Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Schools Gun-Grabbing Piers Morgan: 'Isn't Your Real View That You Would Ban Pistols?'
Townhall.com ^ | January 25, 2013 | Scott Whitlock

Posted on 01/25/2013 12:46:39 PM PST by Kaslin

Newt Gingrich on Thursday night interrogated the gun-grabbing Piers Morgan, pushing the CNN host as to what his real motives are. An aggressive Gingrich insisted, "So, why don't you share your real view?...Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?" [See video below. MP3 audio here.] The Republican also told the British anchor why the Founding Fathers were able to defeat "your army."

Morgan swore that his concern was "the high-powered guns of any variety which can fire 30 or 40 or more rounds in less than a minute." He added, "...That would be my primary concern right now." The former Speaker pounced, "Right now? Okay, right now." Gingrich lectured, "The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step."

Gingrich Schools Gun-Grabbing Piers Morgan: 'Isn't Your Real View That You Would Ban Pistols?'

The ex-presidential candidate grilled:

NEWT GINGRICH: And we actually think the Second Amendment is central to our liberties, not just something there for hunters, not something there for target practice, but actually there because the founding fathers remembered that when your army tried to defeat us, luckily, our peasants weren't peasants. They were citizens. And as citizens, they were in fact armed. And that's the only reason we were able to win the Revolutionary War.

On January 10, Morgan sneered at another conservative guest who cited the Constitution: "You brandish your little book." 

On January 16, he mocked a female gun rights activist: "Do you want the right to have a tank?"

A partial transcript of the January 24 segment can be found below:

NEWT GINGRICH: So where -- so where are you -- so where are you on pistols that have fairly large capacity? Where are you on the pistols that killed most of the people in Chicago, Piers?

PIERS MORGAN: My position --

GINGRICH: It's okay if we kill them individually?

MORGAN: No. Let me make my position.

GINGRICH: Are you saying three, four, five, and that's okay?

MORGAN: Let my position very, very clear. What is happening in Chicago is completely outrageous, completely unacceptable. I think there's been a total breakdown in the effectiveness of the law enforcement. Because when you compare it to New York, they have solved a lot of the gun problems in New York with very stringent gun control and they've enforced it properly. There are -- it's like the Wild West situation in parts of Chicago. I've been there, I think it's outrageous. And I think the fact that 11,000 or 12,000 people die a year in America from gun fire and a lot of that is from handguns used by criminals and gangsters is disgraceful.

GINGRICH: Right.

MORGAN: And I think many of the other --

GINGRICH: So why -- right. So why don't you share your real view?

MORGAN: Many of the other proposals --

GINGRICH: Isn't it --

MORGAN: It's all wrong to me.

GINGRICH: Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?

MORGAN: No, it wouldn't. What --

GINGRICH: Wouldn't you ban pistols if you could?

MORGAN: Let me -- let me explain what I would do. I would agree with Diane Feinstein. It is the high-powered guns of any variety which can fire 30 or 40 or more rounds in less than a minute that can cause mass murder that would be my primary concern right now. And the AR-15 is a prime example of that.

GINGRICH: Okay, right now, and the reason you find so many of us, and by the way, it's a substantial majority, I think the last time I saw, 63 percent of the American people agree that the Second Amendment is actually there to protect us from tyranny. The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step. And we actually think the Second Amendment is central to our liberties, not just something there for hunters, not something there for target practice, but actually there because the founding fathers remembered that when your army tried to defeat us, luckily, our peasants weren't peasants. They were citizens. And as citizens, they were in fact armed. And that's the only reason we were able to win the Revolutionary War.

MORGAN: And you think -- and you honestly think the founding fathers sat there and thought, okay, automatic weapons are banned because they are very dangerous. The semiautomatics that can fire 100 bullets in a minute are not dangerous and they should be lawful?

