Posted on 12/05/2011 3:04:42 PM PST by Outlaw Woman
Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”
His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]
The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home -- and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.
While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress -- despite repeated requests to do so.[4]
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I wanted to live a European or Communist/Socialist/Fascist lifestyle I would have moved to a country as that.....and so should all those who support Obama....instead of trying to change this nation....they need to go.
There is no compromise when it comes to Life...none. I’m not connecting myself with anyone that does not believe in life 100%. Gingrich has shown he is less than a staunch advocate of life.
I’m still looking into Newt; what I don’t understand is why people, conservatives, are willing to give a pass to Gingrich. He has shown himself as a compromiser on basic issues but what is disturbing is how many conservatives accept that and ignore the evidence.
No Compromise! Period
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27087
They tried something similar in Iowa. I assume it’s on the gun grabbers coordinated effort to ban self defense tools.
Newt is well thought of by the NRA...however, this group GOA’s are Ron Paul supporters and have even attacked the NRA. Some consider the GOA on the radical side
I don’t much care what positions someone might have taken on guns, 15 or 20 years ago.
Provided that he’d come out since, admitted he was wrong, and taken correct positions.
Has Newt changed his position?
In 2011, Newt said: “The right to bear arms is not about hunting. It’s not about target practice ... The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights that God has given you, and it was written by people who had spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world and they knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms, they would have been enslaved. And they did not want us to be enslaved. And that is why they guaranteed us the right to protect ourselves. It is a political right of the deepest importance to the survival of freedom in America.”
Which certainly sounds like he’s changed his position - at least rhetorically. The question is, is he lying?
Perry, strong 2nd amendment Gov. has always been pro gun. Gov. Perry for President
Even if it means giving Zero a couple more pro-abort Supreme Court nominations?
What meaning does the El Paso midi have here?
I will dlete the link
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.