A gun-control model that has been proved effective

In a debate with CNN host Piers Morgan last week, Newt Gingrich was asked whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess automatic weapons. Basically, he said no, it does not.

“I think .50-caliber machine guns would be bizarre,” Gingrich said. “And I’m happy to say that those rules seem to work fairly well.”

It’s an interesting admission. Like many others on the right, Gingrich accepts and even embraces the power of government to effectively ban possession of .50 caliber machine guns and other automatic weapons. Yet somehow, he believes that under the Second Amendment, the government has no similar power to ban semi-automatic assault weapons.

But where does he find that constitutional distinction between automatic and semi-automatic? What textual basis in the Second Amendment would allow government to heavily regulate and in effect ban one type of weapon, while prohibiting similar regulation of others?

Just to review, the text of the amendment states, in its entirety:

“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.”

The truth is that no such distinction exists in the amendment text or in any other writings of the Founding Fathers. Gingrich and others base their position solely on their own gut-level feeling that, as the ex-speaker puts it, “.50-caliber machine guns would be bizarre.” He is clearly not making a constitutional argument, although he may try to cloak it in that language. He is making a personal judgment about what he believes should or should not be allowed.

Yet if others make a similar argument regarding assault weapons and 30-round magazines, they are accused of trying to rewrite the Constitution.

And what about those rules regarding fully automatic weapons that “seem to work fairly well,” as Gingrich put it?

Under a law signed by that notorious gun-grabber Ronald Reagan, U.S. citizens can legally possess an automatic weapon only if the weapon was built and registered with the government prior to 1986. No weapons built after that date can be added to the registry that makes them eligible for civilian ownership.

As the word “registry” implies, the federal government knows who owns every one of these weapons. Such a registry is supposed to be the first step to confiscation and tyranny, yet except among the hard-core militia types, it is an uncontroversial and accepted form of regulation.

Furthermore, anyone who seeks to buy one of those grandfathered automatic weapons must undergo a complete FBI background check and be fingerprinted before receiving permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and local law enforcement to acquire the firearm. (NOTE: This paragraph has been corrected since its original posting.)

And to repeat Gingrich’s verdict, “those rules seem to work fairly well.” He’s right. They do. Registered automatic weapons in private hands are rarely if ever used in crime. And by rarely, I mean maybe two or three times in the last quarter century.

In other words, all the rhetoric aside, it offers a statistically proven example of how gun control works.

– Jay Bookman

194 comments Add your comment

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2013
11:59 am

Nice catch. (and thanks too, I suppose, to Newt.)

I’d never seen this particular angle examined before, but I think it might have legs.

JohnnyReb

January 28th, 2013
12:01 pm

Speaking of rhetoric, what do gun banners have to say about this which exposes the lies of the Left as to the school shooter using a rifle?

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

vinny

January 28th, 2013
12:02 pm

Jay -

They should just make it against the law to kill someone. That would cover all weapons – knives, guns, cars.

Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.

January 28th, 2013
12:05 pm

The only thing that will make ownership of any gun moot, would be if someone invented the personal force field. Everyone wear one, no need for guns…you are protected within your own defense shield…but, that is probably the only way we will ever get rid of even one gun…

Jay

January 28th, 2013
12:06 pm

JohnnyReb, you apparently chose to ignore the editor’s note at the beginning of that clip stating that the information it contains is outdated, i.e, wrong.

The website or e-mail that alerted you to that clip also managed to ignore that very pertinent piece of information.

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2013
12:09 pm

Jay assumes that JohnnyReb can read.

Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.

January 28th, 2013
12:10 pm

the cat

January 28th, 2013
12:10 pm

taxpayer-you took that right out of my mouth!!!

Trolls Bane

January 28th, 2013
12:12 pm

A little history is in order here, fully automatic weapons were banned starting in the 1930’s as a reaction against the mob / gang violence that occured during prohibition. One example is the Valentine’s Day Massacre.

In our modern times, the guns most likely used by the criminal element are handguns / pistols .. simply because they want something they can carry and not attract alot of attention, which is difficult to do with a rifle.

