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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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
Jonney Reb,,,
http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/
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
Cowboy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-rGnMKszxg&feature=player_embedded
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
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.
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
1:36 pm
Just consider the evidence before us. Why would CNN “edit” (censor) part of the interview Piers Morgan had with Ben Shapiro…..blah,,blah,blah…… Hmm? Why is that? What is the AGENDA ………blah,blah,blah,
Ohh the propaganda and the illfitting logic is just spewing out of your fingertips today!
You’re doing everything correctly.
You’re using spooky words like, “Agenda” and “CNN” not to mention the most spooky word on the planet, ‘Hmmm”!!!
The blarney is strong in you fellow True Believer! The blarney is strong!!
Remember Vote “R” no matter if that person is a Vampire or a Lemming. If he has an “R” after his name AND says that they’re Fiscally Conservative!
True Believers NEVER question, they just REPEAT!!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 28th, 2013
1:37 pm
fedup, you are sooooo 2012
I have a deathstar!
middle of the road
January 28th, 2013
1:38 pm
“So, you do realize that most criminals that commit crimes utilizing forearms cannot legally own them and subsequently would not register them.”
I am into Karate and I will have to register my forearms as lethal weapons…
Welcome to the Occupation
January 28th, 2013
1:38 pm
fedup: “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.”
Actually, with the element of surprise, those drones would be even more useless in stopping a robber than a semi-automatic weapon would be. Drones need to be in the air to have effect, presumably needing to be warmed up first, too.
Erwin's cat
January 28th, 2013
1:41 pm
I have a deathstar!
Keep Up the Good Force!
Towncrier
January 28th, 2013
1:41 pm
In the interest of intellectual honesty here, to counterbalance Jay, here is a discussion on gun control in which Piers Morgan on one side of his mouth says that he “respects the 2nd Amendment” and on the other saying his own personal choice would be to remove all guns. And this is a guy Jay uses as “source” for his own argument above. Draw you own conclusions:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10100752400774767¬if_t=video_processed
(Kopel on CNN Piers Morgan Show 12-3-12)
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 28th, 2013
1:43 pm
EC
td
January 28th, 2013
1:44 pm
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.
Yes, Obama has been named the salesman of the year by the gun manufacturers association.
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
1:45 pm
you sure about that?…I’d argue and have that it DIDN’T
Arent you the same person who argued that Obama WOULD NOT win too?
I’m not a gambler by nature, but if you say blue, I’d bet on red. No offense True Believer. No offense.
Erwin's cat
January 28th, 2013
1:47 pm
Arent you the same person who argued that Obama WOULD NOT win too?
No…but facts aren’t you’re strong suite
Christian Conservative
January 28th, 2013
1:48 pm
Well Jay allowing drag racers to run up and down the highway would be bizarre. Allowing two men to marry is bizarre. It all depends on your opinion. A semi-automatic weapon is a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Not just the big bad so called assault rifles. I just wish you fruits on the left would admit that this bill will do absolutely nothing to curtail gun crime in America. The 10 year ban did nothing.. That’s a fact…
Grasshopper
January 28th, 2013
1:49 pm
Is Bookman’s headline grammatically accurate?
Is “A gun-control model that has been PROVEN effective” more technically correct?
This would be a more interesting topic than another gun-control debate.
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
1:50 pm
Is Piers Morgan any of these things:
A politician who has the capacity to change/make laws for the country?
An American citizen who can VOTE people into office who have the capacity.blah,blah, blah?
An English Werewolf in Boston?
If you’ve answered “No” to any of these questions, then what’s the point in bringing up Piers Morgan?
Oh wait!! it’s not for the LIBS on the blog! OMG I forgot, its for the fence straddlers!!! Brilliant!
Well done True Believer! Well done!
USC
January 28th, 2013
1:50 pm
Well Regulated (second amendment) means well regulated. Registry, restrictions, back-ground check, limited number of bullets, type weapon, etc. Get over it.
