Patrick Kennedy Says Resistance to Gun Ban is 'Insanity'

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy implied Tuesday that congressional colleagues who do not share his support for a failed gun ban being reintroduced in the House are mentally ill. The Rhode Island Democrat also accused lawmakers who oppose the anti-gun legislation of not caring about police safety.

Kennedy is the son of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy and U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, both of whom were shot to death.

The younger Kennedy made the comments at a Capitol Hill press conference to promote the reintroduction of the "50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act." The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), would ban the manufacture of such rifles and severely limit the sale or transfer of existing .50 BMG rifles except for those owned by the military or civilian law enforcement agencies.

"Any policy maker who, on the one hand, says that they are for combating terrorism but, on the other hand, will not back this legislation, backed by Representative Moran, to me has a lot of explaining to do," Kennedy said "In fact, I think it would be the definition of insanity to say that."

In addition to challenging his opponents' mental stability, Kennedy also questioned whether his fellow lawmakers could claim to support police while opposing the gun ban.

"If we don't pass this legislation, this Congress, implicitly, is saying that they do not care about the welfare of our law enforcement community," Kennedy said.

John Burtt - chairman of the Fifty Caliber Institute, the education and advocacy arm of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association - told Cybercast News Service that Moran, Kennedy and their colleagues are trying to create "backdoor legislation to ban all firearms in this country.

"What they're doing is using hyperbole to create anxiety on the part of the uninformed public that these guns are dangerous, that they are a threat to national security," Burtt said, "but they are not."

Burtt said there has not been a single instance of terrorists using the .50 BMG in an attack on U.S. soil. A handout provided to the media at Moran's press conference listed 12 instances in which a .50 caliber rifle was used, threatened or intended for use in a criminal act. But Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, reviewed the list and questioned the nature of the examples.

"It's usually people who were prohibited from owning any kind of firearm to begin with and, as a result, should have been prohibited from owning a .50 caliber already," Gottlieb said. "There's no need to have a new law. They ought to just enforce the existing laws."

Moran believes, however, that there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own the rifles.

"It serves no purpose for hunting, whatsoever," Moran claimed. "If you went hunting with this, you would not have any trophy. All you'd have left would be some pieces of fur and hoof."

"I know a lot of people who hunt with the .50 BMG," Burtt said, noting that many people pursue elk, bear and other large game animals with the rifles. "When a .50 caliber round hits a large animal like that, it has tremendous knock-down power. But, it does nothing more than put a half-inch hole into the animal and knock it down.

"This is just somebody who, obviously, has no knowledge, whatsoever, about the hunting capabilities of these firearms making statements that are completely inaccurate," Burtt added.

U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was murdered and son wounded by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, contributed to Moran's "no legitimate use" argument.

"This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with taking away the right of someone to have a gun to protect themselves [sic]," McCarthy said.

"As far as Carolyn McCarthy is concerned, the Second Amendment doesn't protect any firearm," Gottlieb said. "If she had her wishes, she'd classify every firearm under a foot long as a 'Saturday Night Special,' and ban it, and characterize every gun over a foot long as an 'assault weapon,' and ban it also."

McCarthy and her anti-gun colleagues are using a "divide and conquer" strategy, according to Gottlieb, to disarm law-abiding Americans.

"If you pick on one type of gun at a time and say, 'the Second Amendment doesn't protect it,' most gun owners who don't own that kind of gun won't get upset and she might get her legislation passed," Gottlieb explained. "Then, lo and behold, she'll come back for another gun the next time and another gun the next time until there are no guns left."

McCarthy's comments seemed to support Gottlieb's assessment as she attempted to further demonize the .50 caliber.

"Look at this thing," McCarthy urged. "Do you want this in your home? Do you want your children to play with this?"

Burtt said McCarthy's comment betrays her ignorance of firearms and their safe handling.

"I don't want any children 'playing' with firearms, and they shouldn't even be touching them without the supervision of an adult," Burtt said. "I can't believe a representative of our Congress would make a statement like that."

"Nobody said that the opponents of gun ownership are intellectually honest," Gottlieb said. "As far as these members of Congress are concerned, there's no such thing as a good gun."

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy implied Tuesday that congressional colleagues who do not share his support for a failed gun ban being reintroduced in the House are mentally ill.

Someone should send this moron a copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” Then again, DON’T – let him keep making asinine statements like this.

"If we don't pass this legislation, this Congress, implicitly, is saying that they do not care about the welfare of our law enforcement community," Kennedy said.

What about supporting the Constitutional rights of the 99.5% of us who are not law enforcement officers? Oh, and how many police officers have been shot/killed with a .50 BMG weapon? I’ll venture a guess: Zero, zip, nada.

This is all about demonizing a class of weapons based on looks and/or the possibility that someone may commit a crime with it. The arguments for such a ban, if it is enacted, will be used to ban the next lowest caliber, then the next, etc., etc., until the only thing that one can own is a single-shot .22 short rifle, and then only if it is locked up in a police armory. Banning something based on looks violates Mothers’ Commandment #4 to wit “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Banning something or some activity because it might be used in a crime is known as “prior restraint,” a concept that it abhorrent to the notion of freedom. Prior restraint is mostly a 1st Amendment concept, but it certainly applies to the 2nd, as well.

Moran believes, however, that there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own the rifles.

"It serves no purpose for hunting, whatsoever," Moran claimed. "If you went hunting with this, you would not have any trophy. All you'd have left would be some pieces of fur and hoof."

The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, target shooting or even self-protection from common street thugs (as distinguished from the title-bearing, suit-wearing criminals who congregate in Washington, DC and in the various state capitals). Hunting is, from a Constitutional perspective, such a trivial activity that it is not even hinted at in the Constitution or any of the amendments. On the other hand, having a well-regulated (i.e. well-trained or well-disciplined) militia, composed of all able-bodied males in a society, is something that the Founders took for granted, and for which they provided in the Constitution. The militia is the final guardian of our liberty, against both foreign invaders and domestic tyrants. Representative MORON probably doesn’t have a clue about this, but even if he does, he clearly doesn’t give a rat’s rectum about our rights.

"This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with taking away the right of someone to have a gun to protect themselves [sic]," McCarthy said.

Yet another ignorant/evil slug inhabiting the halls of Congress. See comment re: her fellow-traveler, MORON, above.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head.

"Look at this thing," McCarthy urged. "Do you want this in your home?

Yeah, actually I would, along with at least 6 or 8 of its siblings and cousins that also shoot the .50 BMG. Gee, Carolyn, do you think that we could arrange for a special grant to help me pay for them?

Do you want your children to play with this?"

Play? No, but then again, I don’t want anyone to “play” with any firearm. Firearms are deadly weapons, and proper respect for them and their capabilities should ALWAYS be taught and observed. I, personally, lock my firearms away from my 3 1/2 year-old daughter and 8-month-old son, but when they get old enough to handle the responsibility they will be taught by me how to handle, clean and use firearms – including a .50 BMG if have one at that time (i.e. if I can afford to buy and feed one, which I cannot do at present).

"I don't want any children 'playing' with firearms, and they shouldn't even be touching them without the supervision of an adult," Burtt said.

Right on.

"I can't believe a representative of our Congress would make a statement like that."

Someone hasn’t been paying attention to the looney Left for the past 30 years or so.

Gottlieb, however, said he was not surprised by McCarthy's comments.

"Nobody said that the opponents of gun ownership are intellectually honest," Gottlieb said. "As far as these members of Congress are concerned, there's no such thing as a good gun."

Another nail bites the dust, the victim of a well-aimed hammer strike.

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.