Skip to comments.Former PA Gov. Ed Rendell: Not Passing Assault Weapons Ban Was ‘Act of Cowardice’
Posted on 07/20/2012 1:54:56 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell decried federal lawmakers for failing to pass a permanent ban on assault weapons, such as the one used in Fridays deadly Colorado movie theater shooting.
Rendell said it was an act of cowardice by the Congress not to renew the ban, which expired in 2004, and blamed lawmakers for being too terrified of the National Rife Association, which has lobbied against the ban, to actually do it.
Were terrified of the NRA. We Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Everyone is scared of the NRA, Rendell said Friday on MSNBC. There are some things worth losing for in politics, and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for.
Rendell said there is no reason for people to have assault weapons.
No hunter needs it, no citizen needs it to protect their home, he said.
The former governor also called on Congress to ban high-capacity gun clips like the one Jared Loughner used to kill six people and wound Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., last year. Rendell said today that a ban on high-capacity magazines, which can hold twice as many bullets as regular gun clips, would have saved people from serious bodily injury in the Tucson shooting.
We need leadership and we need someone to stand up and say, Enough is enough, Rendell said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Well I can only guess what the weekend and next week’s news will be about.
“Hey! Look at me! It’s Fast Eddie! Remember me?!”
Yes, thats right democrats! Hurry up, jump on the Rendell bandwagon! Get out there and endorse gun control only three months before an election. I would love to see a repeat of 1994, which was the last time you all made that mistake.
More political theater....how on earth would a ban have stopped this unless all so called ‘assault rifles’ were confiscated. Is this what Rendell is implying, that they should have been rounded up? In any event there are so many available it would have been trivial to get one. That and the silliness of the original ban was all about features which wouldn’t render the weapon any less lethal. As for magazines its the same game....they would have been easily attainable. More stupid from the anti0gun crowd.
Nothing like Fast Eddie to change the subject and cash in with his bed wetting anti-gun folks. Ever notice how cockroaches like Rendell only get real bold about these looser topics when they think people will be emotional rather than rational.
Predators like Eddie Rendell only thrive when they think they can trick the people into giving all their power to government for the false hope of safety.
Once we give up our personal responsibility we loose our right to be free. There will always be bad/crazy folks out there. No amount of lying and rule making is going to have one bit of effect on those folks.
Big surprise to fast Eddie: - We need these to protect ourselves from people like you.
People who have thousands of uniformed savants who would kill us at the drop of a pin - and our dogs too.
IOW, protection against tyranny.
I am amazed this guy used to be the governor of Pennsylvania given his opinions on guns.
Well I can only guess what the weekend and next weeks news will be about.
Rendel, another useless moron!
I am a true believer that it is our RIGHT to own guns and carry them freely but I draw the line on assault, military style weapons. No citizen needs a bazooka or a grenade launcher.
abolishing the second amendment via the UN treaty on the 27th?
"Hey! Look at me! Its
Fast FAT Eddie! Remember me?!
Once a person decides to go on a killing spree, it dont matter how many laws you pass.
What if this guy made bombs out of Blue Rino Propane tanks? Would you ban those too.
Rendell should go back to beating anti-union people and being Obamas bitch boy.
Earth to Ed and his Gun-Grabbing,DemonRat buddies,a Semi-Automatic(look-alike,wannabee)is Not(I REPEAT),Not an ASSAULT-Weapon!An Assault-Weapon has a selector-switch which enables the user to fire this weapon either semi(or fully)automatic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. What a Coincidence that next Friday, Obama is rumored to be signing the UN Small arms Gun Ban Treaty and will be able to use what happened in Aurora,Colorado in his signing statement as a reason to have to act. I would not ever suggest that there is a connection between the shooter and the administration. Even though they set up ‘Fast and Furious’ so people would have to be murdered ( Over 300 in fact,did get murdered ), in order to take away our Second Ammendment. Still i would not ever suggest there might be a connection between the Obama administration and the shooter.
New York State still has an assualt weapon law on the books that is nearly identical to the expired federal law. I understand that Holmes used an AR-15 type rifle. These are legal under New York assualt weapon law (and the former federal law) with a few meaningless modifications. He also used a Remington 870 shotgun, also legal under the assualt weapon law and a Glock 40 Cal. also legal under the assualt weapon law as long as the mag does not exceed 10 rounds. In other words, the assualt weapon law would not have stopped this tragedy.
We need leadership and we need someone to stand up and say, Enough is enough, Rendell said”
The folks did stand up and say enough Ed. The assault weapons ban was dropped. The tribe has spoken. Get over it.