St Simons - aboriginal
January 28th, 2013
1:51 pm
you know what would curb neocon gun-nuttia?
making every one of them that has one serve in a “well regulated militia”
per the constitution, yknow. snap.
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
1:53 pm
No…but facts aren’t you’re strong suite
Of COURSE not!! I’m a republican!
My objective is NOT to tell the truth, it’s to allow the True Believers to rally behind some stupid, ill conceived point that other republicans, (like Breibart et al.) tells us!
Remember, embrace the dark side……..
rightwingextreme
January 28th, 2013
1:53 pm
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
Sure didn’t stop Dan Rather a few years ago.
rightwingextreme
January 28th, 2013
1:58 pm
Jay,
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.
You could make the same argument for semi-automatics as well.
For some reason the sight of an AR-15 or AK-47 gives the dimlibs the hibby-jibbies.
Why don’t we concentrate on the real issues involved:
1) curtail gang violence and stiffen penalites for being a gang member…make it a felony
2) make use of a firearm in a crime a felony if not already
3) enforce the laws already on the books…heck, last week or so Biden admitted the regime didn’t have time to go after those who lied or had problems with the background checks. What say we start right there and fix that?
To me those seem like sensible proposals.
Jay
January 28th, 2013
1:58 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.”
Only the naive would believe that’s “unintended.” The gun industry’s marketing arm, known as the NRA, has been doing its job very, very well, scaring people into buying way more firepower than they would ever need.
jbill
January 28th, 2013
1:59 pm
@12:49 PM MBTC..Cowboy…..that was funny as he!!..loved it!
That Black Guy
January 28th, 2013
2:00 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.
________________________________________________________
Do you have a link or cite to back up that claim?
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
2:01 pm
Well, True Believers, I must leave for now. Remember our Motto and keep the faith:
Vote “R” no matter if that person is a Vampire or a Lemming. If he has an “R” after his name AND says that they’re Fiscally Conservative, cause even though i’m cold, dead, would rip your throat out to drink your blood and outsource your jobs in a NY minute, they’re just like you!
True Believers NEVER question, they just REPEAT!!
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
January 28th, 2013
2:01 pm
Well Regulated (second amendment) means well regulated.
Well regulated doesn’t mean what you think it means.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×158517
Real Scootter
January 28th, 2013
2:06 pm
Do you have a link or cite to back up that claim
Heck no! Grits is just being Cheezy.
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
January 28th, 2013
2:06 pm
Only the naive would believe that’s “unintended.” The gun industry’s marketing arm, known as the NRA, has been doing its job very, very well, scaring people into buying way more firepower than they would ever need.
Jay: You mean to tell us that guy with the big ears standing behind the Presidential Seal on TV expressing a desire to ban some types of guns was an NRA spokesman? They are sneaky smart, those NRA guys.
USC
January 28th, 2013
2:08 pm
I agree with the suggestion that military service would be good for all new gun purchasers in the right age group. They would be able to learn gun safety and respect for the weapon and shoot it so much that they would never want to shoot again. Time for some of these Constitution-thumpers to prove their merit.
Daedalus
January 28th, 2013
2:09 pm
Jay — you are not supposed to the quote the whole text of the Second Amendment; that drives conservatives crazy. To understand the true, original intent of the framers of the Constitution, we are only supposed to read the second half of that sentence.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Towncrier
January 28th, 2013
2:09 pm
“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.”
Of course, this “statistic” is a half truth (and a half falsehood). There is no mention made of crimes committed with ILLEGALLY possessed FULLY automatic weapons, but in my cursory research, it appears that around 1% of all such gun crimes fall into that category. Not huge, but it does prove that the laws in question only prevented law abiding citizens from possessing and using automatic weapons – not criminals.
