Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record

GOA: Gun Owners of America ^ | Tuesday, 22 November 2011 08:18 | Staff

[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]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Outlaw Woman]

Please Note: Discussion is welcomed not attacks. I am not tearing anyone down but simply pointing out that Gingrich, no matter what he ‘says’, has been no Friend to OUR rights.

These things can be proven by simply researching previous positions that are on the record. There has been no recent epiphany regarding these positions. The only epiphany is the one that his tongue has had.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

NO COMPROMISE!

[Outlaw Woman]

REASON MAGAZINE/REASON.COM

Newt Gingrich Stabs Gun Owners in the Back

Katherine Mangu-Ward | December 5, 2011

In my inbox today, a message from Georgia Gun Owners who are grumpy about GOP darling of the day Newt Gingrich's record on gun control. They note his support for restrictions on the gun rights of people involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges and the fact that he played nice with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on gun-free school zone legislation. "But the biggest knife that Newt plunged into the back of all Americans and gun owners who wish to defend themselves and their families, was his coming out in support of a national thumbprint database for gun owners," said [D.R. Leonard, Political Director of Georgia Gun Owners]. Hey, at least his choice of weapons is ideologically consistent!

[Huck]

“gun free school zones act,”

A claimed "commerce clause" power that even the SCOTUS couldn't find---and that's saying something.

[skaterboy]

Newt lied? NO WAY

[Outlaw Woman]

The commerce clause is now being used to push a marxist agenda at full throttle speed and the so called Republicans go along with as sheep to the slaughter...

[Hattie]

I wish Rudy Guiliano would get in this race. As a good conservative I could now vote for him since morals and values no longer count.

[momincombatboots]

Newt on (fill in the blank), a mixed record.

[skaterboy]

But remember only Mitty flip flops and Newt finds the errors of his ways and changes his views based on facts and thats good thing..

[Lazlo in PA]

Hey. Newt is the only true Conservative running. He says so himself if you ask.

[skaterboy]

Ill vote for whoever our guy is..Mitt or Newt...better than Obama but witnessing the hypocrisy and mental voodoo some are using on here to try and act like Newt's stuff dont stink as bad as Romney's and that Newt wont stick a knife in us as fast as Mitt if not faster is breathtaking

[CSI007]

Don’t forget he frequently needs to clarify his position.

[Navy Patriot]

But Newt’s so smart, just ask him, he’ll tell ya.

[Outlaw Woman]

[CowboyJay]

The REAL Newt Gingrich. Conservative as all get-out. Except when he’s not. And that’s only on minor things like gun control, healthcare reform, carbon caps, amnesty, NAFTA, et c.,. On meaningless procedural issues, he’d have our back - even if it means sacrificing every bit of political capital on lost causes. And that’s what really matters. Right?

[PieterCasparzen]

If Obama is reelected in 2012, everyone in America who is not a leftist or statist will be steaming mad, watching everything he does and screaming about it for four years.

If an establishment Republican is elected, those same people will ASSUME that “things will be better” and will not so intensely follow what goes on.

[jneesy]

Wanted Sarah
Wanted Herman

The establishement nuked both of them
The one thing I can say for newt is he doesn’t trigger my gag reflex like mccain did

And I wont vote for paul or romney no matter what so for now newt is my man

[Peet]

QUOTE: Ill vote for whoever our guy is..

I haven’t voted FOR anyone in decades. It looks like another cursed election I’m gonna be voting AGAINST the worst of a couple of bad choices. The upside is the worst is easily discernable.

*spit*

[Outlaw Woman]

DOOCY: (FNF/2008) "Some comments you made over the weekend I heard replayed on Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Is it true, sir, that you think that the Ronald Reagan era is over in America?

GINGRICH: That's just objectively a fact. I think if Governor (notice..it is Governor Reagan and Not President Reagan) Reagan were here today, and he were looking at where America should go, he wouldn't be saying, "Let's go back to 1980." He'd be saying, "Here are the solutions, here are the policies, here's what will carry us into the future." And I think we've watched these guys run around saying, "I'm like Reagan. I'm like Reagan." Reagan was a unique one-time personality whose great achievement in eliminating the Soviet empire was historic. Now we have a different world with a different set of problems. I don't think it can be, "Here's how you go back 28 years to reinvent Reagan." It's gotta be, "Here's how you apply conservatism to solve America's problems today."

RUSH: Wait a minute, Newt, how are you going to apply conservatism to today's problems when you just said it's dead? Reaganism is simply conservatism. That's all it is, and if the era of Reagan being over is objectively a fact, then conservatism's finished. Now, nobody's talking about going back to the 1980s and reliving the same set of policies. What we're talking about is applying principles, which is what Reagan did, to the existing problems of that era. Those policies, the premises of conservatism, work. They are timeless. It's not a scheme. It doesn't have to be bent, molded, and shaped. Tenets of conservatism survive throughout the ages, just like liberalism does. They're both philosophical ideas. For our side to run around saying, "Well, it's over," misses the whole point. Nobody's talking about bringing Reagan back the identical set of problems in 1980. We're talking about the principles of conservatism and applying them to today's problems, and not moderating them, not modifying these principles so they're a little liberal here, a little liberal here, maybe a little moderate over here.

[mamelukesabre]

why is newt any better than the others? I say they all suck but I’ll vote for whoever runs against obama.

[Noumenon]

Gingrich has never been anything by a ruling class elitist. The question of firearms ownership is the absolute, Vulcan mind-meld issue that divides those who believe that they have the right to dictate the terms of existence to us from those who of us who believe that no such 'right' exists.

Those who presume to tell you that you have no right to defend yourself, your family or your property are not merely holding the the United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights and in particular, the Second Amendment in contempt - what they are really saying is that you have no right to your own life. To them, you are a thing, an animal, or a machine. Nothing more.

They are declaring their supremacy over you by holding the value your life as little more - and often less - than a wheelbarrow full of bricks.

THAT's who we're dealing with. And as history has shown us, the ultimate destination of that outlook is something far worse than slavery.

Gingrich, for all of his talk, is no friend of human freedom.