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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
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.
To: theBuckwheat
22
posted on
01/25/2013 1:51:15 PM PST
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(Click my name! See new paintings!)
To: Herodes
23
posted on
01/25/2013 1:52:17 PM PST
by
Uncle Miltie
(Of the government, by the government, and for the government.)
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)
To: Kaslin
25
posted on
01/25/2013 2:03:51 PM PST
by
chuckles
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.)
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.)
To: dubyajam
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)
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
To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends
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)
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.)
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)
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.
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
To: Kaslin; All
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)
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
To: Uncle Miltie
Your post is as funny as your handle.
37
posted on
01/25/2013 2:38:03 PM PST
by
karnage
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.)
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.
To: Kaslin
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)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson