So here is an interesting question. If the right to bear arms is a human right, is there any point at which you draw the line? I'm not trying to be a jerk wad or start a flame war, I'm asking a real philosophical question. Is there a line? If so where is it? If not what are the logical consequences?
I'm not talking little stuff the libs get hung up on like assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I'm talking full auto crew served heavy machine guns. How about guided missiles. I mean nothing says get off my lawn like a TOW Missile. What about nukes, chemical and bio weapons?
If the right to weapons is a human right is demanding that Iran give up their nukes a violation of their human rights? I'm sure their lawyers will be quick to point that out so we need to have an answer ready.
Is the right to bear arms am individual right? Hence the line is drawn at crew served since that by its nature is a collective right. Or is the limit at some level of lethality. One person can make a species ending bio weapon, but should anyone be allowed to have unlimited power to end the entire human race?
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.”
