass tests before carrying a firearm. The one problem I had with his statements is the demonstrate a need part. Now that can cover a large range. I have seen times when demonstrate a need is not a high standard and just means you state your reason as self protection, but it is the kind of rule that has potential for misuse. The standard for demonstrating a need could be so high that it is almost impossible for the ordinary citizen to own a handgun. So, he would have to really detail what demonstrate a need means for me to make a decision. In the mean time, just his statement alone as made means I probably would not vote for him on that basis.
 
Whats a Girlianite?

Are you implying that Rudys supporters are...cultlike?

WildthisshouldbegoodAlaska TM

PS...not that I have selected a candidate yet, but I DISAGREE with any Federal law that puts a need requirement on gun ownership.
 
For the Rudy lovers...why do you hate freedom (thusly, America) sooo badly? ;)

Yeah yeah, this is a troll post. Wild makes em all the time! :eek:

Hey, someone provide me with that Rudy quote about "What freedom really means"...giving control to the gubermint, etc! Somebody had it sigged, that might have been THR though...hm.
 
Defjon - think I found it -

Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
Click to expand...

Yep, rings a bell: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." Very interesting that he interprets freedom as the exact opposite of what you'll find in the dictionary.
 
cede to lawful authority
Click to expand...
What country does Rudy want to rule, I mean, be president of?

Now where did I put that Do Not Question Authority poster?
 

Attachments

  • NoQuestions.jpg
    NoQuestions.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 66
"Freedom is about authority."

Yep, that's the one! Thanks! That should be enough to seriously make someone think about voting for this guy. Man, I'm seeing a lot of this go on lately. Orwell would be flipping. Bush's "When I talk about war, I'm really talking about peace."
 
i'm conservative and I will never vote for that man, no mater what his "stripes" say today, he is anti-gun
 
I dont think people should be required to show that they know how to use, or, that they need a firearm.

There is a right to bear arms for everyone. NOT just the ones who are effecient with them.

All these rules and encroachments are not right. I dont think charging a fee to process a ccw application is legal under the constitution.
 
I heard Bloomberg say "It's easy to get a ccw permit, just apply for one". He does not mention that they only issue a couple hundred total permits for the entire nyc population. Most of those permits go to the same politicians that restrict them for 'regular folk'.
 
I don't have a problem with the statement about demonstrating the ability to use a firearm or passing a reasonable test.
Click to expand...
I've got a problem with having to demonstrate ability before owning a gun. I knew close to jack s--t about guns, and I know a good number of other people who came into gun ownership like that. It took me a hell of a lot of time to get practiced enough match what I know consider basic acceptable self-defense accuracy.

It's great for those of us who had gun ownership part of their culture, or access to helpful trainers with lots of spare time, or the time and money to join at gun clubs or shooting ranges before owning their own gun... but that's not every gun owner.
 
There are ways to strongly encourage training as a part of gun ownership other than a state law demanding that training which can arbitrarily be enhanced or denied. We all know the issues that have resulted in CCW licensee's having their names and addresses published in newspaper, even in direct violation of existing law.
 
I've got a problem with having to demonstrate ability before owning a gun. I knew close to jack s--t about guns, and I know a good number of other people who came into gun ownership like that. It took me a hell of a lot of time to get practiced enough match what I know consider basic acceptable self-defense accuracy.

It's great for those of us who had gun ownership part of their culture, or access to helpful trainers with lots of spare time, or the time and money to join at gun clubs or shooting ranges before owning their own gun... but that's not every gun owner.
Click to expand...

Good point. I'm more concerned that Rudy would like to see us demonstrate a need for a handgun, but the requirement to show proficiency is one more obstacle to getting people into shooting.
 
I've got a problem with having to demonstrate ability before owning a gun. I knew close to jack s--t about guns, and I know a good number of other people who came into gun ownership like that. It took me a hell of a lot of time to get practiced enough match what I know consider basic acceptable self-defense accuracy.
Click to expand...

Great, so did you carry before you achieved basic acceptable self defense accuracy?

