Handguns - Latest Reports
PistolsRevolvers
Specialty
Long Guns - Latest Reports
RiflesShotguns
Specialty
Special Purpose Guns - Latest Reports
Home DefenseSurplus/Collectible
Law Enforcement
Concealed Carry
Hunting
Recreational
Competitive
Ammo
Accessories
Gun News
Gun RightsIndustry Notes
New Products
Competitive
People
Special Reports
Replacing Missing Firing PinsDon’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.
Gun Tests Index 2011-1999Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.
Commentary
Media Matters Doesn't Really MatterThe group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.
Video: What to Do During a Traffic StopLethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).
Gun Reports - News
The Inconvenient Truth About Newt
November 28, 2011Printer Friendly | Email |
(GunReports.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has a long history of supporting gun control, according to Dudley Brown, Executive Director for the National Association for Gun Rights.
On the NationalGunRights.org site recently, Brown wrote:
"With more than three decades as a public figure, Newt is the quintessential political chameleon, shifting his views to reflect whatever is popular with the Washington, D.C. chattering class.
Make no mistake, while Newt may talk a solid conservative game, his record is that of a typical Inside-the-Beltway politician who will cut ANY compromise or make ANY deal with anyone for his own political or personal gain.
While Newt used the institutional gun lobby as a mouthpiece to convince millions of gun owners nationwide that “as long as he is Speaker, no gun-control legislation is going to move in committee or on the House floor,” he was working behind the scenes to pass gun control.
In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders.
Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.
To read the full item, click here.
Not a single person running for President is worth a damn. Can we dig up Regan or Goldwater & just prop them up in the corner? They would be 100%better than what we have now. This is disappointing but should have been suspected. I still have to go with Herman Cain. Reagan would be no better than George H.W. Bush. The bottom line is, only our 5-million member gorilla keeps either the Democrats OR the Republicans in line. Younger shooting enthusiasts need to know this, I suspect. Newt was my congressman in Ga 6th district and just spoke with head of local office here in Marietta, Ga. They are now in process of completing this "survey" and getting it back to Gun Rights. This Dudley Brown guy is working at direction on Rand Paul, and you know his father Ron is running, so you need to get under the surface! Newt is totally against UN treaty even disgruntled daughter who blasted him a few years ago is now working on campaign! The staffer I spoke with is a gun enthusiast who has some Class 3 stuff and knew quite a bit as we talked guns, as I'm an FFL. Afraid Cain is through, which is too bad, as I was initially for him! Newt is the smartest but most unpredictable candidate. Newt has the moral fiber of a rutting wild hog. He has been a liar, bully, and in general an all around bullshit artist all of his life. I cannot believe that the republicans can't come up with a candidate that isn't from the bottom of the food chain. Ron Paul, anyone? Newt is a bottom-feeder. Remember the 'contract with America'? I'm still waiting to see ANY part of it fulfilled. What's it gonna' take for the GOP to learn this lesson: If the GOP pushes a puss-cake, 'moderate' like Gingrich, then they're gonna' FAIL, big time. It's really that simple: WEAK REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE=GOP LOSS Mealy-mouthed "moderates" like ol' Newt will just be the latest in the long string of moderate losers. Out of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one that has NEVER sold out gun owners. He's also the only one that treats the Constitution with respect, and not ignorance. Paul's isolationist and defense nutty views disqualifies him: but his domestic policy is attractive! Mitt, whose real first name is Willard is only other viable choice.....or let Bro O get re-elected which would be much worse than ANY potential republican! Cecil, David, RackEm - I'm with you guys! Unfortunately, Ron Paul, while probably the BEST candidate in this circus does not have a chance in hell. People would have to step back and take an intelligent look to see that he would do far better than Obama or any of the republicans in this side show. Of course, my opinion only. This political conundrum is constantly faced by voters. Do we support a candidate that has a hope of winning, like (at the moment) Gingrich or Romney; or do we try to get a candidate that is more likely to lose a general election (Paul or Cain, again, at the moment). The former involves compromises--lots of them. The latter doesn't. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Personally, I stick with Paul and then vote for whoever isn't Obama in the general. Since 1991, I have generally followed the tactic that Visigoth52 outlines above. This time, I dunno. But, whoever is NOT Obama is the one to vote for--maybe. This is gonna be sort of like trying to pick the turd that smells the least offensive. Man are we screwed. Assuming we all have a country by next year. Now it looks like we are going to prop up banks in Europe, when our banks are still failing the stability tests. Is it isolationist to mind your own business? I don't think so. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate in this race that should be taken seriously. Unfortunately I constantly hear that he has no hope in winning. The only reason people think that is because the media keeps saying it. Americans should think and act for themselves - weigh the options, think subjectively and choose the BEST candidate without regard to people telling you whether he will win or lose, rather than jumping on some bandwagon and basing your choice on whoever you think has a chance in winning. My $.02 I think the media is a collective of idiots. Most don't even have a command of the English language. However: Ron Paul does not have enough support within the republican party to gain the nomination. We could write him in but that is like wiping your ass with a cigarette paper. He needs votes. And he has mine. If I can't vote for him in the final election I'll vote for Bill Still of the Libertarian party. I refuse to case my vote for any of those other shitbags in the Republican party. I hear you pils. I voted Libertarian last time but alas, we got a chimp. I don't know the answer to this mess so I just keep buying ammo cause one day, the whole thing might just turn to crap. Course, I will probably be dead and in hell drinking martinis with Hitler and Stalin and Franco. I'm not sure of the answer either. But I'm sure it entails the rest of this country casting their votes on more than skin color and empty promises. It requires Americans to not be so damn lazy and do some looking into things and make and educated decision, rather than mindlessly pushing buttons and pulling levers like monkeys - just as this government treats us. And force elected officials to be accountable. But right now getting people to do that is like trying to pick fly shit out of pepper. While wearing boxing gloves. You are correct Kimo Sabe. In these forums, it seems like the old guys like me (I'm 69) are the ones that feel strongly about the downfall of the Republic. But the politicians don't give a shit cause they play to the younger crowd that does not seem to be paying much attention. You'll be happy to hear that I'm 23. But alas, you're correct. I constantly try to tell my friends about what is going on and they just don't care to hear it, let alone care to do anything about it. All I have to look forward to with them is the big "I told you so" that I have coming to me if things continue. I hope that I am wrong and that things will get better for your generation. Well as usual I have a few opinions to express. You guys all seem to want a guy the right of Obama, but that fool has been following Bush patterns since day one. He's frickin' Bush Lite, in a darker can and a 'lefty' package. But he's still following the Bush programs. So what are you going to get that looks 'right' compared to a Bush copy-cat? A new Hitler maybe - but you'll risk a fascist take-over just as much as you think you're faced with a Commie one now. (And just by the way - you're not. We're all faced with a bank / corporate take over of our government, and enslavement as a result because slaves are cheaper than employees.) Now as for Ron Paul's isolationism. Do you realize that the US has been involved in military action non-stop since Eisenhower sent 'advisers' to the French in VietNam? Yeah, then Kennedy followed up with 'support troops', and we've been 'at war' since - usually undeclared. (And if any of you can find ONE year since 1960 when we've not been in military action somewhere, PLEASE tell us. But remember, even VietNam was NOT declared as a war, so any military activity anywhere qualifies as a year 'at war' for my purposes here.) Anyway, after 50 years of getting our young folks killed for mostly corporate profit reasons, I think it's time to stop and Ron Paul is the only guy who says that. It's the job of Congress to declare war, and the job of the POTUS to 'execute' that war as the Commander in Chief. But POTUS does NOT get to declare war, Pentagon does NOT get to declare war, and bankers and CEOs have no damned business trying to involve the US in military action, military intervention, or war - ever. I think Ron Paul is right about this stuff. Read the Constitution's discussion if the issue - it is pretty 'isolationist' by itself. We're bankrupting our nation by shipping our work overseas and burning and blowing up our own production in other countries. Eternal War will destroy the nation to the profit of the Haliburtons. BTW, I intended to also say that the GOP should try running a sensible, 'middle ground' person if