Lest we forget: this same Ed Rendell, who would forbid law-abiding Americans the ownership of arms, was also the Philadelphia District Attorney who saw nothing illegal about Philadelphia police using aerial bombardment, with military-grade high explosives, upon a Philadelphia row house in the 1985 MOVE bombing. That bombing by the Philadelphia police killed 6 adults and 5 children, and also destroyed 66 houses.
Not saying that MOVE was a good organization or even that they deserved to be completely left alone ... but Philadelphia police burning to death almost all of the MOVE members and their children (there were two survivors) didn’t rise to the level of indictable activity to Ed Rendell. Law abiding citizens peaceably owning arms apparently should be indictable, according to Mr. Rendell. Quite a contrast.
Thank God for that. The NRA is the only thing that is keeping politicians from totally destroying America. They better be damn well scared of us, including me.
At the time of our War for Independence, we would have had little to no Navy to speak of had it not been for privateers. Certainly our founders who drafted the second amendment certainly intended for it to encompass military weapons.
No, Fast Eddie, you shouldn’t be afraid of the NRA, you should be affraid of voters like me who wish to further reduce our rights.
Care to explain what an Assault, Military Style Weapon is?
Scary looking gun? Gun painted with a Camo Design?
How many rounds should a gun magazine hold to go over your “line”?
Next up will you be telling us that the Second Amendment was meant for Hunters and Sportsmen?
I won't even comment about the silly Liberal think Bazooka / Grenade Launcher comment.
I'll just hope you were being sarcastic all along.
I wasn’t being sarcastic at all. If left to your own devices would you want to own a nuclear weapon? If not, why not that is your right isn’t it? As with everything in this life, there are limits. I tell my grandchild it’s ok to eat a habanero pepper but if he tries to eat many of them at once he will die.
I believe in owning weapons to enjoy for the obvious reasons as well as to protect ourselves. I also believe in owning a weapon that I can control without fear of someone taking it out of my hands and turning in on me or others.
If you care to, go ahead and educate me. What is liberal about mentioning bazooka or grenade launcher. They are weapons arent’t they? People want to own them don’t they? Dirty bombs are weapons, would you want someone to own one?
Where exactly IS the line?
I am a true believer of a green laser and LED tactical light attachment to my handguns.
I don’t pretend to know where “the line” is, but here’s my personal attempt to try to find “a line.”
First, a bit of background. The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms are at least partially to maintain “the security of a free state.” Therefore, whatever arms are required for the security of a free state are, in my opinion, justified. If personal possession of thermonuclear weapons were required to maintain
the security of a free state, then, yes, the second amendment would justify such personal ownership.
I do NOT believe that personal ownership of such weapons is required to maintain the security of a free state, BTW. I do not believe that personal possession or control of such weapons is justified by the Second Amendment. Just pointing out that it’s not the weapon itself that is on one side or another of “the line.” It is the need for the weapon that puts the weapon on one side or another of “the line.”
Perhaps a better way to define “the line” might be, not with reference to individual weapons or weapon type, but with reference to what is needed to maintain the security of a free state. As a guide, perhaps we might look at how THE STATE (free or unfree) defines what is needed for the security of THE STATE. Note that I have capitalized THE STATE here, to differentiate the real STATE from the more abstract “free state” discussed in the Constitution.
THE STATE has decided that it’s security requires it’s members to have personal ready access to handguns and fully automatic weapons. The judgement that security of THE STATE requires such measures is a pretty good indication that “the security of a free state” requires that the members of the “free state” also have such access.
THE STATE has decided that it’s security requires it’s members to have controlled, but available, access to armed vessels, such as tanks and armed ships. Again, if such access is required for the security of THE STATE, then it’s also likely to be required for “the security of a free state.” In fact, contracting with the individual owners of such armed vessels is specifically contemplated in the constitution, in the section on letters of marque and reprisal.
As for nuclear weapons? Even THE STATE has very, very tight controls on their use ... so tight that nuclear weapons have never been used (other than in testing) in almost three quarters of a century, and even then only in a most dire circumstance. THE STATE agents emphatically do NOT have personal possession nor control of nuclear weapons. If such tight control could be replicated by some element of the nation, even if not THE STATE, then I would have no more problem with that element maintaining nuclear weapons than I do with THE STATE maintaining nuclear weapons.
Well, that’s my attempt to find “a line” to allow or restrict the ownership of, and access to, weapons. I look forward to any responses.