CNN Question (Rudy)

Those who would use weapons to commit crime will find access to those weapons no matter what laws are in effect. The second amendment simply creates a level playing field. To restrict an individual from purchasing any product through examination is requiring them to prove their propensity and therefore assumes guilt. This is not consistent with a free society.

We are not meant to be dependent on government. It doesn't work. Just look at how well the government protected the students of Virginia Tech, or the innocents of September Eleventh.

Instead of saying we need more laws to tie the hands of lawful citizens, we should be demanding equal access.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Rudy
• Giuliani
• Debate
• Question
• Politics

[bxblox]

More gun control is pointless. Criminals dont go to the gun store, register, license, get background checked, and go through the waiting period for their guns. They go to the guy with the stash in his trunk. People who want guns will get them and theres no reason to widen the gap to make it that much more difficult to law abiders to get them than crooks.

[kipload]

My sentiments exactly...

[Halomaster311]

Because even though most gun owners DONT kill people with their guns. The guy at Virginia tech did! If any one would have looked at his back round they would of seen he was not in any condition to own a gun of any type and many lives could of been saved. and he's not the only one. Many people are shot every year, and if we can avoid deaths of innocent people, well why not???

[kipload]

Please read the description of my video above. That should explain why I simply cannot agree with you.

[xpressin]

honestly i dont see what the big hullaboo is about. They will never take guns away... those who want them will get them. I dont think it should be an issue that we should be very worried with

[bxblox]

That's not the say I think the bronx is a bad place, I love living here. But theres no shortage of criminals, just not as many as there used to be. I saw someone shot in the head for their jewelry when i was a kid and had to lay down on the ground in the middle of the night because of shootouts outside my window in the 80's. Compared to back then nyc is disneyland.

[bxblox]

Bronx, NYC

[RebelliousHutterite]

What city do you live in where you have to worry about something like that!?

[pchaffi1]

Good point, however, I feel that there should be restrictions to people who are not mentally and physically able to own a gun. This alone can mean guilt. Remember, the definition of a gun has changed dramatically since the 2nd Amendment was passed. An individual can do far more damage with a gun now than compared to the days of "one shot and reload".

[kris1490]

Yes of course, but we're not talking about "assuming guilt." What Giuliani is suggesting is that a test be taken so that the proper choice may be made as to whether or not a person is mentally capable of possessing a firearm.

About the example you gave in the video description:

Do you think that Seung-Hui Cho had the right to handle a gun and therefore was just in his massacre?

[kipload]

It is against the ideas of a free society to assume guilt. If an individual has never committed a crime and has not been proven guilty of a violent act their rights should be protected. It is quite clear that lawful citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.

[bxblox]

There are plenty. Everyone doesn't want to call 911 and wait for the guys with the guns (cops) for 10 minutes while someone who has a gun breaks in and kills their family. You may not know them, but they're out there..

[RebelliousHutterite]

How many people actually buy guns to simply "protect themselves"?? I seriously dont know any...