Newt on Guns.

[alsaqr]

A lame duck term with BHO could dismantle many of the 2A advances made in the past decade.

Presidents do not make draconian gun control laws. Presidents sign draconian gun control bills into law after they are passed by scurrilous congressmen like Gingrich.

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

Looks like Newt's support of the Brady Bill and the Lautenberg rifle ban has already been stated here. He's a terrible flip flopper. Did you guys know he's not even on the ballot in two key states? That would be Missouri and Ohio. He's not serious.

The DesMoines Register has a great article on him for your viewing pleasure.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...take-giant-step-backward-by-choosing-Gingrich

And to those who said Ron Paul has a "crazy" foreign policy, I guess having a strong national defense and following the constitution when we go to war is "crazy".

Those founding fathers must have been a bunch of crazies too.

 

[exavid]

Ron Paul has some good points, Newt has some as does most of the people running for the Republican nomination. The only thing I do know for is that those who sit out the election will get the president they deserve. We do know what Obama is like and what he wants to do. We do know his position on the Second Amendment. If he is re-elected you can bet the gloves will be off and you can expect attacks on the 2A from every possible angle, through new Supreme Court judges, Executive orders, Presidential findings and all those extra Constitutional maneuverings he's already done. 2012 is an election that's actually going to be one of the most important elections in the past century. This time it really will be. So better think twice about pulling your punch, or your vote on this one.

 

[punkndisorderly]

It amazes me that the current crop of Republican candidates is so horrible. It's like they're trying to lose. The party elite is as clueless as the Dem's.

None of them are strong on 2nd amendment, illegal immigration, and the economy. The two supposed front runners are weak on all 3. Perry and Paul are weak on immigration, at a minimum. Paul is the only one who seems to have any integrity.

Sadly, as long as people keep voting for clowns, Washington will continue to be a 3lot ring circus.

 

[alsaqr]

Sadly, as long as people keep voting for clowns, Washington will continue to be a 3lot ring circus.

+1
Yep, that happened because folks voted for evil. It will not stop until voters insist their partys candidate not be evil.

 

[FROGO207]

I am no fan of any of the choices either red or blue as we see them today. :banghead: It is the same drivel and they all are basically disconnected from the average citizen. Newt is a flip-flopper running with the heard IMHO. The two party system is majorly broken today. If we can get a third party in serious contention then the other two will have to man up and represent the citizen or loose its political power. Not voting is a horrible thing IMHO. I will not stand by and let others decide what I can do without a fight. Now voting to stop a Dem takeover did not really work last time either I am afraid. Ron Paul may not be ideal but at the present time he sounds better than Newt and his cronies or any Dem choice to me. Obama may have been right about a CHANGE after all, it may just not be HIS brand of change we need. Next election is the time to really look at our RKBA rights and vote your conscience in ALL areas. Well the world is supposed to end in 2012 anyway.:banghead:

Bottom line I do not trust Newt at all.

 

[george29]

I'm so tired of politicians and politics. I'm turning 50 this year, I know some things and know enough to know that I won't ever know everything. This much I know; President Obama is charming, charismatic, well spoken and even regal, but he is opposed to the America we grew up with, he is opposed to small government and small business, he is opposed to a republic and he is opposed to anything but a socialist theocracy thinly disguised as a socialist democracy (which inessence we already have). President Obama has no respect for the constitution but prefers to enact laws that are passed by a congress and senate that have no contact with their constituents, the Health Care Law proves this for todays politicians just as the Patriot Act enacted by the Bush administration proved that these same politicians wanted more power back then as well.
For me it has come down to one issue and one issue alone; who will respect the 2a more, President Obama or the Republican candidate. I Don't Know! I assume though that with their love for all things international, the Democratic Party and it's political representation will be far worse than a corrupt Republican President. So my personal choice will be anyone but a Democrat!

 

[brickeyee]

I have not cast my vote for President in a few cycles.

That is how people like Obongo get elected.

Is it THAT hard to vote?:banghead:

 

[marv]

I decided a few elections ago that Newt was the most dangerous man in American politics at the time. Nothing much has happened since then to change my mind.

 

[dc.fireman]

Watch what a politicians DOES, not what he/she says.

Best answer, ever.

 

[benEzra]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that during the 1994 brouhaha over the Feinstein AWB, Gingrich could have killed the ban in conference committee and chose not to do so. If that's the case, I imagine that he foresaw that he and the GOP could use the backlash to their political benefit. I am pretty sure that Newt would support another AWB if it seemed politically beneficial to do so.

To keep this gun-related, I won't get into the issues I have with Gingrich re: the rest of the Bill of Rights.

As to the question of SCOTUS nominees---based on Gingrich's publicly stated views on crime and punishment, I'm not sure that Gingrich wouldn't lean toward the tough-on-crime, harsh-sentencing, former-prosecutor type, in the mold of Bush I appointee David Souter, rather than a civil libertarian. Souter was one of the most anti-2ndA justices to ever sit on the Court.

 

[george29]

What a conundrum this country is in.

 

[george29]

The choice is simple, if you don't cast a vote for Obama's opposer then you cast a vote for Obama, that's how simple it is. If you don't vote you don't have the right to complain. Obama/Biden/Hilary are all internationalist who will allow the UN their wish to outlaw the 2A, I doubt Newt will be that bad and I am by no means a Newt fan but Obama got rid of his only real threat (Cain) which leave us with the LCD (lowest common denominator). I fear Obama is going to win because he already owns 48% of the vote whilst we argue the traits of the Republican candidates. None of the Republican candidates (other than Cain) meet my requirements, does that mean that I should not cast a vote for the candidate that I don't like letting Obama win? I don't know who is the lesser evil but I do know that Mr. Obama becomes a lame duck the minute he wins his second term and this means he will do whatever he didn't in his first term. Vote him out before he can do anything outlandish. At least Newt will be thinking of his second term and we have 4 years to se who he is. Can he be worse than B/B/H (Barack/Biden/Hillary)?
As for Congress/Senate, vote 'em out! Don't let them keep their seats! One term, two at the most, don't let them think it is a family business!

 

[hso]

Since few folks are willing to stay focused on Mr. Gingrich's 2A position and no new information has been presented in a while there's no point in leaving this thread open.

 

[YankeeClipper]

Newt

Make Newt answer the gun control question.He was speaker of the house for 10 minuts when he was asked if he was going to repeal the Lottonberg amendment that was promised to the 2nd Amendment voters and his answer was: [And I quote] " We have bigger fish to fry". Not to me Newt: I spent my money and worked for the Republican party to help with the contract with America. No less that 20 time I have asked the question of your staff when they call for money and no one will answer. "Newt just doesn't play well with other others".