Cosby
January 28th, 2013
2:12 pm
Ahh…nick pick the statements…..but wait, there is no real definition of an assault weapon – in 1993 under Clinton they tried to ban assault weapons but there were no definitions…only automatic or semi-automatic….Diane on sunady said that a collapsable stock changed a gun from semi – automatic to automatic which is totally false, she also stated that Sandy Hook was committed by assault weapo0ns when in fact it was pistols..the AR – 15 was in the car. The AR -15 and 223 caliber has been around since the 1960’s, yet only lately has it been the target of folkes like Diane…but as she and others such as you Jay, over look the real problem…government sponsered hate speech, class war fare, you are not responsible for your actions and the only reason that you do not live the good life is because someone cheated you out of it. Diane even stated on Sunday morning about gang violence – but wait, the government has failed to go after Gangs, and in a way has contributed to them by posing no boarder control..let anyone in even drug lords. Yep Diane and gang did not do their job but now want to kill the 2nd amendment…supported by the likes of Jay and the mainstreet media. you see, it is just another ploy to take control of people by the elite DC crowd, has nothing to do with providing a peaceful environment for business and wealth to grow…so Jay, when tehy show up to take your 401k, your retirement and tell you that you must have been lucky and should share with those that were not so “Lucky”..do not look for me to protect you…But I will be protected!!! Happy Trails
RB from Gwinnett
January 28th, 2013
2:14 pm
While we’re in the mode of ditching the constitution, how about we make a few nibbles at the 1st amendment too, eh Jay? Maybe require you to tell more than the half of the story that fits your left wing whack job agenda for starters????
This week it’s “assault” weapons and 10+ round magazines, next week it’ll be bullets with gunpowder in them or something else. You’ll eat away at it one nibble at a time until you get what you really want but don’t have the nads to go for. It’s the liberal way.
jbill
January 28th, 2013
2:15 pm
Its not the NRA scaring people its liberal Demo’s in Congress like Feinstein’s gun control crap..and Obama gun control orders after he said he wouldn’t take your guns. Plus media BS for gun control.
______________________________Most Famous Quote______________________
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficent, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
_________ADOLPH HITLER, 1935, on The WEAPONS ACT OF NAZI GERMANY____________
Does that sound like now, today?…You might trust the Government but I don’t. Just ask a American Indian.
td
January 28th, 2013
2:15 pm
godless heathen – owner of many things he does not need
January 28th, 2013
2:01 pm
Well Regulated (second amendment) means well regulated.
Well regulated doesn’t mean what you think it means.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×158517
To bad that the SCOTUS blew that interpretation right out of the water.
Thulsa Doom
January 28th, 2013
2:16 pm
There’s nothing unreasonable about the gun registry. As for Gingrich wanting to draw the line on 50 Cals i’m unsure what you’re being critical about. We have to draw the line somewhere on reasonable gun control and newt just chose it there. Your hatred of Gingrich is so palpable that it clouds your judgment regarding valid and invalid criticisms of the man.
Christian Conservative
January 28th, 2013
2:16 pm
Jay:
Only the naive would believe that’s “unintended.” The gun industry’s marketing arm, known as the NRA, has been doing its job very, very well, scaring people into buying way more firepower than they would ever need.
Kinda reminds me of how the dem party scares folks into voting for them by lying about Republicans…. War on Women, War on Blacks, War on Latino’s…. You certainly know the game Jay….
Logical Dude
January 28th, 2013
2:17 pm
“Assault Weapon”
Not sure whose definition you are using Jay. Can you be more specific?
Is any semi-automatic weapon an “Assault Weapon”, or are there other considerations that make one semi-automatic of an equivalent caliber an “Assault Weapon” and one NOT and “Assault Weapon”?
Towncrier
January 28th, 2013
2:17 pm
“Why don’t we concentrate on the real issues involved?”
Because, rwe, many liberals (like Piers Morgan) are really interested only in banning all guns. The debate is only the “dance” they feel must participate in order to achieve their real objective.
jbill
January 28th, 2013
2:18 pm
Oh..Feinstein’s gun control law exampts her..what a damn joke.
Logical Dude
January 28th, 2013
2:18 pm
(that last “and” should be “an”) oops.
