Posted on 05/31/2018 12:37:53 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Retiring Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) criticized the National Rifle Association (NRA) for refusing to accept “reasonable” gun control regulations in an interview published Wednesday.
Rooney, a gun owner and Second Amendment advocate, told Sarasota Magazine that he thought raising the minimum age for assault rifle purchases was a “reasonable” measure.
“The problem is with the political arm of the NRA,” Rooney said. “I don’t know in the last 10 years whether there has been any compromise with guns by the NRA.”
The NRA said in a February statement to the Washington Post that raising the age for purchasing assault rifles to 21 was unconstitutional for those between the ages of 18 and 20.
“Legislative proposals that prevent law-abiding adults aged 18-20 years old from acquiring rifles and shotguns effectively prohibits them for purchasing any firearm, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection,” the statement said.
Rooney told Sarasota Magazine that part of the problem was disagreement among the Republican Party, despite controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.
Etc...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Reasonable would be removing the infringements on the 2nd amendment imposed by several states. No further restrictions of any kind would be reasonable. We reached reasonable in terms of restrictions of Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights a long time ago.
“When Mark Zuckerberg announces that he’s fired his armed security guards I’ll consider giving up my 2nd Amendment rights. “
You got that right. Him, Michael Moore, Feinstein, avery actor and actress and DC VIP. No more guns guarding the capitol or any family member of congress.
What they don’t get, is that the harder they push to take my AR, the more I begin to believe I may need it.
Good riddance to this hack.
Did you mean those “scary, black, dangerous, military looking thingies” or did you mean any semi-automatic rifle, Rooney???
How many LAWS regulate firearms for law abiding citizens that the criminals don’t give a sht about?
Sure he is. He only wants to infringe a little bit.
Another congressthing that deserves a hearty “GFYourself”.
So allow me to be the first:
Hey Rooney: GFYourself. Don’t let the door hit you in the arse.
Dear Florida: Elect a MAN to that position now. One that knows he actually HAS a pair.
The NRA makes laws? Who knew!!
For the NRA to compromise on anything would be total capitulation. It’d be like “smoking sections” in restaurants and on planes. Before you know it, you can’t smoke in a restaurant or on a plane, or in an airport, or any public building, or within X feet of any public building. Or in your own home. Give ‘em an inch .....
Liberty or Death leaves no room for compromising freedom.
Yes. And don’t these mass shooters get the guns from their parents?
I just see this as some douche who thinks any assault rifle legislation is “reasonable” and can serve the purpose to punch his “I care” card without having to tell people that assault rifle legislation is imbecilic and doesn’t serve any purpose at all.
I thought Rooney was suppose to be conservative.
He should resign now and let someone be appointed to finish his term since he appears to have already checked out.
I would go for legislation saying that no private security guard has any greater right to be armed than any private citizen. And that armed government employees like police have no greater right to be armed off duty than any private citizen.
“Reasonable gun laws,” the oxymoron of our time.
Assault weapons are already effectively banned.
I only know of one reasonable firearms law. The 2nd Amendment!
Leftism is a one-way ratchet, as you imply.
Once they gain something, they never give it up in any compromise, and it only sets the stage for another tooth on the ratchet to go their way.
Because of the requirements of the citizen militia to have instant access to arms, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. US law says that the citizen militia includes men between the ages of 17 and 49.
Therefore, it is a violation of the constitution and US law to restrict 17, 18, 19, and 20 year old men from instant access to arms.
This congressman is violating his pledge to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Actually, it sounds like he has pledged to protect and defend the constitution from himself.
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.