WildordoyouknowfolkswhohaveAlaska TM
 
He's already tanking in Iowa where the voters finally figured out his past. He's a horrible candidate. Take all the bad of Bush, and add all the anti-gun crap of a Clinton or Kerry. Actually, not all the bad of Bush - at least Guliani would allow funding for stem cell research - I'll give him that over Bush.
 
Great, so did you carry before you achieved basic acceptable self defense accuracy?
Click to expand...

In places where it was acceptable to carry openly? Yes. 8-10 inch groups at 40 feet and margin of paper at 75 feet is completely pathetic, and it's not something I'm particularly proud about. It'd be idiotic to use that sorta thing in an adrenaline-soaked moment.

It's also better to have the tool even if it can't be used to its full potential, than not have the tool at all. A lot of confrontations occur at very short ranges, and some handgun uses (at least for my sorta area, shotshell stuff) don't require the level of accuracy usually recognized as necessary for self-defense purposes.

Moreover, we're talking about mere possession, not carry, in terms of Rudy's statement, so I don't quite see the relevance.
 
It's also better to have the tool even if it can't be used to its full potential, than not have the tool at all. A lot of confrontations occur at very short ranges, and some handgun uses (at least for my sorta area, shotshell stuff) don't require the level of accuracy usually recognized as necessary for self-defense purposes.

Moreover, we're talking about mere possession, not carry, in terms of Rudy's statement, so I don't quite see the relevance.
Click to expand...

Two more good points, and by the way, welcome to TFL. Another good point would be that many defensive handgun uses do not involve firing a shot, if we were talking about carrying qualifications and not mere ownership qualifications. Don't mind WA's attempts at distraction, he's cranky but entertaining. ;)
 
I've got a problem with having to demonstrate ability before owning a gun. I knew close to jack s--t about guns, and I know a good number of other people who came into gun ownership like that. It took me a hell of a lot of time to get practiced enough match what I know consider basic acceptable self-defense accuracy.
---
Great, so did you carry before you achieved basic acceptable self defense accuracy?
Click to expand...

Straw man fallacy. There are those of us that believe you shouldn't have to go through 'testing' in order to legally bear arms as granted in the second amendment - that goes for both purchase and carry. Demonstrating that someone had to go through testing in order to 'win' their carry permit doesn't mean that it was right, or a reason or precedence to extend that restriction to firearm purchase.
 
I don't know law in other states but in Texas you are required to take some kind of hunting safety course to get a hunting license if you were born before 1971 or something...you can get a one year deferral.

I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing to require a similar basic firearms safety course to be taken once in a lifetime...the logistics of it would be ugly but a good way to spread the good word about guns and how to be safe with them. Maybe require is the wrong word...how about add 50 dollars to the purchase price of the first firearm and give them a schedule of gun safety classes and a voucher indicating that tuition has been paid??? Most first timers are more than happy to learn about firearms and their operation (I was)...even the ones who don't need the course should feel better knowing that there are probably 8 others out of ten who do need it.

I cringe everytime I see a 21 year old kid who just purchased his first Glock racking the slide with the barrel pointed to his left with his finger on the trigger.

As far as qualifying for CCW, almost everyone here probably disagrees with me but the training and marksmanship requirements should be a little tougher than what I experienced. From a practical standpoint I'd feel far safer knowing any legal CHL holder has a good understanding of the law and marginally average marksmanship. I am afraid that should I ever have to use my CCW there will be another CHL holder who perceives me as a threat because I used my firearm and they think they have been deputized thanks to the little red and blue card in their wallet.

I already know most think the 2A gives anyone the right to do anything with any type of gun, I just think society is a little more complicated (or maybe less sophisticated...less common sense...something) now than it was at the time of it's writing. I wish there were a way to spread knowledge and training without limiting ANYTHING at all, we cannot stop the nutjobs like the off duty LE this weekend but we can stop "friendly fire" and accidental shootings by promoting safety for ownership and training for carry.

I do not see where anyone should have to qualify the need for a gun, we can all read a newspaper in any city in the US and find something that makes us think "That could have been me" and most of us have something more valuable than money to protect...ourselves and/or families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top