St Simons - aboriginal

January 28th, 2013
12:15 pm

i quit counting (i count things) at 70 posts from con-nuttia citing the
the president’s daughters’ armed secret service protection.

now, I’m gonna count their posts of like outrage over ‘merkan kids
not getting the same meals & healthcare as the Obama kids.
oh snap

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

January 28th, 2013
12:17 pm

You mean they can ban my two machine guns and the anti-tank weapon?

What kind of Commie country are we living in, anyway? I’m disgusted.

Have a good lunch everybody. Mine’s been ruint.

Logical Dude

January 28th, 2013
12:19 pm

“anyone who seeks to buy one of those grandfathered automatic weapons must undergo a complete FBI background check and be fingerprinted before acquiring a Class Three firearms license,”

Oh.

I guess I don’t need a full-automatic weapon that much.

F. Sinkwich

January 28th, 2013
12:19 pm

I’m not sure I understand your point here, Jay. Are you advocating a registry for all guns?

Personally, I think that “before 1986″ clause should be abolished…

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:21 pm

Are you advocating a registry for all guns?

Don’t know about Jay, but I am.

Jefferson

January 28th, 2013
12:23 pm

Handguns are made for killing, they ain’t no good for nothing else.

Peadawg

January 28th, 2013
12:24 pm

“Are you advocating a registry for all guns?”

I don’t think it’d be a bad idea at all. Whatcha got to hide?

Logical Dude

January 28th, 2013
12:24 pm

. . . But I’d still like to have fun with one of those guns they put on the front of the A-10. . .

But without the depleted Uranium shells. Those might be harmful.

MiltonMan

January 28th, 2013
12:25 pm

Oh yes, libs always use Ronald Reagan as a “closet lib”. Jay intentionally leaves out key parts of the law.

The lone piece of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Reagan on May 19, 1986, the legislation amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional.

The National Rifle Association and other pro gun groups lobbied for passage of the legislation, and it was generally considered favorable for gun owners. Among other things, the act made it easier to transport long rifles across the United States, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as the gun were properly stored.

However, the act also contained a provision banning the ownership of any fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986. That provision was slipped into the legislation as an 11th hour amendment by Rep. William J. Hughes, a New Jersey Democrat. Reagan has been criticized by some gun owners for signing legislation containing the Hughes amendment.

F. Sinkwich

January 28th, 2013
12:25 pm

F. Sinkwich:

“Personally, I think that “before 1986″ clause should be abolished…”

Just to be clear, I think automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 should be eligible for ownership as well.

getalife

January 28th, 2013
12:28 pm

“I think .50-caliber machine guns would be bizarre,”

Not in Louisiana.

Thomas Heyward Jr

January 28th, 2013
12:30 pm

Let the drone murderer and his congressional enablers ban or register anything they want.
.
It doesn’t really matter to real Patriots.

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

January 28th, 2013
12:30 pm

Are you advocating a registry for all guns?

Don’t know about Jay, but I am.

Me too. You have to register your car.

Seems like common sense to me.

getalife

January 28th, 2013
12:30 pm

“Just to be clear, I think automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 should be eligible for ownership as well.”

Agreed.

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:31 pm

Milton Man

Reagan was criticized? Yet he signed it into law.

Seems to lack the drama you imply.

td

January 28th, 2013
12:32 pm

As other liberal bloggers have reminded me of several times on this subject. Automatic weapons are not banned and private citizens do have them.

As a Constitutional argument just reading the 2nd Amendment and what our founders have stated then automatic weapons should NOT be banned but then the SCOTUS in the Heller decision stated that “reasonable” restrictions could be allowed at the same time as they said making semi auto handguns illegal in DC was NOT “reasonable. An appeals court has since also said that not allowing law abiding citizens to have conceal carry permits was unreasonable.

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

January 28th, 2013
12:32 pm

And as Jay has pointed out.

If you think you and your bubba friends with rifles are a threat to the US government and its army.

Well then I dont know what to say.

Recon 0311 2533

January 28th, 2013
12:33 pm

As NYC police Chief Kelly said only 2% of crimes in New York are committed with so called semi-automatic assault rifles. There’s no reasonable justification for banning such firearms. Kelly said most gun related crimes are committed with hand guns and that’s true across the country. Background checks from a national database is what’s needed and the NRA has been saying that for years.