they want to win the election. Going to the extreme right will swing you right around the circle to Totalitarianism, and at that point you're only one MOA from Commies. Of course, the damned Tea Party reps won't play with that "middle ground" POTUS either, so your party is going to basically dry-hump itself. But if you could find and run a person who was middle of the road instead of a right wing-nut clown, you'd probably get a lot of cross-over votes from pissed off and frustrated liberals like me. Romney is more middle of the road with many of his views; in fact, many would consider him socialist-leaning. As for isolationism goes, we can no longer afford taking care of ourselves, so I believe it is past time to back of some of our "support" to other countries, especially since our aid is routinely plundered by corrupt foreign officials. Check out this video about how much we are spending: http://www.ntrc.info/doorbell.html Sorry David - I do not see Obama as Bush lite. If your premise is he has continued down the road of increased governmental intrusion to private American life, then I agree, though in my opinion he has gone above and beyond with his level of arrogance. But hey, what did we expect from a Chicago politician? Neither "party" is looking out for our best interests at all. Nearly all of the dilemmas we are facing are a direct result of a lack of ethical leadership. Real leadership, in our political system and private enterprise, has been replaced with "management" of "systems" designed to show the shareholder they will benefit. Nothing we change until we vote out every incumbent through enough cycles to get some people in office who care about the country more than self (and mercy more than life). David, chill dude. We are on your side. What we need is someone that does not have his head up his ass. The problem is finding that person. Wall Street and the string pullers seem to be hell bent on stopping that. And I agree with your observation re: The perpetual state of war since Eisenhower. Lots of politicians shoul be in jail at the very least. This craziness must stop or we will all be killing each other for a can of beans. I wonder where we'd be had the Supreme Court found McCain-Feingold Constitutional? I agree with pretty much everything you said, david b. You are completely correct. The U.S. has been involved in military action somewhere on this planet constantly since Vietnam. And it shouldn't be. Listen all you guys ,it all boils down to whomever is running against Obama gets my vote;after all we know where he stands on the 2nd ammendment?!!! Free trade and no foreign entanglements: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world” -George Washington (1732 - 1799) First president of US. Washington's Farewell address, 1796 Free trade and no foreign entanglements: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world” -George Washington (1732 - 1799) First president of US. Washington's Farewell address, 1796 No offense mariano, but I think the "As long as it's not the last guy" approach to voting is a flawed way to look at things. If you don't look closely you can end up in a worse spot than before. Pilsbury88 - we DID end up worse than before, in the last election. Which brings me to: P V B - I called BO 'Bush Lite' because he continued Bush programs, but didn't invent anything new that was worse. Gitmo, Patriot Act, POTUS violating FISA, targeting US citizens for 'security' actions, selling out to corporate interests - that was already all there. Just because he went further (killing US citizens instead of just 'rendition' of us, e.g.) doesn't in my mind make him 'worse'. He's only following existing patterns a little further - but it was Bush who put those in place where there was nothing like them prior. Of course, I suspect Cheney was behind them all, and pulling W's strings.... And Cecil S - I do need to chill, and I know it, but I'm having a hard time even trying. I'm afraid for my country. Afraid the bastards will be declaring martial law, and of course disarmament will follow. Afraid they'll somehow have citizens shooting at each other over social issues, and we will ignore the troops asking for our papers. Afraid my grandkids will end up in some FEMA concentration - excuse me - pandemic flu treatment - camp. I'm worried about the blue helmets invading by the thousands - and how few of us might take up arms to defend our republic. Yeah, I need to chill - a lot - but I just can't seem to do that while I still read the news. David - health care? Kagan? Sotomayor? Hardly "W" continuations in my mind, but I get your point. I'll leave the "ACORN staff" led "Occupy" out of this one... ;) I agree that the news puts one on edge these days - now we're going to send money abroad in support of gays and lesbians! So far, I've found solace in reloading more ammo and counting the days to the next gun show... P V B - Oh, go for it. Blame the Occupy protesters on Obama. I've not heard that one yet, and honestly I'd be interested in reading how you make