Gingrich Against Private MG Ownership

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bubbles

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
3,148
Location
Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
He doesn't want people to own military vehicles either.

Scratch another potential Presidential candidate off my list...

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/ee4bb489-7f99-4045-aab9-adeddaaff9b2

You can post/read comments at the link.

HH: Third issue, the "left wing machine," when it comes to guns, want more and more control. The "stand patters" like the assault weapon ban, and the 2nd Amendment, the "American Solutions" people want the right to own those weapons banned by the assault weapons ban. Do you support allowing individuals to own those weapons labeled assault weapons under that law?

NG: Well, if you remember, there are a number of weapons under that law that are not assault weapons, and the law the way it was written in the Clinton administration is an absurdity. And I think people proved that at the time. And I voted against the law, and in fact, I helped stop it at one point.

HH: And so how would you…what weapons ought Americans not be allowed to own under the 2nd Amendment.

NG: Look, I think we ought to draw a clear distinction about a whole range of weapons that are explicitly military, and I have no interest in arguing or defending the right of people to randomly hold weapons that are that extraordinary, except under very, very unique circumstances.

HH: All right, so basically, return the right for some of these higher caliber weapons, but keep the military weapons away from…

NG: Right. I just think, you know, if you said to me would I feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a 50 caliber machine gun, I would say no.

HH: Yeah.

NG: And I realize that for a purist, that probably means I’m a squishy on the 2nd Amendment. But I do think there’s a line of practicality here. I’m also not very much in favor of them buying M-1 tanks just because it amuses them.
 
Scratch another potential Presidential candidate off my list...

You really think you would get ANY serious candidate to go on record saying they support private ownership of machine guns?
 
Haha yeah, I had better put my F-16 in private storage.

I used to respect Newt, upon demonstrating his ignorance, that is subject to change. High caliber, come on man, come on :barf:
 
i would find an m-1 abrams amusing for, oh, a half hour, before i got the gass bill.

They use jet fuel. You'd get in trouble if you drove it on a public road because of the taxes, but if you kept it off road you could use home heating oil or Kerosene (basically the same). Much cheaper.

Not that I would ever use kereosene in a motor vehicle instead of jet fuel, that would be wrong to avoid the fuel tax :evil:
 
I read about that interview on newsflashradio and it just further cemented my dislike of Newt.

All the Newt apologists need to remember, Newt is a member of the neo-conservative movement, was a driving force in the creation of NAFTA, and is a globalist, not an "America First" type of politician.

The reality of what Newt represents is reflected in his critical role in pushing NAFTA through Congress. Newt was almost single-handedly responsible for ensuring passage of the sovereignty-robbing, job exporting North American free Trade Agreement.

Newt rallied the GOP votes necessary to enable NAFTA’s enactment, delivering a "victory" to his fellow member of the Council on Foreign Relations, President Bill Clinton.
 
Does anyone here know anyone who owns a 50 caliber machine gun? I don't see crew served weapons as clearly and unquestionably fitting under the 2nd amendment.

Jacob
 
Newt would be the absolute best candidate the Republicans could nominate. I would rather have a candidate be politically correct and lie about him not supporting machine guns, than have a lying Democrat tell us SHE supports the second amendmend.
 
Does anyone here know anyone who owns a 50 caliber machine gun?

Yes. A friend of mine has 2 of them.

He searched high and low for a quad mount too. Apparantly that is the "holy grail" of the Ma Deuce collectors. He never found one.

I got a picture of me firing the thing off a tripod mount somewhere, I'll try to dig it up. That was 15 years and 25 pounds ago though.....

Though I'm not sure I would call it crew served. I was able to load, fire, and unload it all by myself.

The 2 days spent linking ammo 10 at a time only to have it gone in 5 minutes was a bit much for me.

One is for sale if you are interested, last I heard.

The M2 was very popular before 86 since conversion was so simple and there were many de-milled parts guns out there.
It was actually one of the cheaper guns to convert so there are tons of them. M1919's too for the same reason.
 
Is that all Newt said? I was really disappointed in him until I read the transcript. Big deal: protect the larger calibers, keep Ma Deuce as a Class III weapon, and we won't see an Abrams with cup holders in the Auto Trader for a few more years. That's the best pro-2A response I've read from a potential presidential candidate yet.
 
Some of you have missed the true point of the 2nd Amendment.

It would have been pretty hard for the Patriots to fend off the British using slingshots.

Imagine this discussion back then:

"Muskets are purely military weapons without any civilian purpose."

"A bow and arrow is sufficient to hunt for food and fend off predators."
 
guys, we have to keep in mind that a fundamental strategy of all politicians is to speak to the center in their never-ending quest for voter approval.

In todays political climate--i.e., with the Democrat and Republican parties each having about 1/3 support, they perceive the place to pick up votes is from the middle. Newt will get more net votes by appearing to be "sensible" than he will by appearing to appeal to "extremists" like us.

and, as hagar said--who are you inclined to believe?

Jim H.
 
jklinstein

I don't see crew served weapons as clearly and unquestionably fitting under the 2nd amendment.

I also strongly disagree. Why would you not see them fitting under the 2nd Amendment? Do they not fall under the description of "arms"?

Many people at that time owned cannon and not a small number of people owned what could be considered warships. In point of fact, the United States relied exclusively upon privately owned ships for its naval power for the first few years of the nation and privateers were part of the naval forces even into the Civil War era.