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 28th, 2013
2:18 pm
RB from Gwinnett – “You’ll eat away at it one nibble at a time until you get what you really want but don’t have the nads to go for. It’s the liberal way.”
At least you didn’t use the word “cookie” in that rant. Kudos!
td
January 28th, 2013
2:19 pm
Daedalus
January 28th, 2013
2:09 pm
Jay — you are not supposed to the quote the whole text of the Second Amendment; that drives conservatives crazy. To understand the true, original intent of the framers of the Constitution, we are only supposed to read the second half of that sentence.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Did you not actually read the Heller decision? If you had you would not have made such a silly statement.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 28th, 2013
2:20 pm
Because, rwe, many liberals (like Piers Morgan) are really interested only in banning all guns.
NRA talking point indoctrination is now complete.
straitroad
January 28th, 2013
2:21 pm
The gun control folks only care about banning guns, not actually saving lives. If the goal is to save lives, there are many other acts and behavior that cause many more deaths than guns. This is simply a way to chip away at the 2nd amendment and cooler heads are know this.
JKL2
January 28th, 2013
2:22 pm
Jay- 50 cal’s are covered under the geneva convention. It’s technically illegal to shoot them at people.
I saw a really nice crossbow at Bass Pro Shop over the weekend. Following the Demwit definition of an assault rifle, it had 3 of the defining characteristics so should be on the banned list. Maybe you could get some of those OWS idiots to start picketing them.
That Black Guy
January 28th, 2013
2:28 pm
Cheesy, care to answer my 2:00?
Or were you making it up.
Some people call it *LYING*.
But not me, I’m too polite.
Real Scootter
January 28th, 2013
2:28 pm
JKL2
January 28th, 2013
2:22 pm
Don’t give them any more ideas. Whew!
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 28th, 2013
2:29 pm
SILLY LIBERALS
CJ-JOHN ROBERTS of the SCOTUS gave the blueprint for you to REGULATE guns………….YOU TAX THEM………..
you tax the guns yearly……. an annual GUN TAX per gun……… then you tax ammunition………. I mean REALLY TAX ammunition…………. and if you REALLY TAX………. you have defacto gun control……………… CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED BY THE SCOTUS…………. Congress has the authority to TAX………… or come up with your own tax ideas………….. i know y’all will HATE my idea……….. but will secretly SALIVATE in the LEGAL way to reduce guns in this country
ON THE FLIP SIDE
you dummy republicans should TAX ABORTIONS……….. if you want to stop abortions put a $2000 tax on them………….you aren’t BANNING them………. and you will be CONSTITIONALLY protected since the Congress has the AUTHORITY to tax
SO GAME ON DUMBO AND JACK-AXX
FIGHT FOR CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, SENATE AND WH………. 1ST ONE THERE GETS TO TAX THEIR WAY TO THEIR AGENDA
Towncrier
January 28th, 2013
2:30 pm
“NRA talking point indoctrination is now complete.”
ROFL. Of course, the numerous liberals who have been quoted as saying they would like to do away with all guns has no bearing on the matter. This is how many liberals “debate” their logically weak and unsupported positions – by ad hominen attacks. And that is why so many of them use childish “handles” like “Cheesy Grits” – because they still think they are on a playground.
The puppeteer may need to make an appearance.
Real Scootter
January 28th, 2013
2:31 pm
But not me, I’m too polite.
I can appreciate that TBG.
Matti
January 28th, 2013
2:32 pm
Assault weapons are for p*ssies. Where are all the REAL men?
you don't say
January 28th, 2013
2:33 pm
“The puppeteer may need to make an appearance.”
Well you do have many socks……… that is for sure
Erwin's cat
January 28th, 2013
2:36 pm
TBG – Cheesy, care to answer my 2:00?
you knew the answer before you asked it
Fred ™
January 28th, 2013
2:36 pm
I have a deathstar!