F. Sinkwich

January 28th, 2013
12:33 pm

“Not in Louisiana.”

Not too long ago I saw a reality show about a gun shop in Baton Rouge. They designed and built a full auto 12 gauge shotgun. That thing could do some damage!

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

January 28th, 2013
12:33 pm

“Just to be clear, I think automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 should be eligible for ownership as well.”

Agreed.

Yes by all means lets have more guns out there.

Shameful just shameful.

skipper

January 28th, 2013
12:34 pm

Practically every thug in Chicago has a gun….for that matter look at all the drive-bys in our own Atlanta. Shootting up folk’s homes, cars, etc. We need more thug-control or criminal control. Gun laws ain’t keeping guns out of these brain-surgeons’ hands. Take all the mass shootings together you will not have a good start on Chicago.

getalife

January 28th, 2013
12:34 pm

If we all 50 cal auto, we could never take on the American military.

Lets get real.

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:35 pm

Pretty sure those drones are registered….

Some to Clinton, some to Bush 43 and some to Obama.

It does matter to real patriots.

getalife

January 28th, 2013
12:35 pm

filky,

Sons of guns?

Speed Racer

January 28th, 2013
12:36 pm

@Peadawg: “I don’t think it’d be a bad idea at all. Whatcha got to hide?”

If you take the “whatcha got to hide” argument far enough, it would be ok for any govt official to come in to your home and look around for stuff. After all, whatcha got to hide? Do you want that?

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:37 pm

Recon 0311 2533

January 28th, 2013
12:33 pm

As NYC police Chief Kelly said only 2% of crimes in New York are committed with so called semi-automatic assault rifles. There’s no reasonable justification for banning such firearms. Kelly said most gun related crimes are committed with hand guns and that’s true across the country. Background checks from a national database is what’s needed and the NRA has been saying that for years.
.
.
.
AND YET,

Kelly supports the assault weapons ban.

JohnnyReb

January 28th, 2013
12:38 pm

I can always count on you guys to immediately have info that supports your position.

I stand corrected.

Jay

January 28th, 2013
12:39 pm

Nice twisting of history, MiltonMan.

Would that be the Ronald Reagan, who said after a school shooting with a semi-auto AK-47:

”I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

Would that be the Ronald Reagan who as governor of California signed the Mulford Act prohibiting the carrying of weapons in public, including in automobiles, saying that “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons”?

Is that the Ronald Reagan who advocated in favor of the assault weapons ban, background checks, etc.?

Union

January 28th, 2013
12:39 pm

“In other words, all the rhetoric aside, it offers a statistically proven example of how gun control works.”

for the record.. dont really see the need for high capacity magazines among other things.. but not exactly sure what statistical example this proves?

the registered weapons in private hands are typically owned by collectors with the intent of not even using them for anything other than display purposes. so the odds that these types of weapons would be used in a violent crime seem a little less than the average gun.

F. Sinkwich

January 28th, 2013
12:39 pm

“Yes by all means lets have more guns out there.”

Some great philosopher once said, “I have more guns than I need but fewer than I want.”

JohnnyReb

January 28th, 2013
12:39 pm

Taxpayer, I was likely reading when you were only a glimmer in your daddy’s eye.

F. Sinkwich

January 28th, 2013
12:40 pm

“Sons of guns?”

That’s it!

Fred ™

January 28th, 2013
12:41 pm

I like 21 out of 23 of the Presidents proposal. I don’t like a total ban on assault rifles. The definition for “assault rifle” is too broad. now they are calling any rifle with a “pistol grip” an assault rifle. Why?

MiltonMan

January 28th, 2013
12:41 pm

Jay, no piece on the beloved Democartic senator from New Jersey – Menendez and his indiscretions???

bookman parrot

January 28th, 2013
12:41 pm

you are correct Jay… when pondering how Constitutional distinction then there should not be any limitations on having fully automatic weapons

SAWB

January 28th, 2013
12:41 pm

So, you do realize that most criminals that commit crimes utilizing forearms cannot legally own them and subsequently would not register them. Even if they did register their firearms how would this stop them from using the gun in the commission of a crime? Why aren’t we looking at increased enforcement of existing laws and longer prison sentences for actual criminals instead of needless bureaucracy that does nothing but punish law abiding citizens.