GINGRICH: I think the founding fathers would have found this entire debate strange because they actually believed in individual freedom and they were very suspicious of big government, and they would find the idea that you're going to permit, to use the word you kept using. You're going to permit us to have a few liberties right now, was the antithesis of the American experience.  



TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; cnn; gingrich; guncontrol; illinois; piersmorgan; secondamendment; thedailymail; twitbrit; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

1 posted on 01/25/2013 12:46:48 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I hate this pansy-ass poncey Brit git who is recently arrived here and insists on spouting off his socialist clap-trap that has failed in his own homeland. His ass needs to be put on a plane out of our country.


2 posted on 01/25/2013 12:54:57 PM PST by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

How I wish Gingrich was Prez now.


3 posted on 01/25/2013 12:57:27 PM PST by dubyajam (t "Life is Hard ... It's Even Harder When you're Stupid" --- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyajam

Oh how I wish he were President too. Imagine how much better things would be already if we had a President Gingrich.


4 posted on 01/25/2013 12:58:49 PM PST by tsowellfan (cafenetamerica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

As I have posted many times, military style rifles are just a smokescreen. Their ultimate goal is the total abolition of the RIGHT to own firearms of any type.

It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.

Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.

John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.

Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.

Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.

Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.

George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.

Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.

Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.

Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.

Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.

What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.

And if you still have doubts consider this by Nelson P Shields, founder of Handgun control Inc.

Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.

Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again.

Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.

And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

For those who may still doubt, back in the 1980s HCI decided to go after semi-auto military style rifles along with handguns.


5 posted on 01/25/2013 1:04:59 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The government doesn’t “permit” me anything, including guns.

I permit them some small amount of resources that I yield up reluctantly.

They work for me. I own the rights. They are MY SLAVES.


6 posted on 01/25/2013 1:16:09 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Of the government, by the government, and for the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

He’d ban knives and everything, except for himself and his guards.

This true idiot.. I mean true. Dares to bring up ‘100 rounds a minute’ talk when asked if he’d ban pistols. Worthless POS.


7 posted on 01/25/2013 1:20:51 PM PST by Monty22002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

So we have this Idiot who’s ancestors got their asses kicked back across the ocean Twice for that point of view,
back in this country utilizing everyones constitutionally protected free speech to attack another freedom we have.

I say this based on the blood of my Ancestors who fought and kicked their asses for those rights.

Piers Morgan deserves public stoning and then boxed up and sent home. Go back to your filth infested limey country and live in the “Utopia” your mindset created.


8 posted on 01/25/2013 1:22:08 PM PST by VRWCarea51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Unhappily Uncle Milty, you are delusional. I would wager that the government is getting far more than a “small amount” of your resources.


9 posted on 01/25/2013 1:22:52 PM PST by Herodes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan; All
Oh how I wish he were President too.
Imagine how much better things would be already
if we had a President Gingrich.
yeah..We had our chance, too many (GOP/e) drones were...
"concerned" questions about his "choices" &/ squeamish 'bout this or that...
Low Info/RINOs/Liberals mainly..We let them pick our candidate.
they would been screamin' bloody hell w/ Newt (as pres.)
he had the "wherewithal" to fight them with the truth..
facts / history, would've backed him up.

10 posted on 01/25/2013 1:27:04 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Still pissed about losing the Revolution. And, if you could get a straight answer out of them, most of them would admit it. Man, I can’t stand sore losers.


11 posted on 01/25/2013 1:29:38 PM PST by redhead (PRAY DAILY for a Restoration of the Righteous Intent of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
MORGAN: Let my position very, very clear. What is happening in Chicago is completely outrageous, completely unacceptable. I think there's been a total breakdown in the effectiveness of the law enforcement. Because when you compare it to New York, they have solved a lot of the gun problems in New York with very stringent gun control and they've enforced it properly. There are -- it's like the Wild West situation in parts of Chicago.

New York City is a May Issue area for concealed carry. In Chicago, and all of Illinois, concealed carry is prohibited. So I guess that Morgan agrees that concealed carry reduces violent crime.