That’s no fair. Uncle Barack won’t let us have one.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/13/obama-administration-rejects-petition-to-build-a-death-star/
Paul
January 28th, 2013
2:37 pm
Jay
“Has anyone tried to explain yet how the automatic-weapons ban is constitutional, yet an assault weapon ban would not be?”
Nope. It takes a long time to go thru all the Google hits on “bumper stickers and slogans” to look for something new they can repeat.
Paul
January 28th, 2013
2:38 pm
“Allowing two men to marry is bizarre.”
But does thinking about two women get you going,CC?
JKL2
January 28th, 2013
2:41 pm
-“Has anyone tried to explain yet how the automatic-weapons ban is constitutional, yet an assault weapon ban would not be?”
Nobody hunts with automatic weapons. Many people hunt with what falls under the weak definition of an “assault” weapon.
Thulsa Doom
January 28th, 2013
2:43 pm
Paul @2:38,
I can’t answer for cc but for me it’s an emphatic yes.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 28th, 2013
2:43 pm
paul
AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN CAN BE CONSTITUTIONAL
it would infringe in no way on a US citizens 2nd A rights…………. only if it was a COMPLETE gun ban…………….
Congress has the authority to make laws thus automatic weapons are illegal………………… banning them in no way infringes the 2nd A.
the problem becomes the DEFINITION of ASSULT RIFLE……… gun makers will make them and target then as HUNTING/SPORTING RIFLES……………… then you will have a harder time banning them……………. or the gun makers will increase the ammunition size from .227 to .38 or something in the hunting range………….. then we will have more powerful rifles that can be fired faster
OH THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
CONGRESS IS FAMOUS FOR THEM
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 28th, 2013
2:45 pm
Cheesy, care to answer my 2:00?
Or were you making it up.
Nope. Alot of guns used during crimes are bought everyday legally in America.
That or a family member buys it for them in which case they should be held responsible for the crimes committed as well. Just think if we did that what a difference it would make.
Among prisoners who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were
serving time in 1997, 14% had bought or traded for the gun from a store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show. The 1997 percentage who had acquired their firearm at a retail outlet
represented a significant drop from 21% in 1991. The percentage of
inmates receiving their gun from family or friends rose
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Gun laws aren’t going to stop every gun crime from being committed.
But they can significantly reduce it just like tough DUI laws have reduced DUI car fatalities.
Too ignore the problem and to suggest that nothing can be done is not only ignorant.
Its costing people their lives.
That Black Guy
January 28th, 2013
2:46 pm
Real Scootter
January 28th, 2013
2:31 pm
But not me, I’m too polite.
I can appreciate that TBG.
_____________________
My Mom always said, “If you can’t say anything nice……..use a sockpuppet”.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 28th, 2013
2:46 pm
TBG – Cheesy, care to answer my 2:00?
you knew the answer before you asked it
LOL
Guys it takes a minute to do your work for you.
Paul
January 28th, 2013
2:48 pm
Uncle Samantha
Stop yelling, you might give yourself a heart attack.
You’re about the third poster who’s repeated the line about can’t define an assault weapon. Haven’t any of you people read the text of the prior assault weapons law? What is it, do you guys think Congress writes laws with words like ‘any weapons that looks kinda like something like the Viet Cong carried in a Vietnam war movie is considered an assault weapon’ ?
sheesh -
Thulsa Doom
January 28th, 2013
2:48 pm
Matti,
Don’t include me in that group. I don’t even own a bb gun. Never owned a gun and probably never will. But I don’t have a problem if others do.
td
January 28th, 2013
2:49 pm
“Barack Obama: ‘I go shooting all the time’
President Barack Obama has claimed that he goes shooting “all the time”, while attempting to reassure American gun-owners that he respects their rights to use firearms. ”
If you believe that then I have some ocean front property in Gilmer county to sell you. I bet Obama has not fired more then 10 to 20 rounds in his entire life.
That Black Guy
January 28th, 2013
2:51 pm
Matti
January 28th, 2013
2:32 pm
Assault weapons are for p*ssies. Where are all the REAL men?