Thomas Heyward Jr

January 28th, 2013
12:41 pm

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:35 pm

Pretty sure those drones are registered….

Some to Clinton, some to Bush 43 and some to Obama.

It does matter to real patriots.
————————————————————————————-
You’re wrong.
I gurantee that those drones aren’t registered(try to find one) … and Clinton,Bush, and Oboma certainly didn’t have sufficient background checks.
.
lol

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2013
12:41 pm

the lies of the Left as to the school shooter using a rifle?

That such a thing could be posted with a straight face on January 28, 2013, is rather sad.

Jefferson

January 28th, 2013
12:42 pm

When the gun bubble busts much will be lost on sales.

Fred ™

January 28th, 2013
12:42 pm

JohnnyReb

January 28th, 2013
12:39 pm

Taxpayer, I was likely reading when you were only a glimmer in your daddy’s eye.
++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe so but that doesn’t seem to have helped your comprehension skills………

td

January 28th, 2013
12:44 pm

And just why did Reagan have to sign the 1986 law? I could not be because after he won 49 states in the general election he still had an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House of Reps because of the Gerrymandering that the Dems had done in the states. Reagan had to actually COMPROMISE with the democratic controlled house and sign a bill that had things in it that he did not agree with but overall he could accept.

Wonder if Obama will learn the lesson Reagan learned (even though Reagan had a real mandate of the people unlike Obama)

Jay

January 28th, 2013
12:44 pm

MiltonMan, from what I can tell, all we have on Menendez is one anonymous source making charges that have not been verified. The FBI is allegedly investigating; if it verifies these anonymous claims, then Menendez is scum who ought to be run out of Congress and prosecuted.

But personally, I’d like a little more evidence — as in any evidence at all — before convicting the man of child prostitution. Your mileage may vary.

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2013
12:44 pm

Taxpayer, I was likely reading when you were only a glimmer in your daddy’s eye.

And I collect antiques. What’s your point JohnnyReb.

Erwin's cat

January 28th, 2013
12:46 pm

Wow…First Jay endorses Romney…now Newt…all in one day…now that’s bizarre

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:47 pm

Thomas Heyward Jr

January 28th, 2013
12:41 pm

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:35 pm

Pretty sure those drones are registered….

Some to Clinton, some to Bush 43 and some to Obama.

It does matter to real patriots.
————————————————————————————-
You’re wrong.
I gurantee that those drones aren’t registered(try to find one) … and Clinton,Bush, and Oboma certainly didn’t have sufficient background checks.
.
lol
.
.
.
.
Now that is LOL…..

mbtc

January 28th, 2013
12:49 pm

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

January 28th, 2013
12:49 pm

So, you do realize that most criminals that commit crimes utilizing forearms cannot legally own them and subsequently would not register them.

Most criminals were at one time law abiding citizens and bought the guns used in their crimes legally.

Erwin's cat

January 28th, 2013
12:52 pm

and Reagan too…a trifecta Monday :D

Vet

January 28th, 2013
12:54 pm

Guns are to protect us from the federal government!

Thomas Heyward Jr

January 28th, 2013
12:54 pm

Uh-oh…..the wicked Di-Fi and her gun-grabbing weirdos forgot something.
.
50 caliber AIR Assault weapons. Only about 300 dollars.
They’re all the rage now.

.
In the US they require no licensing and they can be shipped to your home through the mail…No limit on the clips.

A .50 cal rifle that shoots a 0.495 round lead ball weighing 182 grains and that goes 755 to 760 f.p.s. for 223 ft lbs is no joke.
.
Get’em while ya can.

Jay

January 28th, 2013
12:54 pm

Has anyone tried to explain yet how the automatic-weapons ban is constitutional, yet an assault weapon ban would not be?

I’d just like to see what such an effort would look like.