12 posted on 01/25/2013 1:29:57 PM PST by Jack of all Trades (Hold your face to the light, even though for the moment you do not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan

Yeah but just think we would have had a brilliant, conservative president who has been married three times and sat on a couch with Nancy, oh the humanity. Instead, we ran the “I can beat Obama guy”, because he was the only one who could win. Just ask Coulter, Malkin, Levin, Hume, Krauthammer, and the rest of the RMSM.


13 posted on 01/25/2013 1:35:10 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
It's all wrong to me.

This libtard scum doesn't even know the history of the right to bear arms of his own country: In England, the right to keep and bear arms dates back to the laws of King Alfred the Great, whose reign began in A.D. 872, where all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.The body of the Anglo-Saxon citizens were known as the "fyrd." This tradition continued after the Norman invasion through the Plantagenets and the Tudors and was in place when the American colonies were founded.Then the tradition was continued in the colonies.

14 posted on 01/25/2013 1:35:57 PM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

While we begin stepping down this road, one step at a time by limiting magazine capacity from 30 to 10 to “five or six” to 3 to one to hopefully zero, let us also limit another magazine’s capacity. I wonder if Piers would support a proposal to limit vile Hustler Magazine to no more than 10 pages, then to “five or six” then to 3 pages, then hopefully zero pages.


15 posted on 01/25/2013 1:36:25 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

Yeah but just think after 4 more years of Obama Susan Collins will be seen as too far right to even think about running for President.


16 posted on 01/25/2013 1:37:04 PM PST by tsowellfan (cafenetamerica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades

Philadelphia used to lead the country in gun related murders until they fixed the situation. Philadelphia changed the way they collect the statistics, they found that if they separated all the shootings that were committed by juveniles, listed them separately and refused to release those statistics, the murder rate was reduced significantly. The reason is that the gangs had figured out that if a juvenile committed the murder, he would get out in a year or two with a sealed record, so the gangs were assigning most of the killing to younger members.


17 posted on 01/25/2013 1:38:00 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Y’know, the founding fathers also never imagined a British Blowhard’s moving image and sound being transmitted through the atmosphere.... better ban high capacity Television... NOW!


18 posted on 01/25/2013 1:38:15 PM PST by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

A little history of banned items is useful at this point:

During the Columbine massacre, in which 15 people were murdered and 21 injured, a total of four firearms were involved. The murderers also employed four knives and 99 explosive devices.

Of the firearms, only one qualified under the 1984 federal law as a banned “assault rifle”. One firearm was a doubled barreled shotgun with a shortened barrel. It has long been a federal felony to saw down the barrel of a shotgun and it was also a felony to possess such an altered weapon.

Every single explosive device was a federal and state felony to assemble, possess and use, and to use in the commission of a crime.

If the memory of Columbine is ever brought up today, the failure of the law to stop the use of explosives in a school massacre is never mentioned. It is never mentioned because it is a fact that gets in the way of a Gollum-like fixation on the Precious, the banning certain types of firearms and then eventually all firearms.


19 posted on 01/25/2013 1:42:16 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ar15 type rifles with standard m4 contour barrels will sustain a 30 round per minute fire rate without significantly heat stressing/throating/melting barrels

Good thing Morgan knows so much about what he covers. Journalistic excellence is a synonym for one who wears their ass as a hat.


20 posted on 01/25/2013 1:43:02 PM PST by BlueStateMadness (Two commonly violated premises: you can save people from themselves, and the free lunch myth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.

Actually, not all peasants. This applied to all "free men." A very large percentage of the peasantry were serfs or slaves at this time. So the gamut ran from nobility to yeomen or franklins.

Actually, that was more or less the legal distinction between a free and unfree man. The freeman carried arms, while the unfree man was prohibited from doing so.

21 posted on 01/25/2013 1:48:16 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

Here is another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cokeville_Elementary_School_hostage_crisis


22 posted on 01/25/2013 1:51:15 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Herodes

LOL. Yup; more like 50%.