__________________________________________
From the looks of it, in PA…
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=spear%20hunting&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2F2006%2F01%2F0124_060124_atlatl_deer.html&ei=m9YGUfqFOuns0QHRkoHAAw&usg=AFQjCNFfeQYjhRwrOzr41_XHWfIEc4etaw&bvm=bv.41524429,d.dmQ
Sonofsmog
January 28th, 2013
2:53 pm
You don’t need a “Class Three firearms license” to own a fully automatic weapon. Just a $200 NFA stamp, and an ATF background check. Jesus. Don’t reporters do any sort of research.
Erwin's cat
January 28th, 2013
2:54 pm
But they can significantly reduce it just like tough DUI laws have reduced DUI car fatalities
a losing argument to assert a losing argument…and since when does 14% to 21% = most?
the cat
January 28th, 2013
2:56 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
I don’t have a problem with this. Lock up the guns, problem solved.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 28th, 2013
2:57 pm
POOR PAUL
he can’t reed and he can’t comprehen
even liberal media like MSNBC and WASH POST agree that the definitions of the assault rifle ban were skirted by gun makers…………
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/a-look-back-at-gun-control-history/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/the-last-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-will-the-new-one-be-different/
Matti
January 28th, 2013
2:57 pm
Thullie D,
General rule of thumb: If you are not, by your actions or beliefs, a member of a group being identified or discussed, then there’s no need to assume somebody is talking about you.
That being said, I’m glad to know you’re not a p*ssy who needs a piece of automated cold steel and a 100-round magazine to feel safe enough to sleep at night. I made no comment regarding issues of legality; I only offered my opinion as to the testicular weight of a man who can’t solve a problem without violence, or who thinks his shiny little arsenal is going to protect him from the United States Government and the firepower it possesses. (AS IF!)
southpaw
January 28th, 2013
2:58 pm
Since dB hasn’t posted it yet, I will.
SHEETZ!
That Black Guy
January 28th, 2013
2:58 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 28th, 2013
2:45 pm
Cheesy, care to answer my 2:00?
Or were you making it up.
Nope. Alot of guns used during crimes are bought everyday legally in America.
That or a family member buys it for them in which case they should be held responsible for the crimes committed as well. Just think if we did that what a difference it would make.
Among prisoners who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were
serving time in 1997, 14% had bought or traded for the gun from a store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show.
_______________________________________________________
You know your stat and link in NO WAY supports your claim that ” Most criminals were at one time law abiding citizens and bought the guns used in their crimes legally.”
Can you cite or link that?
Or did you make it up?
Erwin's cat
January 28th, 2013
2:58 pm
I can’t answer for cc but for me it’s an emphatic yes
depends on the two women…Rosie O’Donnel and Rosanne Barr…eh no…an emphatic !
Thulsa Doom
January 28th, 2013
2:59 pm
Cheesy,
You states tough Gun laws could significantly reduce gun crime. Sir if that were true than cities with the toughest gun laws like Chicago, dc, and Philly also wouldn’t have stratospheric gun murder rates. That right there debunks your assertion.
As for your assertion that tougher dui laws has resulted in lower rates of drunk driving or traffic deaths that also is a myth that was debunked a few days ago.
Erik F
January 28th, 2013
3:01 pm
“Furthermore, 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, among other steps.”
Your research is a bit flawed here. There is no such thing as a “Class Three” license. An individual who wishes to acquire an NFA item (machine gun, silencer, or short-barrel rifle) has to fill out a Form 4 and send it to the BATFE for approval, along with a $200 check. Essentially, the purchaser is paying a tax.
A dealer in NFA items has to pay a Class 3 occupation tax. There is no license for purchasers.
The entire system is a tax-collection scheme. The Supreme Court ruled in Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner that taxation of civil rights is unconstitutional. Since they also ruled in Heller and McDonald that the 2nd Amendment protects a fundamental right, the whole system is unconstitutional.