SAWB

January 28th, 2013
12:55 pm

Cheesy said, “Most criminals were at one time law abiding citizens and bought the guns used in their crimes legally.”

Actually the last stats I saw from the Justice Department indicated that the majority of guns used in crimes were supplied illegally by an acquaintance.

Either way how would having them registered stop a crime?

Jefferson

January 28th, 2013
12:56 pm

Bullets for bullies….buy 1 get 1 for the same price.

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2013
12:57 pm

gun grabbing weirdos…..

slight whiff of paranoia there indeed

Silver Creek Dawg

January 28th, 2013
12:59 pm

Cheesy, you can’t equate owning guns to driving a car.

You don’t have the right to drive a car enshrined in the Constitution. It’s a privilege that requires certain conditions to be met.

I’m a little concerned about a national registry for guns. Having one makes it ripe for abuse by whomever is in charge of the government at any particular time.

SAWB

January 28th, 2013
1:01 pm

So, didn’t the Supreme Court state that the Second Amendment applied to firearms that were in general use? So, since the AR-15 type rifle is one of if not the largest sellers wouldn’t it then be considered in general use? So, thus would it not be covered by the Second Amendment?

Thomas Heyward Jr

January 28th, 2013
1:02 pm

Jay

January 28th, 2013
12:54 pm

Has anyone tried to explain yet how the automatic-weapons ban is constitutional, yet an assault weapon ban would not be?

I’d just like to see what such an effort would look like.
——————————————————————————————————————-
.
That’s like asking someone why the fugitive slave act was constitutional but a state or person refusing to obey was against the law.
The auto-matic weapons ban is unconstitutional.
period.

ATL Tiger

January 28th, 2013
1:02 pm

“Has anyone tried to explain yet how the automatic-weapons ban is constitutional, yet an assault weapon ban would not be?

I’d just like to see what such an effort would look like.”

See Scalia’s opinion for the Heller case citing US vs Miller:
“Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Are fully automatic weapons ‘common’ at this time? Answer: No
Are semi-automactic weapons ‘common’ at this time? Answer: Yes

Besides, as someone already pointed out, the vast majority of gun related deaths occur from handguns, not assault weapons nor high capacity magazines.

Sparkling Clean Vampire Conservative - Wants Saxby's Seat, Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:03 pm

So, you do realize that most criminals that commit crimes utilizing forearms cannot legally own them and subsequently would not register them. Even if they did register their firearms how would this stop them from using the gun in the commission of a crime?

Oh great! We’ve started banging the old Republican Drum already! Well done Fellow True Believer! Well Done!!

ON a side note — He/she’s correct! So in order for all of the good christian clean conservatives to feel safe, they need to carry guns everywhere so that they can shoot anyone that looks “suspicious” and then claim to be defending themselves!

Now, all we need to do is to get rid of all the undercover cops! THEN we can shoot the Girl Scout Cookie girl if we want and claim self defense form her unmitigating gall for her to try and sell me tagalongs!

dood

January 28th, 2013
1:04 pm

Proven effective. Not Proved Effective. Jay- get your editors to edit.

F. Sinkwich

January 28th, 2013
1:05 pm

“I’m a little concerned about a national registry for guns.”

I’m more than a little.

Beside the obvious implications, the next thing to happen would be some ‘D’ pol proposing to tax all gun owners to fund some nefarious scheme.

td

January 28th, 2013
1:06 pm

Jay

January 28th, 2013
12:54 pm

Has anyone tried to explain yet how the automatic-weapons ban is constitutional, yet an assault weapon ban would not be?

I’d just like to see what such an effort would look like.

I kind of did in an earlier post.

First: What is currently defined as an “Assault rifle” is nothing more then a semi automatic rifle that has a pistol grip (Under the definition in Feinsteins bill).

2: The Heller decision decision said the said DC could not ban pistols (the pistol in question was a semi auto 9mm if I am not mistaken).

3: How can one say a semi auto rifle with a pistol grip is more lethal or dangerous the a semi auto pistol? No progressive in favor of banning the AR-15 can tell me yet how it is more dangerous or lethal then my Semi auto 30.06. It makes no logical sense to ban one semi auto and not another.