23 posted on 01/25/2013 1:52:17 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Of the government, by the government, and for the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Gingrich is doing what we all need to be doing - not allowing the left to argue their “front” argument, but jumping right at their real intent and thwarting their weapon of incrementalism.

Prov 26
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.


24 posted on 01/25/2013 1:59:09 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

ping for later


25 posted on 01/25/2013 2:03:51 PM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

how many people are killed with assault rifles every year Piers? How many killed by cheap hand guns in the hands of BLACK AND MEXICAN GANG BANGERS? Go to hell you limey POS. Better yet, go back to Britain.


26 posted on 01/25/2013 2:03:55 PM PST by RC one (.From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
MORGAN: ...It is the high-powered guns of any variety which can fire 30 or 40 or more rounds in less than a minute that can cause mass murder

In 1914, Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall put 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute with a No. 1 Enfield, a bolt-action rifle.

The cartridge fired by this rifle was designed to stop a cavalry charge by disabling the horses at a range of 600 yards.

I presume this would fit Morgan's definition of "30 or 40 rounds in less than a minute that can cause mass murder".

Does he thus presume to outlaw century-old bolt-action rifles?

27 posted on 01/25/2013 2:09:17 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyajam

Me too!


28 posted on 01/25/2013 2:09:17 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
I love how Newt said, "when your army tried to defeat us"
29 posted on 01/25/2013 2:11:59 PM PST by zeebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends


Support Free Republic

30 posted on 01/25/2013 2:12:07 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyajam

I’d be looking at spending 400.00 for an AK-74 instead of 900.00.


31 posted on 01/25/2013 2:13:55 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RC one

“Go to hell you limey POS. Better yet, go back to Britain.”

Is there a difference?


32 posted on 01/25/2013 2:31:37 PM PST by ZirconEncrustedTweezers ("I'm not anti-anything, I just wanna be free." - Mike Muir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
MORGAN: And you think -- and you honestly think the founding fathers sat there and thought, okay, automatic weapons are banned because they are very dangerous. The semiautomatics that can fire 100 bullets in a minute are not dangerous and they should be lawful?

OK, I'll give you that the Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined the weapons we have today. But, I don't think they would have cared because the KIND of weapon was as irrelevant to the reason behind the Second Amendment as hunting is. The wrote the Second Amendment because they wanted to make sure people in this country didn't have to worry about some President FORCING his ideology on the country by usurping the checks put in place with no way to stop it. It is precisely because of what we see Ovomit doing RIGHT NOW that the Second Amendment is so important.

BUT, where I WISH Newt had gone is to follow that line up with something like this:

"And do you honestly think the founding fathers sat there and thought, okay, killing a person who is able to breathe on their own is banned because that is wrong. But one day medicine will allow a doctor to stick something sharp into the head of a child while still in the womb and that should be lawful because it is the mother's "choice"? And what about the FIRST Amendment. Do you think the Founding Fathers ever dreamed that what they wrote would justify allowing porn and all kinds of depravity to be shown to anyone in the name of "freedom"? What about the press they also wanted to protect? Do you think they sat around and said "well, you can go to jail for lying about someone, but as long as the press does it (GM trucks "exploding") or if they choose to ignore one story (Benghazi, Fast & Furious) while pushing another (No WMD's in Iraq, Bush dodged the draft) because they don't like one person as much as another, that is OK?

I would have LOVED to see Piers answer that one.
33 posted on 01/25/2013 2:32:32 PM PST by Littlejon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

It’s the Overton Window approach to political change:

http://www.mackinac.org/12887#overton_window_container

The gun grabbers are trying to shift the window in their direction.