Thulsa Doom
January 28th, 2013
3:02 pm
EC,
sho enough it does depend. Rosie and partner is enough to make me physically ill.
That Black Guy
January 28th, 2013
3:07 pm
Also Cheesy, your claim “But they can significantly reduce it just like tough DUI laws have reduced DUI car fatalities.”
Why is it that you REFUSE to credit improved automobile safety advances? Air bags, ABS, collapseable steering columns, crumple zones, accident avoidance systems, improved tire tech and others play a MAJOR role in reducing traffic deaths as well.
Or was it all MADD?
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 28th, 2013
3:08 pm
PR MARKETING FIRM
come travel to our great city……….. we have the toughest gun control laws in the country………. come walk the streets with all your jewelry and cash on hand………. no need to feel scared ………… we have the laws on the books………..so come visit ___________
insert CHICAGO, DC or PHILLY
just dont google the murder rate from handguns
That Black Guy
January 28th, 2013
3:09 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 28th, 2013
2:46 pm
TBG – Cheesy, care to answer my 2:00?
you knew the answer before you asked it
LOL
Guys it takes a minute to do your work for you.
____________________________________
So how long will it take to *NOT* support *YOUR* claims?
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 28th, 2013
3:09 pm
ERIK
so you agree with me………… all that is needed to do is to TAX GUNS
then you can set up a legal but DEFACTO ban
UNCLE SAMANTHA
January 28th, 2013
3:11 pm
tax the guns annually
tax the ammunition at the time of purchase
charge for an EPA disposal fee of ammuntion casings
tax the EPA disposal of ammunition casings
require annual gun licensing and fees
tax the licensing
require annual gun safety courses
tax the gun safety courses
thats just a start
liberals can find all sorts of new taxes that will be gun related
Mgh999
January 28th, 2013
3:22 pm
I am guessing the $30,000 price tag for a ma deuce and $3.00 a round puts it out of most our budgets too.
Oppressed Suth'ner
January 28th, 2013
4:40 pm
“You’re about the third poster who’s repeated the line about can’t define an assault weapon.”
Similar to your incessant raving about people not being able to define a child?
Julian Castro: We Need 'Reasonable' Limits on Gun Ownership | The Conference Channel Blog
January 28th, 2013
5:23 pm
[...] registration and tracing. In the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, columnist Jay Bookman talks about an effective gun control model instituted by none other than Ronald Reagan. Then, there is the often-talked about idea of [...]
Spencer60
January 28th, 2013
5:27 pm
The problem with this logic is that machine-guns aren’t ’safe’ because of all the legal hoops that you have to jump through, they are safe because there is such a small market that many cost the same as a new car.
The background checks, the registrations, they are all unworkable if you were dealing with more than the few thousand legal machine guns in the US.
At best estimate there are some 300 million firearms in the US, and a bill like Ms. Feinstein’s would require at least 100 million of those to have the same type if treatment reserved currently for full auto firearms?
It would be a heck of a lot cheaper (and far more effective) to put a police precinct in every school.
Bryan
January 28th, 2013
6:48 pm
I agree with the registration of firearms…but can’t support it right now. Right now our court rulings and politicians have made it clear that they’re willing to “infringe” on gun possession in many cases. In UK and Australia first came registration, then came disarming…which was easy because they were all registered. Unless the courts start making more landmark cases ruling infringing laws unconstitutional (there’s been some…but not enough) and unless congress makes some additions to the constitution clarifying and reinforcing firearm rights…I just don’t trust them enough to register anything I own to them. It comes down to trust that registration is all they want…and I don’t have that trust in them.
Lee
January 28th, 2013
7:22 pm
Since 1936, there have been just two cases of homicide with a LEGAL machine gun, one of which was a police officer killing an informant. But yet, despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.
Seems to me that is Exhibit A of why gun advocates do not trust politicians to protect their Second Amendment RIGHTS.
