According to The New York Times,

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: March 23, 2007

"But as a presidential candidate, Mr. Giuliani now talks very differently about guns as he tries to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters. He says he supports the right of individuals to bear arms, and that states — and generally not the federal government — should decide whether to put some limits on that right. He also spoke in favor of a federal appeals court ruling this month that struck down a District of Columbia ordinance barring people from keeping handguns in their homes."

Say anything, do anything, act as if you believe in anything to get elected. Then when in office do as you please. Just another candidate saying what he/she thinks will placate the voters. Don't be fooled, if he wants to act as a democrate perhaps he should run as one.

Jeff, Nacogdoches TX
Ok, so giving the government the authority to violate your right to privacy no matter who you are on the off-chance you might know someone who's a terrorist is A-OK, but making sure not everyone with a small amount of cash has access to a lethal weapon is bad.

Excellent point. Many of the same people that are frothing at the mouth about any regulations on gun ownership, have no problem with handing over their right to privacy, habeus corpus and freedom from illegal search and seizure. I guess the second amendment is important, and the rest of them are just guidelines?

How many here equating driving with weapons ownership would be OK with a test before you vote? Or a review of what is written before publishing?

WHy is it ok to make a test for one right protected in the Bill of Rights and not the others?

I believe that Rudy Guiliani did a great job in the debate last night, and so did Mike H. I think Giuliani was correct about the enforcement of gun laws in NY or crack down on crime.

Gun control laws do nothing to control CRIMINALS using guns. Why don't they call these laws what they really are – "Victim Disarmament Laws?" Power hungry gun grabbers like Rudy don't want people to be safer, they want the citizenry to be defenseless when the government becomes too oppressive and those "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment start demanding our rights be respected.

A country whose citizens need guns in order to protect themselves and their families is failing somewhere.

Frank in SD,

I am not sure but didn't Hitler's government take weapsons from the people at the very begining of his reign? Can anybody clarify? Thanks

First, I don't think owning a gun is a God given right. I have never found a passage in the Bible that affirms this belief. If I am wrong, then please direct me to the passage. Posted By Gerald, Leawood KS.
No it is not in the Bible but neither is owning a computer in the Bible! Are you going to give up your computer? It in constitutional to own a gun unless you give up that right by being a convicted felon!

I'm surprised that no one has paid attention to Huckabee's response to this question, which was truly frightening. If I understood him correctly, he said that people were only free if they had guns to protect them from their own government.

Ok, so giving the government the authority to violate your right to privacy no matter who you are on the off-chance you might know someone who's a terrorist is A-OK, but making sure not everyone with a small amount of cash has access to a lethal weapon is bad.

Right. Gotcha.

Yes, it makes it (slightly) harder for law-abiding citizens to use guns. Yes, the more persistent and resourceful criminals are going to have access to them anyway through the black market. But those AREN'T the only two groups! There is an inbetween of incompetent criminals, people with only a few priors, people who for mental reasons would be disproportionately dangerous with access to firearms.

Safety before liberty or liberty before safety? Which is it?

There are a lot of comments here talking about safety, and comparing testing/licensing for firearms to testing/licensing for motor vehicle operations. I would just like remind my fellow Americans (many of whom in this day and age seem to be very ignorant of their rights and how their government is supposed to work) that the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee a right to drive a car. It does, however, guarantee a right to keep and bear arms, and it states plainly that the right shall not be infringed. Advocating that one should be required to pass a test before owning a firearm makes no more sense than advocating that someone pass a test before being allowed to speak out against the government or practice the religion of their choice. If you don't support the Second Amendment, then you can exercise your First Amendment rights and the framework of the Constitution to lobby Congress to repeal the Second Amendment (good luck with that). Until then, you'll just have to accept that it is a right that was so highly regarded by the Founding Fathers, that they listed it in the Bill of Rights, second only to the right to freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court stated in one of their old cases that a Right can't be held contingent on the passing of any kind of tests, be it safety or intelligence.

Brad from Burlington: CNN does not have to draw negative attention to Rudi Giuiliani – he does that very well on his own.

Guns can cause great damage if misused. Personally, I like to see guns banned, but I know the American culture – they like their 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms. I don't see any problem of having classes to teach what is proper and what is improper and see these gun owners pass the class, and perhaps show them ways of handling violence and to use guns as the last resort. At the same time, they can use the time to check for background. After all, the gun is a lethal instrument. It can kill, and once that person is killed, you can't bring him/her back if you make an error in judgment.

Passing an exam for getting guns is another example of a red tape hassle! More paperwork and additional personal costs create more headaches for everyone, especially our tax dollars. We need guns for our future when the time of our American civilization collapses. For example, we will necessitate guns to survive and protect ourselves from roaming ruthless ethnic tribal gangs during the breakout time of American Civil War II. I will have to buy a ton of weapons and ammunitions before a new gun law (requires an exam before buying guns) enacted. Only criminals and thug gangs will their advantageous from a new gun law that was Guiliani’s idea. Having guns in your home is better to be safe than sorry!