The idea behind the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the people could make the following words be more than just a pretty turn of phrase: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

We dont like to think about it, but there are times when the will of the people must be enacted by force.
 
I read the quotes. That doesn't justify the title of the thread. Newt was pointing out that the 2nd Amendment doesn't justify anything and everything. How many times have you heard the anti-gun people say, "the NRA wants everybody to be able to own nuclear weapons?" Where should the line be, who draws it, how easy should it be to change, those are important issues. I realize that Newt said he wouldn't feel comfortable with his neighbor being able to own a Ma Deuce. But, in the context of the quotes, it seems like they are arguing about what people can own without any restrictions or checks. If literally anybody could go to a gunshow and buy full auto M2's, I just might be concerned myself. I get concerned over some of the people I see at gunshows buying 9mm Glocks!

Now if the interviewer had had any knowledge of guns and gun laws, he could have asked Newt about our NFA laws as they stand today. I HIGHLY doubt that Newt would have said that private people who jump through the Class III hoops shouldn't be allowed to own private MG's. That would totally go against his background and voting record.

Those quotes alone wouldn't keep me from voting for Newt. I'll be just as happy to vote for Fred if he makes it. Either one would be miles better than McCain!

Gregg
 
The bottom line is that the uninformed imagination of Joe & Jane Normal, of which politicians are merely reflections, is that some (most?) military weapons are not for civilians.

Things like the AWB are 100% about exploiting this misperception.

This perception is also ENTIRELY at odds with the spirit and intent of 2A, and even the Miller test.

THAT is our fundamental disconnect: the bulk of our society is WRONG on this.
 
hmm...

So crew served isn't covered by 2A?

What makes up a militia besides the people? Equipment.
WHAT equipment?

Bayonets? Grenades? Pistols? Mortars? Artillery? Rifles? Shotguns? Razor wire? Tents? .50 + caliber?

As we delve deeper into the meaning of the 2A, it will serve us well to know this well so that we can answer this when politicians bring it up.
 
There's the title of the thread and the content of what Gingrich said. These two things are not the same. Here's what Newt said:


NG: Look, I think we ought to draw a clear distinction about a whole range of weapons that are explicitly military, and I have no interest in arguing or defending the right of people to randomly hold weapons that are that extraordinary, except under very, very unique circumstances.
...
NG: Right. I just think, you know, if you said to me would I feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a 50 caliber machine gun, I would say no.
...
NG: And I realize that for a purist, that probably means I’m a squishy on the 2nd Amendment. But I do think there’s a line of practicality here. I’m also not very much in favor of them buying M-1 tanks just because it amuses them.​
I don't draw the line at the same point as Newt, but he did NOT say that he was against all private machine gun ownership. He didn't propose a caliber limit. He didn't even say it was always wrong for civilians to own 50 caliber machine guns. He's stated that there is a line beyond which he was uncomfortable.

So, who on this board defends the personal ownership of:
(1) nuclear weapons?
(2) F-14's & B2 bomber's with a full armament?
(3) cruise missles?
(4) etc.

Everyone has a line, admit it.
 
In answer to what is protected by the 2nd, the answer is obvious.

Anything that is standard issue to the infantry is protected.

This means pistols, fully automatic assault rifles, mortars, grenades, suppressors, SBSs, SBRs, RPGs, HMGs, GPMGs, LMGs, sniper rifles, and claymores. Anything not standard issue to infantrymen is "ordnance" and is less protected. This means howitzers, cruise missiles, nukes, and smart bombs.

I don't see why people seek to draw different lines. Arms are protected, ordnance is not. Easy.
 
jklinstein

Everyone has a line, admit it.

Yep - i sure do. My line is simple: If you cant afford it, you cant have it, unless you make it or someone gives it to you. Pretty basic really.

Yes, that would mean that some people would be able to afford some extremely powerful and exotic hardware. So what?

Better question is, why do you feel a need to tell others what to do?

The "nuke test" is nothing more than a strawman and a dangerous one at that. Once you agree to that, it is that much easier to have further restrictions placed upon the right - and you end up right where you are today.

Bottom line? The number of people who could afford to own a nuke is so small (i.e. Bill Gates and thats about it) as to be irrelevant. Additionally, no one is obligated to SELL one to you, and since all the fissionable material is currently owned by the US government, where, pray tell, are you to obtain it?
 
jlbraun

In answer to what is protected by the 2nd, the answer is obvious.

Anything that is standard issue to the infantry is protected.

This means pistols, fully automatic assault rifles, mortars, grenades, suppressors, SBSs, SBRs, RPGs, HMGs, GPMGs, LMGs, sniper rifles, and claymores. Anything not standard issue to infantrymen is "ordnance" and is less protected. This means howitzers, cruise missiles, nukes, and smart bombs.

I don't see why people seek to draw different lines. Arms are protected, ordnance is not. Easy.
While i see where you're trying to go, you're incorrect.

The plain historical fact of private citizens owning cannon and warships proves you wrong. Add in the fact that Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and it should be even more obvious. In short - these are documents which allow a private citizen to conduct acts of war - typically using his own equipment. If the ownership of larger weapons and weapons systems was not expected by the authors of the US Constitution, then what purpose would be served by granting Congress this authority?

In addition, it is currently quite legal to own artillery.

Ordinance is a subset of arms - the two are NOT exclusive.

As pointed out to jklinstein, the numbers of people who can afford the larger toys makes ownership of them rather self-regulating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top