that connection. Tell me how he is connected to that group - I might need to stop thinking they're citizens fed up with corporate greed and start thinking they're either street bums or commies who are somehow connected to the White House to cause trouble that will benefit BO in some way. And if you can make a believable case, I will. David - I'm surprised you haven't seen that yet. Most of what I initially read indicated the Canadian group Adbusters was behind the formation of the movement, though they denied that, claiming they floated the idea out there and bunches of people spontaneously organized on a local level, with no centralized leadership. To me, that premise lacks credibility, as "they" have attorneys and are raising money. The funds are being used for food, bail money, and the like. You have no central leadership, yet you have legal and financial support? Yeah, right! I think it was Fox that uncovered the ACORN connection a few weeks back. If I remember the story correctly, the NY office staff is the same people that were employed by ACORN in the same office space. Coincidence? Yeah, right! Is Obama directly behind it? Perhaps not; but.... It really smells like Astroturfing to me - the agendas and MO's in all the cities are cookie cutter (except when the gang bangers jumped aboard later in Oakland), and fit hand-in-glove with Obama's Robin Hood agenda. Also fishy to me is that Mayor Rahm quickly shooed Occupy away with hardly a blip on the media radar. Sure, that connection may be irrelevant, but if Barry's old "community organizer" past really is behind this, then Chicago would likely get a free pass. Reloading ammo + guns = Therapy... :) P V B - Yeah, I'm in therapy too. I just hope I never find out I needed therapy. These days I'm so confused and upset by all the lies I hear I'm not even sure whom I'm cleaning my guns about. Look, I've tried to make it plain that I don't support BO any longer, but really, I don't support any of the candidates except maybe Ron Paul right now. NOT A ONE. But I do try to hold others account for their accusations. It does seem like you've got at least some tenuous connection to the administration there. But I think if you'd said George Soros was supporting the Occupy folks I'd have been more ready to believe it - although I fail to see how a billionaire business man could benefit from a basically anti-business movement. But, no matter. I did see some news about him sending money or something once. And I know you don't like ACORN, but I'm pretty sure they were in business registering voters back when BO was in short pants, so to try to blame them on him at all is I think 'off target'. I believe that all you can really say about that is that they have similar political goals. As long as it's 'goals' you can count me out, but if you go to saying 'similar beliefs' then you'd have to count me in. It's like saying every 'liberal' is somehow connected - just as wrong as saying all women talk to each other or all blacks know each other. And just BTW, I don't watch or listen to Fox because of all the blatant lies I hear there. They even lie about historical fact. But I quit MSNBC for the same reason when Keith left and Rachel Maddow and Gerald O'Donnell seemed to get the prime time slots. When I heard them going after gun owners and unions and the Oath Keepers as all anti-American, I left that channel and haven't been back. Really, can you imagine a lefty saying unions are un-American? It's like a Ruski saying the CP is anti-Russian! I clean the guns for me! ;) I don't think OWS is anti business, just anti greedy assholes doing it to us without vaseline. Did anyone catch 60 Minutes last Sunday. It was the JD doing the two step around why no one from Countrywide Bank or anyone else connected with the massive goat fuck from bankers, hasn't gone to jail. Answer. No answer, just BS. I think that is what OWS is trying to home in on, just aren't adept at focusing. Cecil - I agree that OWS isn't totally anti-business, but if you don't count 'greedy assholes', we don't have too many large corporations in this country for them to NOT be against. And of course, DOJ isn't going to find any of them in need of charges. That would be cuttin' off the boss's funding sources. So they 'do a little sidestep', and now you see them now you don't, as the song says. And that right there is why we HAVE the OWS folks. P V B - I clean my guns for me too, but maybe I should have said "I'm not even sure who is inspiring me to clean them so often!". I gotcha - have a good night! Remember the movie EVAN ALMIGHTY, where Steve Carol was a senator who had to build the ark. Well Newt is the John Goodman character ;-) An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers: Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others. While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion. --Tim Cole To post a comment you must be a registered user of gunreports.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to gunreports.com
Reader Comments
Publisher, GunReports.Com