Dear Second Amendment People:
I didn’t say it. Newt said it. Write him, not me. Though I am always happy to hear from listeners/readers, I can’t read minds and can’t defend what my guests say or assert. I just ask the questions that the time allows. The exchange in question:
HH: Third issue, the “left wing machine,” when it comes to guns, want more and more control. The “stand patters” like the assault weapon ban, and the 2nd Amendment, the “American Solutions” people want the right to own those weapons banned by the assault weapons ban. Do you support allowing individuals to own those weapons labeled assault weapons under that law?
NG: Well, if you remember, there are a number of weapons under that law that are not assault weapons, and the law the way it was written in the Clinton administration is an absurdity. And I think people proved that at the time. And I voted against the law, and in fact, I helped stop it at one point.
HH: And so how would you…what weapons ought Americans not be allowed to own under the 2nd Amendment.
NG: Look, I think we ought to draw a clear distinction about a whole range of weapons that are explicitly military, and I have no interest in arguing or defending the right of people to randomly hold weapons that are that extraordinary, except under very, very unique circumstances.
HH: All right, so basically, return the right for some of these higher caliber weapons, but keep the military weapons away from…
NG: Right. I just think, you know, if you said to me would I feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a 50 caliber machine gun, I would say no.
NG: And I realize that for a purist, that probably means I’m a squishy on the 2nd Amendment. But I do think there’s a line of practicality here. I’m also not very much in favor of them buying M-1 tanks just because it amuses them.