Sparkling Clean Vampire Conservative - Wants Saxby's Seat, Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:06 pm

Hmmm maybe i should change my name to Fiscally Conservative Vampire – who only wants to suck the life out of the unions and NOT the “earners”.

Has a ring to it……

TiredOfIt

January 28th, 2013
1:07 pm

SAWB
January 28th, 2013
12:55 pm

Cheesy said, “Most criminals were at one time law abiding citizens and bought the guns used in their crimes legally.”

Actually the last stats I saw from the Justice Department indicated that the majority of guns used in crimes were supplied illegally by an acquaintance.

Either way how would having them registered stop a crime?

++

If someone purchases a gun for someone and they use it in a crime, they are prosecuted for the crime too.

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

January 28th, 2013
1:08 pm

Either way how would having them registered stop a crime?

They wouldn’t. But it sure would help the police put them in jail.

If you dont believe me just ask them.

Cops know that not being able to trace the gun is a big problem for them.

With some sort of register a lot more bad guys go to jail.

Sparkling Clean Vampire Conservative - Wants Saxby's Seat, Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:08 pm

Beside the obvious implications, the next thing to happen would be some ‘D’ pol proposing to tax all gun owners to fund some nefarious scheme.

Or WORSE! Making all those gun owners join the military and put all those weapons to use! The horrors!

SAWB

January 28th, 2013
1:09 pm

Vampire – sorry if the facts get in the way

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

January 28th, 2013
1:11 pm

If someone purchases a gun for someone and they use it in a crime, they are prosecuted for the crime too.

Excellent I like that.

Hmmmmmmm

January 28th, 2013
1:11 pm

Cheesy grits, surely you jest… LOL..

Fiscally Conservative Vampire – who only wants to suck the life out of the unions and NOT the “earners”. Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:13 pm

That’s like asking someone why the fugitive slave act was constitutional but a state or person refusing to obey was against the law.
The auto-matic weapons ban is unconstitutional.
period.

Brilliant!! That almost sounds true!! The Fugitive Slave Act was NEVER a part of the constitution! But someone who’s a born sheep, (republican), and not known for their cognitive reasoning skills would not only FALL for that statement but would also REPEAT it!!

Brilliant!!

Madmax

January 28th, 2013
1:13 pm

And yet, even if this was in effect, it would not have prevented the Conn.shooting. So what does it do besides make you feel like something is better than nothing, even though it accomplishes nothing.

alex

January 28th, 2013
1:14 pm

Jay, where are the stats you say?..in regards to the 50 cal, please correct me but does not the haig decree that 50 cal should not be used against isolated individual human combabts…..

Finally, opinion piece that further shows that the world is grey, not far right or far left in realitiy, only in theory…why not simply ban all weapons in private handsto take the argument 1 step further….of course that depends on how one looks at “a well regulated militia”. GREY, not definitive—Making life a series of algorythms with absolutes may make decisions easy, but they may not be the best decisions,Jay……

Towncrier

January 28th, 2013
1:14 pm

“But where does he find that constitutional distinction between automatic and semi-automatic? What textual basis in the Second Amendment would allow government to heavily regulate and in effect ban one type of weapon, while prohibiting similar regulation of others?”

It is interesting to find somehow who has a palpable dislike for Newt Gingrich, as evidenced by the many columns he has written denouncing him (contemptuously calling him a fake intellectual at one point), now somehow citing him as the voice of reason (because it suits his purposes in advancing an ill-conceived argument).

If one believes (as I do) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms if for no other purpose than to defend the freedom of THE PEOPLE in each STATE against threats to that freedom foreign and domestic (including the right for citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, as the founders themselves did in the Revolutionary War), then citizens should be able to possess any arms the government does. But since, that is impractical, the easy fix to ensure the government cannot massively outgun citizens is to make it so that it cannot use tanks, missiles, bombs, helicopters and so on against THE PEOPLE. Then, at least, they would have a fighting chance. If I am correct in my interpretation, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss or ignore (as Scalia does) this intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Or, if my proposal seems unacceptable, then amend the Constitution to clearly say that the people have the right to bear arms only for self protection and hunting/target shooting. Problem over. Instead we get clowns saying things like this:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/27/CBS-Runs-Segment-Calle-Lets-Give-Up-On-The-Constitution

“And to repeat Gingrich’s verdict, “those rules seem to work fairly well.” He’s right. They do. Registered automatic weapons in private hands are rarely if ever used in crime. And by rarely, I mean maybe two or three times in the last quarter century.”

