You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Patrick Kennedy Says Resistance to Gun Ban is 'Insanity'
2005-02-09
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Dummycrat) implied Tuesday that congressional colleagues who do not share his support for a failed gun ban being reintroduced in the House are mentally ill.
After all, he's Teddy's son, he knows mentally ill.
The Rhode Island Democrat also accused lawmakers who oppose the anti-gun legislation of not caring about police safety. Kennedy is the son of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy and U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, both of whom were shot to death. The younger Kennedy made the comments at a Capitol Hill press conference to promote the reintroduction of the "50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act." The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), would ban the manufacture of such rifles and severely limit the sale or transfer of existing .50 BMG rifles except for those owned by the military or civilian law enforcement agencies. "Any policy maker who, on the one hand, says that they are for combating terrorism but, on the other hand, will not back this legislation, backed by Representative Moran, to me has a lot of explaining to do," Kennedy said "In fact, I think it would be the definition of insanity to say that."

In addition to challenging his opponents' mental stability, Kennedy also questioned whether his fellow lawmakers could claim to support police while opposing the gun ban. "If we don't pass this legislation, this Congress, implicitly, is saying that they do not care about the welfare of our law enforcement community," Kennedy said.

John Burtt - chairman of the Fifty Caliber Institute, the education and advocacy arm of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association - told Cybercast News Service that Moran, Kennedy and their colleagues are trying to create "backdoor legislation to ban all firearms in this country. "What they're doing is using hyperbole to create anxiety on the part of the uninformed public that these guns are dangerous, that they are a threat to national security," Burtt said, "but they are not." Burtt said there has not been a single instance of terrorists using the .50 BMG in an attack on U.S. soil. A handout provided to the media at Moran's press conference listed 12 instances in which a .50 caliber rifle was used, threatened or intended for use in a criminal act. But Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, reviewed the list and questioned the nature of the examples. "It's usually people who were prohibited from owning any kind of firearm to begin with and, as a result, should have been prohibited from owning a .50 caliber already," Gottlieb said. "There's no need to have a new law. They ought to just enforce the existing laws."
Democrats aren't interested in enforcing gun laws, they just want to ban guns. Except for their bodyguards, of course.
Moran believes, however, that there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own the rifles. "It serves no purpose for hunting, whatsoever," Moran claimed. "If you went hunting with this, you would not have any trophy. All you'd have left would be some pieces of fur and hoof."
"Besides, hunting is icky!"
Burtt refuted Moran's assertion. "I know a lot of people who hunt with the .50 BMG," Burtt said, noting that many people pursue elk, bear and other large game animals with the rifles. "When a .50 caliber round hits a large animal like that, it has tremendous knock-down power. But, it does nothing more than put a half-inch hole into the animal and knock it down. This is just somebody who, obviously, has no knowledge, whatsoever, about the hunting capabilities of these firearms making statements that are completely inaccurate," Burtt added.
Well, that's never stopped them before
U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was murdered and son wounded by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, contributed to Moran's "no legitimate use" argument. "This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with taking away the right of someone to have a gun to protect themselves [sic]," McCarthy said.

Gottlieb disagreed. "As far as Carolyn McCarthy is concerned, the Second Amendment doesn't protect any firearm," Gottlieb said. "If she had her wishes, she'd classify every firearm under a foot long as a 'Saturday Night Special,' and ban it, and characterize every gun over a foot long as an 'assault weapon,' and ban it also." McCarthy and her anti-gun colleagues are using a "divide and conquer" strategy, according to Gottlieb, to disarm law-abiding Americans. "If you pick on one type of gun at a time and say, 'the Second Amendment doesn't protect it,' most gun owners who don't own that kind of gun won't get upset and she might get her legislation passed," Gottlieb explained. "Then, lo and behold, she'll come back for another gun the next time and another gun the next time until there are no guns left."
Yup, witness the Saturday Night Special outrage, then on to Plastic Guns, Assault Rifles, large capacity magazines, the so-called Gun Show Loophole, etc, etc..
McCarthy's comments seemed to support Gottlieb's assessment as she attempted to further demonize the .50 caliber. "Look at this thing," McCarthy urged. "Do you want this in your home? Do you want your children to play with this?"
No, that's Daddy's toy
Burtt said McCarthy's comment betrays her ignorance of firearms and their safe handling. "I don't want any children 'playing' with firearms, and they shouldn't even be touching them without the supervision of an adult," Burtt said. "I can't believe a representative of our Congress would make a statement like that." Gottlieb, however, said he was not surprised by McCarthy's comments. "Nobody said that the opponents of gun ownership are intellectually honest," Gottlieb said. "As far as these members of Congress are concerned, there's no such thing as a good gun."
Posted by:Steve

#21  funny comments :-)
Posted by: 2b   2005-02-09 10:33:58 PM  

#20  Now that's a fire arm. It's hell on the ammo, though, ain't it?

