Support Free Republic
I hate this pansy-ass poncey Brit git who is recently arrived here and insists on spouting off his socialist clap-trap that has failed in his own homeland. His ass needs to be put on a plane out of our country.
How I wish Gingrich was Prez now.
As I have posted many times, military style rifles are just a smokescreen. Their ultimate goal is the total abolition of the RIGHT to own firearms of any type.
It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.
Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.
John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.
Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.
Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.
Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.
George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.
Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.
Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.
Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.
Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.
What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.
And if you still have doubts consider this by Nelson P Shields, founder of Handgun control Inc.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again.
Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
For those who may still doubt, back in the 1980s HCI decided to go after semi-auto military style rifles along with handguns.
The government doesn’t “permit” me anything, including guns.
I permit them some small amount of resources that I yield up reluctantly.
They work for me. I own the rights. They are MY SLAVES.
He’d ban knives and everything, except for himself and his guards.
This true idiot.. I mean true. Dares to bring up ‘100 rounds a minute’ talk when asked if he’d ban pistols. Worthless POS.
Still pissed about losing the Revolution. And, if you could get a straight answer out of them, most of them would admit it. Man, I can’t stand sore losers.
New York City is a May Issue area for concealed carry. In Chicago, and all of Illinois, concealed carry is prohibited. So I guess that Morgan agrees that concealed carry reduces violent crime.
This libtard scum doesn't even know the history of the right to bear arms of his own country: In England, the right to keep and bear arms dates back to the laws of King Alfred the Great, whose reign began in A.D. 872, where all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.The body of the Anglo-Saxon citizens were known as the "fyrd." This tradition continued after the Norman invasion through the Plantagenets and the Tudors and was in place when the American colonies were founded.Then the tradition was continued in the colonies.
While we begin stepping down this road, one step at a time by limiting magazine capacity from 30 to 10 to “five or six” to 3 to one to hopefully zero, let us also limit another magazine’s capacity. I wonder if Piers would support a proposal to limit vile Hustler Magazine to no more than 10 pages, then to “five or six” then to 3 pages, then hopefully zero pages.
Y’know, the founding fathers also never imagined a British Blowhard’s moving image and sound being transmitted through the atmosphere.... better ban high capacity Television... NOW!
Ar15 type rifles with standard m4 contour barrels will sustain a 30 round per minute fire rate without significantly heat stressing/throating/melting barrels
Good thing Morgan knows so much about what he covers. Journalistic excellence is a synonym for one who wears their ass as a hat.
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.
ping for later
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.
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?
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.
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.