And to repeat what I have said over and over on this blog, 80% of the gun-related homicides were perpetrated with handguns (like most of the murders in Chicago and other cities). Banning so-called “assault weapons” (which they really are NOT, but simply another “tag” coined by liberals to try to win arguments they can’t win logically) and 30 round clips does NOTHING to solve these murders. So I cannot help concluding that people like Jay and Obama are being disingenuous when they are so hell-bent on passing legislation to control guns that will put nary a dint in the problem of gun violence.

Maybe, as this story reveals, they are really bent on much more – on GREATLY restricting gun ownership to the point of confiscating guns:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/NY-Assemblyman-exposes-gun-confiscation-agenda-of-Democrats

They, like these Democrats, just don’t want you to know about it (just like anyone who is scheming to do something wrong).

Fiscally Conservative Vampire – who only wants to suck the life out of the unions and NOT the “earners”. Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:15 pm

SAWB I saw no “facts” in your statement — only propaganda and fear mongering!!

Brilliant!!!

william

January 28th, 2013
1:18 pm

Just to clairify some things. registering cars and guns are not the same things. Cars aren’t constitutionally protected as they didnt exist during the time of the founding. Additionally unlike firearms vehicles have never been a deterrant against tyrrany.

Aside from the fact that more people are killed in car accidents a year than with guns banning handguns because “all they are good for is killing” would be like saying we need to ban all acura integras because they are only good for street racing. Your argument not only makes no sense it is more of a blert out than and argument at all.

alex

January 28th, 2013
1:18 pm

“your mileage may vary”–goodness, is that what passes for journalism today,Fax that to one of your formers teachers at PSU, get their OPINION…..

SAWB

January 28th, 2013
1:20 pm

So, Mr. Vampire stating that criminals would not register their guns is fear mongering, but rambling on about Girl Scouts is somehow productive? Ok.

Fiscally Conservative Vampire – who only wants to suck the life out of the unions and NOT the “earners”. Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:20 pm

And yet, even if this was in effect, it would not have prevented the Conn.shooting. So what does it do besides make you feel like something is better than nothing, even though it accomplishes nothing.

Brilliant!! That exact SAME correlation was made between Drunk Driving when MADD started a campaign against it!!

People were like, “Hey we’ve GOT laws on the books….blah,blah, blah”

And MADD was like, “Yeah but let’s ENFORCE them and AND make them stricter with more penalties if you fail to keep them”

And then someone said, “Ha! bunch of broads! It’ll never work!”

And then it WORKED! (darnit)

THat’s why we have that lady who killed that cop while drunk driving going to jail for 10+ years eve though she apologized!!

No worries though, this “Conn. shooting kill all those kids……blah,blah” will go the way of the first mass school killing in Arkansas! They ignored it then, they’ll ignore it now!

Towncrier

January 28th, 2013
1:22 pm

Just consider the evidence before us. Why would CNN “edit” (censor) part of the interview Piers Morgan had with Ben Shapiro (which, judging from follow-up reviews by commentators and Morgan’s eagerness to have another debate, Morgan lost badly)? Hmm? Why is that? What is the AGENDA that causes a supposedly “objective” news organization to lose its objectivity?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/01/15/cnn-slashes-piers-morgan-ben-shapiro-segments-while-posting-hosts-entire

Oppressed Suth'ner

January 28th, 2013
1:22 pm

Oh, but Cheesy… I thought that having so many people in jail is a sign of the oppressiveness of our government. You want to put more people in jail?

td

January 28th, 2013
1:22 pm

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

January 28th, 2013
1:11 pm

If someone purchases a gun for someone and they use it in a crime, they are prosecuted for the crime too.

Excellent I like that.

Yes and let us prosecute parents whose children commit crimes since they are legally responsible for them until they turn 18 or are emancipated.