Monica, comparing a constitutional right to using a sink is pathetic. If thats the only way you can make an analogy to politics, i feel sorry for you. as for everyone else, i ask this question. lets assume we are all law abiding citizens on this forum… if someone breaks into your home, armed with a knife, gun, whatever, what good is calling the police going to do? In the 3-15 minutes it takes them to get to your house, you can already be dead.

If the government knows what guns you have and how many you have, it makes it easier for the government to take them away. And if you think the government won't take peoples guns away, just look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina. People try to compare the driver's license tests to having a guns test. You DO NOT have to have a license to operate a vehicle on your own property so why do I have to take a test to own a gun on my own property? And if you want to take a gun OFF your property, there is a class that already exists that you have to take as a requirement. Thats how you get your concealed pistol permit. Do some research before you ruin my rights.

If you want to work anywhere in the food service industry you have to be properly trained in how to use a sink before they'll actually let you use it, and yes, sometimes even tested. Aren't guns slightly more dangerous than sinks?

First, I don't think owning a gun is a God given right. I have never found a passage in the Bible that affirms this belief. If I am wrong, then please direct me to the passage.

Second, I can't think of any other right that can cause the death of another person.

Third, crime has always been a factor of life. I don't see how owning a gun has changed this for the better.

Finally, I have no opposition to rifles and shot guns for hunting purposes. I do not understand why anyone needs a handgun. Handguns were designed to kill people. I've never heard of anyone hunting with a handgun, unless they were hunting people.

Rudy is comparing apples and oranges. There are already too many gun control laws and they do nothing to improve our safety. What does a required test have to do with a criminal obtaining a gun? Are the anti-gunners so ignorant that they think criminals pay attention to such laws? When you see a "no concealed weapons" sign at the entrance of an establishment, do you actually feel safer because that sign will stop criminals at the door?

Before you counter with a total gun ban proposal, think about what our laws are regarding illegal drugs. These laws have been in place for years, but yet drugs are cheaper, of better quality, and most importantly…STILL readily available in the US. If a criminal wants a gun, they WILL have one regardless of the laws. Why take guns out of the hands of a law abiding citizen?

These laws have little or nothing to do with stopping crime. They only discourage law abiding citizens from exercising a constitutional right. Politician's are drawn to such legislation because it appeals to their ignorant, misinformed, and fear ridden constituents. Instead of boosting their ratings, politicians such as Rudy need to protect the constitution while backing laws that make sense. We don't need politicians who give the illusion of progress. We need someone in office that actually accomplishes something other than advancing their career.

Yep; all those comitting gun crime are going to run right out and pass that test just like they did in the school they dropped out of in the 5th grade!

This guy is a crook and killed almost as many Americans as the supposed Al(CIA)da did….if you have a brain and a heart, you will vote for the only one else on stage who does…Ron Paul..

If you change the second to the first, would you still support an exam or a license in order to exercise your right? Someone may yell "fire!" in a theater or encourage riots with a newspaper article. If you allow one right to be shackled it's only a matter of time before they chain the rest.

I'd boo him too!

The reason we need guns is to protect America from Rudy Giuliani and his commy policies.

Yes, we need to be safe and know how to use them, but if you have a corrupt government and they start tyranny, you might not have time to read the owners manual.

I think they booed at Giuliani because he overall sucks. Not so much the "gun thing". Although it helped.

You have the constitutional right to bear an arm that is loaded through and down the barrel with a ramrod. It will only fire once then it will require reloadeding, repriming, and relocked.

He's a liar, why not tell the truth or give the only one a chance to tell the truth which he did..Ron Paul is and will always be the only one to speak about the SPP!!!
SPIN baby SPIN…add to the revolution!!!

Senator CLinton also wants to bring our troops home and many of them support Senator Clinton as well. Ron Paul is not the ony one who believes in bring our men and women home. I vote on the candidate themsleves not just who I know that supports them.

I wonder how many criminals will show up to take the class and test?

If a person is too stupid to pass a simple gun safety exam, then they should not be allowed to walk around carrying a gun. Giuliani enforced such an exam and successfully reduced crime rates in New York City. It's one thing to support the Second Amendment, it's another to completely ignore the potential danger of guns in the wrong hands.

The best candidate for gun ownership is RON PAUL! Bar none! People should NOT have to take a written test to own a gun! PERIOD! That is ONLY start of more gun control! ALL you gun owner's need to support the ONLY candidate for us and that is Ron Paul! He is also the ONLY candidate from EITHER party who our troops are OVERWHELMING SUPPORTING TOO! FACT! McCain is WRONG! SOO VERY WRONG! OUR TROOPS OVERWHELMING SUPPORT RON PAUL, AND WE NEED TO TOO! BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME AND NOW!

Plus, tougher gun laws might mean idiots like Cheney wouldn't be able to get a hold of guns and then that poor Texas lawyer would not have gotten shot in the face!

And before 9-11 many New Yorkers were unhappy with you and what had been happening at that time. Numbers are not the only way to judge whether you are someone Americans should vote to put in office. Words and actions can speak volumes as well.