————————————-
As others have noted, the primary reason most do not own fully automatic weapons is that it is expensive as hell to own them. When you can burn through $100 of ammo in 30 seconds, not many can afford that.
—————————————-
It is ironic that the Gun Control acts of the 1930s were passed in large part to the gang activity associated with the prohibition of alcohol. Fast forward fifty years and most of the cries for gun control were due in large part to the criminal activities of those dealing in another prohibited substance, drugs.
Maybe the answer is for the government to quit creating black markets by banning goods….
JOSH
January 28th, 2013
7:40 pm
Simply ask yourself this. How many mass shootings happen at gun shows/shooting ranges/police stations? None guns are not bad. You can kill someone with anything. You cannot blame the tool!
CPL_B
January 28th, 2013
8:40 pm
If you are making the argument that we have to choose between semi-automatic rifles and fully automatic weapons, I would say let’s have the fully automatic ban lifted. I would prefer we did not, but the semi-automatic ban has some very disturbing problems. If we are looking to solutions then I would focus on reasonable policies and not word play. The reality is we are supposed to be working for preventing school tragedies. In that spirit, this ban has no affect and Feinstein is just exploiting this to push her political agenda. She should be ashamed of herself.
independent thinker
January 28th, 2013
8:58 pm
Where is the tyranny all the gun huggers are preparing to be armed for? The Black Muslim in the White House? The ATF?
Did Nancy Lanza have a constitutional right to possess assault weapons and ammo if she was preparing for the imaginary tyranny espoused by the NRA and Glenn Beck or was the “security of the free state” of Connecticut paramount under the second amendment???????????????
How is gun trafficking of cheap untraceable handguns commonly sold to criminals as occurs daily in Georgia protected by the second amendment?
How is a comprehensive background check for all gun sales and a national registry of gun sales an infringement on a right that is based on “well regulated militia”?????????
I’d like to see Newt and the gun loving gun worshipers answer tthose questions.
Dixie Normous
January 28th, 2013
9:21 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.?
Even Ronald Reagan had some erroneous views. He wasnt perfect like you Jay. You demand that your vision of this country be the law of the land, to hell with every one else.
Elections Have Consequences
January 28th, 2013
10:30 pm
“In other words, all the rhetoric aside, it offers a statistically proven example of how gun control works.”
Statistically speaking, the amount of people who own weapons requiring an ATF tax stamp (and it extends to more that just weapons, btw) would of course make this appear to be an effective solution. If you were to apply this same process and cost to the scope of weapons to what is now in private hands, it’s a backdoor method of confiscation-the average enthusiast simply couldn’t afford the cost.
I’m sure the left will think of something, however…
Joel Edge
January 29th, 2013
6:02 am
Good for you, Jay. I fully embrace your premise that I should be able to buy and own a 50 cal machine gun. Just a side note, full auto weapons were restricted because of another favorite progressive cause, prohibition, which caused the illegal elements to begin butchering each other and the public. Unintended consequences, Mr. Bookman.
independent thinker
January 29th, 2013
7:52 am
27.5% of all gun sales in Georgia result in a crime within two years -We are one of the top ten states supplying a high number of guns used in crimes, Georgia has few of the gun control laws that other states have And who do not have high export/crime statistics .http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/GA/exports/
Gun worshipers -keep deluding yourselves -gun control laws do have an effect if applied properly to the sellers of all guns and the tracing of gun sales.
But those criminals have a constitutional right to own a gun don’t they??
Of course to get these statistics you have tyranny by a federal agency employed to control gun violence-Thank god for that well regulated militia!
Rise up gun huggers and overthrow the ATF- they are coming for your guns!
fair and balanced
January 29th, 2013
8:11 am
Jay is right on about gun regulation-nothing in the second amendment or the judicial decisions interpreting it protects rights of gun sellers or persons possessing illegal and un registered guns . Banning the right of a seller to sell a gun does not infringe on the right of self defense particularly if the objective is to combat crime.Of course that does not sit well with the NRA.