That's why I prefer the single shotgun.
Posted by: badanov   2005-02-09 5:31:37 PM  

#19  He's had relatives harmed by guns, so that's his big selling point? Using the Kennedy standard then, I guess we'll have to ban 1968 Oldsmobiles. Let's ban skis. Let's ban small private planes. Let's ban nannies. Let's ban drinking on Easter weekend in Palm Beach and all summer in Hyannis.
The day I listen to these assholes tell me how to live, I'm hanging up my jock.
Posted by: tu3031   2005-02-09 5:20:00 PM  

#18  Guns v. butter? I'll spend it on guns. I thought we were all getting too damn fat, anyway.
/sarcasm off
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-02-09 5:18:33 PM  

#17  BFG9000

LOL Badanov! Now that's a fire arm. It's hell on the ammo, though, ain't it?
Posted by: eLarson   2005-02-09 5:16:57 PM  

#16  Patrick Kennedy is a lightweight carpetbagger who moved to RI (where I used to live) so he wouldn't have to run against any of his cousins in Mass. He was elected handily on his name alone.
A Providence radio station's morning show always parodies him as The Beaver (from Leave It to Beaver, for you younger RBers). Spot-on and hilarious!
Posted by: Xbalanke   2005-02-09 4:13:15 PM  

#15  Anonymoose, Law Enforcement could use a .50 sniper rifle because SWAT teams cannot guarantee they can get close enough to get a shot with lesser rifles.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-02-09 4:03:12 PM  

#14  Looks like the Dems are hauling out the anti-gun campaigns again (although at least with Patrick Kennedy, I can understand somewhat why HE would take this position, with two assassinated relatives). Just got an email from a childhood friend today--the one who is in tight with moveon.org--she sent a link on truemajorityaction.org, which is asking people to create their own spending plans and send them to congress. With this missive came what sounded like a canned Dem message about how it's better to spend money on "butter, not guns". So it's the same ol Dem party-guns are bad, bad, bad, social program spending is good, good, good.

Dems don't live on the same planet as the rest of us. In their world, no one needs guns-everyone is humane and wonderful and life and death confrontations are managed with a discussion. They hate guns, until one is at their heads--and then it's too late to change their minds.
Posted by: Jules 187   2005-02-09 3:58:54 PM  

#13  Hey, if I were a County Sheriff who could justify the purchase of a class-III weapon, I sure as hell would!

Besides, in a "real" fight, one Ma Duce isn't what you need, you need twenty.
Posted by: gromky   2005-02-09 3:56:37 PM  

#12  More stupid legislation by lazy ass congressmen who are trying to make a name for themselves. These people are such pussies and liars. Don't confuse them w/the facts folks.
Posted by: Jarhead   2005-02-09 3:25:38 PM  

#11  I am more concerned that they haven't banned the Kennedys from owning cars.
Posted by: Gir   2005-02-09 2:26:54 PM  

#10  Have you all forgotten that Al Queda is comming here and buying .50cal sniper rifles at gun shows? /sarcasm off.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-02-09 2:18:10 PM  

#9  LOL Mrs. D.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-02-09 2:07:20 PM  

#8  I have no idea why this hysteria even got started. Some gun grabbing fool one saw a Barret on TV and decided that 50 cal were bad I suppose. I know this ban part of a concerted diabolical plot to deprive citizens of the right to keep and bear arms. These political hacks need to be branded as traitors and purged from elected office.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2005-02-09 1:39:55 PM  

#7  I'm a lot more worried about a police department that feels it *needs* a .50 cal. In fact, our local Sheriff bought himself a .50 cal MACHINE GUN, a serious military weapon. I hardly think it will ever be necessary to use a .50 cal MG on Darnell, after he has held up that same 7-11 again, just like it wasn't necessary when he held it up the other five times.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-02-09 1:38:12 PM  

#6  What about the BFG9000? They gonna ban that one too? Huh?
Posted by: badanov   2005-02-09 12:03:50 PM  

#5  Boy, I'd back down if the guy had a .50 rifle. A .30-06, no, but .50, sure

(/dumbass)
Posted by: Frank G   2005-02-09 11:54:20 AM  

#4  I've used my Barrett to hold up 6 convenience stores. At this rate, it will have paid for itself by 2185.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-09 11:52:34 AM  

#3  The other day I asked (I never saw an answer) do the threats of things like this often turn into realities. I mean if you threaten someone with your .50 caliber rifle what are the odds you would use it? Or how often do threats pan out to actual violence?
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-02-09 11:43:55 AM  

#2  A handout provided to the media at Moran's press conference listed 12 instances in which a .50 caliber rifle was used, threatened or intended for use in a criminal act.

*snort*

Twelve? That wouldn't show up in crime statistics if they all happened on the same day!
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-02-09 10:45:54 AM  

#1  Jim "the war is all the Jooos fault" Moran, D-Auschwitz? Its always good to be lined up with a guy like that. Democratic inability to defeat him in a primary is one of the reasons they're leaking reasonable people like a sieve.

McCarthy and Kennedy have family histories that earn them a certain amount of slack for hysteria on this subject, but not enough for a law imposing it on the rest of us.
Posted by: VAMark   2005-02-09 10:36:20 AM  

00:00