Donovan

January 28th, 2013
1:23 pm

Thanks for fomenting gun control again, Bookman. This is nothing but stupid talk and a regurgitation of Feinstein left wing logic.

No one likes to hear about kids getting murdered. However, this emotional uproar leads to kooks coming out of the woodwork all over again when some mentally ill freak with orange and red hair decides to pick up a gun or some mentally ill freak who wears Goth black decides to make a make some kind of a statement at an elementary school or some mentally ill freak decides to go on a rampage on a college campus or some mentally ill freaks decide to make a statement at a high school because they were bullied.

Go take your fight to the mental health people or your Hollywood buddies and give up this ridiculous campaign against law-abiding citizens. We already have enough laws on the books for guns, ammo, and where one can and can’t shoot.

Criminal and mentally ill people are the perpetrators of gun crimes. We don’t feel it necessary to be penalized for the wrong doings of these misfits.

I’ll take a Newt Gingrich over the likes of kook liberals named Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Shumer, Cuomo, Emanuel, Brown, Holder, and Morgan.

How come we don’t

Fiscally Conservative Vampire – who only wants to suck the life out of the unions and NOT the “earners”. Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:23 pm

Towncrier citing Breibart as a cornucopia of facts and truth AND legal advise!

Brilliant!

Nduka

January 28th, 2013
1:25 pm

“…heavily regulate and in effect ban one type of weapon, while prohibiting similar regulation of others?”

Right there, you defeated your own argument Jay. That is exactly the point gun owners are making. If the government can regulate, in effect ban, one category of firearms there seemingly is no limit to how far that can ratchet down. First automatic firearms, then semi-automatic firearms, eventually all firearms. The ole inexorable slippery slope.

Madmax

January 28th, 2013
1:25 pm

td – 18 is too young. We’ve extended the age of majority to 26 so they can find themselves under Obamacare, why not everything else?

Fiscally Conservative Vampire – who only wants to suck the life out of the unions and NOT the “earners”. Vote "R" For Vampire!

January 28th, 2013
1:28 pm

Yes and let us prosecute parents whose children commit crimes since they are legally responsible for them until they turn 18 or are emancipated.

Brilliantly twisted logic!!

PS: It’s already happening in some states, and the state of Georgia puts parents in “jail” per se for their children’s truancy.

But hey, THEY don’t know that! It’s not the LIBS we’re trying to impress, oh no! We’re trying to impress the gullible idiotic fence stragglers who are too lazy to read and too dumb to understand it when they read it!!

Excellent work True Believer! Excellent Work!

Welcome to the Occupation

January 28th, 2013
1:28 pm

Towncrier: “It is interesting to find somehow who has a palpable dislike for Newt Gingrich, as evidenced by the many columns he has written denouncing him (contemptuously calling him a fake intellectual at one point), now somehow citing him as the voice of reason ”

Uh no, I think it’s more the claim that reason is so clear and overwhelming in this case that even an individual who is usually as impervious to it as Gingrich is forced to acknowledge it here.

Kind of different, no?

fedup

January 28th, 2013
1:33 pm

Folks you guys thinking small. I like to have in my back yard two drones. One loaded with hellfire missile and the other with tactical nuclear weapon. Now let’s see who is going to break into my house.

middle of the road

January 28th, 2013
1:33 pm

“Speaking of rhetoric, what do gun banners have to say about this which exposes the lies of the Left as to the school shooter using a rifle?”

Actually, Adam Lanza used a muzzle-loader during his shooting spree. He was VERY FAST on the reloading to shoot some kids 11 times. Now I am hearing a report that the week before he participated in a drive-by knifing that killed 10 people.

Erwin's cat

January 28th, 2013
1:33 pm

And then it WORKED! (darnit)

you sure about that?…I’d argue and have that it DIDN’T

dood

January 28th, 2013
1:36 pm

What’s really amazing here is the unintended consequences from all of this talk on gun rights. Ever since it has been brought up there has been an amazing run on guns and ammo. People who have never given much thought to owning a gun are racing out to buy one. The manufacturers of these guns can’t keep up with the demand.