34 posted on 01/25/2013 2:34:33 PM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All

http://pjmedia.com/blog/where-did-piers-morgan-come-from-anyway/


35 posted on 01/25/2013 2:35:28 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Gingrich: Okay, right now, and the reason you find so many of us, and by the way, it's a substantial majority, I think the last time I saw, 63 percent of the American people agree that the Second Amendment is actually there to protect us from tyranny. The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step. And we actually think the Second Amendment is central to our liberties, not just something there for hunters, not something there for target practice, but actually there because the founding fathers remembered that when your army tried to defeat us, luckily, our peasants weren't peasants. They were citizens. And as citizens, they were in fact armed. And that's the only reason we were able to win the Revolutionary War.

Boom.

36 posted on 01/25/2013 2:36:48 PM PST by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Your post is as funny as your handle.


37 posted on 01/25/2013 2:38:03 PM PST by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Love or hate Gingrich, one must admit he is a good debater and is usually on point in a Constitutional or American history debate.

I understand without fully understanding that some, like Glenn Beck for example, see Gingrich as a closet progressive and therefore a potential danger to the Republic.

But, in situations like this one against the british progressive twit, in defense of the 2nd Amendment, he does a nice job taking that boy to school.

38 posted on 01/25/2013 2:39:15 PM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That is why people who fight the fact that a Bushmaster was used in Sandy Hook are playing right into their hands. They would rather ban the handguns than the ARs.

Note that in Connecticut it was illegal for Adam Lanza [being under 21] to possess the handguns but it was not illegal for him to possess the Bushmaster.


39 posted on 01/25/2013 2:49:44 PM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bookmarked.


40 posted on 01/25/2013 3:03:22 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

41 posted on 01/25/2013 3:30:35 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Does anyone notice Piers rarely answers a question he is asked. He always replies with another question. Someone needs to tell him that they will not answer a question unless he answers a question, and stick to it. Then, answer according to the sincerity and depth that Piers uses, letting everyone know that is how they will answer. Many of his guests have been forthright and truthful, but he has not. He is holding back to give the best propaganda.


42 posted on 01/25/2013 3:41:31 PM PST by shatcher (Judges 17:6b Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Great photo. I am copying it and will print it and put in my office. I wonder if/when I will be told to take it down!


43 posted on 01/25/2013 3:44:31 PM PST by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Upperclass Twit of the Year
44 posted on 01/25/2013 3:50:06 PM PST by Cymbaline ("Allahu Akbar": Arabic for "Nothing To See Here" - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Tremendous, most excellent post.

Yes: this whole “assault weapon” ban is all about incrementalism to get rid of handguns and rifles, and to make it possible for the Feds to confiscate all our weapons... the precursor to our total slavery to the government.


45 posted on 01/25/2013 3:53:32 PM PST by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup

Thinking.... Minnesota?
God bless and keep you.


46 posted on 01/25/2013 3:54:27 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

The gun grabbers will use a slippery slope argument.

Step 1: Ban ‘assault weapons’.

Step 2: Wait for mass killing with a pistol (like Jared Loughner).

Step 3: “Assault rifles only account for a small percentage of killings every year. And, we’ve banned them. Why wouldn’t we ban handguns, since they kill so many more people. We have to do it - for the children”.


47 posted on 01/25/2013 3:57:08 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Does he thus presume to outlaw century-old bolt-action rifles?

Eventually. One step at a time.

48 posted on 01/25/2013 3:59:24 PM PST by tpmintx (Gun free zones are hunting preserves for unarmed people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dubyajam

“How I wish Gingrich was Prez now.”

But oh horror of horrors, he’s had more than one wife. That’s a no-no for the BACs. They would not have voted for Newt either. Their reason for not supporting Romney was not his politics, it was his “religion.” One BAC here a couple of days ago said that he could not vote for a man who believed he could become a god in the hereafter! It’s not only the RATs we all have to fear, the BACs are about as bad when it comes to politics!


49 posted on 01/25/2013 4:45:51 PM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
They work for me. I own the rights. They are MY SLAVES.

Hardly. See tagline.

50 posted on 01/25/2013 4:49:18 PM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson