Newt: Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right

YouTube.com ^ | Apr 13, 2012 | Newt Gingrich

[SoConPubbie]

Newt, showing up the anti-2nd Amendment, lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal on yet another issue important to conservatives.

[AuntB]

In the interest of ‘full disclosure’, Newt isn’t consistent about the 2nd amendment either.

From the Gun Owners of America:

Gun Owners of America: Newt Ain’t Great on 2nd Amendment Rights, Broke His Promise to America

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/gun-owners-of-america-newt-aint-great-on-2nd-amendment-rights-broke-his-promise-to-america/

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]

Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”

[GonzoGOP]

Did you know that private ownership of nuclear weapons acutally is legal?

Nice try, but that those are licensed contractors only. If you need a license it is not an unrestriced human right. I have a problem with explosives being handled by people who haven't even passed safety test. Much less bio and radiological weapons.

There are different levels of rights. Unrestricted rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I'm pro life because the right to life is clearly stated as being an unrestricted human right. Note that these right apply to all humans, as opposed to the next type of right.

There are rights of citizenship. Despite what the dem's appear to think the right to vote is a right of citizens only. The right to carry arms may be interpreted as this kind of right. Having a well ordered foreign militia on US soil doesn't seem like something the founding fathers would have considered a good idea.

The next level are no longer rights as such, but default privileges. Driving on a public road, piloting an aircraft, practicing medicine. You have to pass a test proving competency to get these privileges. Responsibility assumes competency. If you don't know how to fly a plane you can't go down to the airport and take off in an 747. It doesn't matter if you bought it and take personal responsibility for it. Someone who doesn't know what they are doing is a menace to everyone else, so it is a privilege not a right. As a practical matter firearms and explosives fall into this category today.

Finally there are restricted privileges. These are things that default to no. Radiologicals fall into this category today. You have to prove you need them or you are not permitted to have them.

By declaring weapons of all kinds to be an unrestricted human right Gingrich puts it into that first category.

[ArrogantBustard]

. I have a problem with explosives being handled by people who haven't even passed safety test.

Sarah Brady has a problem with pistols being handled by people who haven't even passed a safety test.

[GonzoGOP]

Carrying one, for example, in an airport necessarily exposes other folks to a radiological hazard.

Never dealt with the buggers have you. No radiological hazard as long as the casing is in place. A properly built nuke is without doubt the safest weapons system ever developed. In fact they are a heck of a lot safer than that .22LR. People get accidentally killed or injured by firearms all the time. There is almost no way to be accidentally injured by a nuke, short of dropping it on your foot. If you set one off it is usually because you intended to.

So answer the question does Mr Al Queda get to have his nukes or not? If not you are not looking at an unrestricted human right.

[ArrogantBustard]

As I said: Furthermore, the airport owner and the air carriers are no more required to let their customers bring nukes on their property than they are required to let their customers bring .22 pistols on their property.

[GonzoGOP]

Sarah Brady has a problem with pistols being handled by people who haven't even passed a safety test.

As I said see how complex this gets. Do you support the right to purchase or manufacture unlimited quantities of explosives without having to pass some form of licensing or without restrictions for storage and transportation? What about fire codes?

[GonzoGOP]

As I said. Can he have a nuke in his garage. Yes or No are the options here.

[ArrogantBustard]

as long as the casing is in place. A properly built nuke

You're assuming facts not in evidence, particularly with Mr. Al Quaeda.

People get accidentally killed or injured by firearms all the time.

No, people get negligently killed or injured by idiots mishandling firearms.

[dforest]

“Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”

Well, he has some ex spouses that aren’t all that fond of him. LOL

I figure Callista has him trussed up good in a chastity belt which she yanks tighter from time to time. He seems to obey.

Newt always looks out for Newt.

[GonzoGOP]

You're assuming facts not in evidence, particularly with Mr. Al Quaeda.

And you are obfuscating to avoid answering the question. Does Mr. Al Quaeda get to have a nuke in his garage? Yes or No.

[ArrogantBustard]

Can he have a nuke in his garage.

That's two questions, not one.

1) Can he have a Teller-Ulam fusion weapon? I see no way to prohibit it him doing so, without violating the Constitution.

2) Can he keep it in his garage? Define your terms, here. No, I'm not nitpicking. It matters.

[trisham]

Is “Mr. Al Quaeda” an american citizen?

[GonzoGOP]

No, I'm not nitpicking. It matters.

Why? If you postulate that a person has the right under the constitution to have such a weapon, yet restrict where they can store it on their own property you are in fact restricting the right. That is like when the liberals say you can own a firearm, but can never carry it on your person. It is a right without meaning.

[GonzoGOP]

Is “Mr. Al Quaeda” an American citizen?

If as postulated it is a basic human right like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it doesn't matter. If it is a right of citizenship like voting it does. So the question is what type of right is possession of a firearm?

[trisham]

I agree with Newt that it is a human right to defend oneself. However, if he is an enemy of this country, Mr. AQ has the right to execution.

[ArrogantBustard]

Why?

Just answer the question. It matters.

What do you mean by "garage"? What do you propose the environment surrounding that "garage" to be?

[dforest]

Good post. Our Constitution grants the right to bear arms to American citizens.

Our rights must be protected. If other nations want that right, they need to fight for it and work to keep it.

That is our business. The rest of the world is their business.

[ArrogantBustard]

Our Constitution grants the right to bear arms to American citizens.

I do NOT agree. It guarantees the protection of a right that exists whether the Constitution exists or not. Nowhere does it suggest that said right is exclusive to American Citizens.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

But politicians just say things like that to get elected. It shouldn’t matter./sarc

[GonzoGOP]

Just answer the question. It matters.

You obviously have something in mind. Rather than playing gotcha games why not just spit it out. Why does it matter?