Goodness gracious. If you are going to be so indignant about the potential passing of gun laws, do not invoke the 5th amendment, which gives us the right not to testify against ourselves. I think you would rather invoke the second amendment, the right to bear arms. The ignorance of so many people is truly appalling.

I believe people who use guns responsibly would not object to taking a test to own or use a gun…it is those people who DON'T use guns responsibly or legally that would object! And therefore a test would just be the start of effective gun control…
Come on people…it's just a test to provide safety.

It's scary how many of you commentors have said that you don't have a problem with the government forcing you to pass some stupid test before you will be "allowed" to exercise a God given right. Possibly you don't believe in God. Possibly you don't believe that God granted us our rights (the second amendment didn't secure anything, it only PROTECTED my rights from government and people like you who would take them away). I'm amazed to see MEN who have no problem with the government acting like our mother. Men should know better. Men USED to value liberty FIRST, and men USED to want to secure liberties for ALL law abiding citizens (without having to beg government for permission). How about a test before you can exercise OTHER rights? How about being forced to beg government permission before you can exercise a few things in the first amendment? Many people are hypocrites and say it's OK to limit my second amendment rights but not the rights YOU care about.

American's have the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This Right was not intended to protect violent criminals. It is not a bad idea to regulate ownership of a firearm. Classes, tests and criminal record review is not too much to ask. However, it needs to be clear that, beyond that, Americans need their rights protected and supported by our President.

In Michigan we have a hunter safety
program so most kids that are interested in guns take this program.
Also thier families help to teach the
the skills it takes to own and handle
a gun.And it is a right to own a gun!

The government already provides oversight on the Second Amendment, the right to have and bare arms. If a citizen wants to carry a weapon, they are required to take classes and complete a test so they may carry a concealed weapon under permit. Is adding the requirement of a basic weapons safety class really asking so much that one would view it as a threat to that right? I personally feel there are too many idiots out there who have no idea, just like the idiot who tossed the weapon in the video. And they call them accidents?

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People this makes no mention of licences. This makes no mention of hunting! The meaning of this amendment was for us as American citizens to be well armed to defend ourselves against the gov't!! A gov't that is corrupt must be run out and if we have no weapons we have no power to do that.

Who cares? We have major issues that are needing resolution in this country. If citizens of this country are ignorant enough to focus on a few main issues like abortion, gun control, and immigration. There are more people dieing in the Middle East right now, than all of those issues combined. Get your priorities straight!

I must say that I COMPLETELY agree with Rudi on the gun laws. Guns are the biggest problem on the streets of every state in America. I don't care if it seems that the majority of Americans feel the need to "bear arms". If Rudi stands by his convictions regardless of the popular vote, he has my respect!!! But that's all.

Probably the worst day (so far) for Giuliani! It's only time before the rest of the world knows what an idiot and panderer (not to mention an adulterer, a liar, an opportunist, a bad father, and a DEMOCRAT!) this guy really is!

Let the games begin!

I never understood what the big deal was about getting a gun license. If you're going to handle something potentially dangerous, you should prove you know all the safety regulations. If you want to drive a car, you should need to prove that you know how to not run it into a telephone pole. If you want to sell gas, you should need to prove that you're not going to dump it in the grass or burn garbage near it. If you want to own a gun, you should prove that you're not going to shoot someone in the foot with it.

Jeez! What's the big deal?

The government already provides oversight on the Second Amendment, the right to have and bare arms. If a citizen wants to carry a weapon, they are required to take classes and complete a test so they may carry a concealed weapon under permit. Is adding the requirement of a basic weapons safety class really asking so much that one would view it as a threat to that right? I personally feel there are too many idiots out there who have no idea, just like the idiot who tossed the weapon in the video. And they call them accidents?

Ralph Platt

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. Driving a car on the road is a privilege, not a right.

We have enough gun laws. And we are not NYC!

I think that is stupid, to take an exam. If a person wants a gun to use to harm someone they will get it one way or another. All the exam is good for is so that the law abiding citizens have a harder time to get a gun to protect his/ her family from the sickos that are out there to harm you.

Notice how CNN is keeping this blog at the top of the list to draw negative attention to Guliani? Reading the Fox News Manifesto are we CNN?

this is the worst debate Ive seen yet, its so deplorably one sided that I cant stand watching it. What video was voted the highest custom video made for any candidate? Yet who's the only person who's video we havent seen? What kind of mockery is this?

Will you please post the names of the canidates on the tv screen after a question has been given to them? I am not familiar with all of them.

So we should be alright with needing to pass an exam before we're allowed to exercise a defined Right that's specifically protected by our Constitution?

So lemme get this straight. If you fail to pass an exam, which could be made extremely difficult by the anti-gun crowd on purpose to ensure failure, we should lose our rights?

Isn't that against the 5th Amendment?

Rudy, I certainly agree with your gun policy, making America a safer place by the rule of the law, not by gun abusing.

I agree. It shouldn't be easy for us to get a gun. Written exam is a ok with me.

you need to pass a test to drive a car, why would you not need education before you shoot a gun????