Just in case you were wondering about Newt and firearms . . .

Courtesy of a guy from Florida, we have this link to a timeline with sources called "Newt Exposed." And, courtesy of that we have a Newt moment on the Second Amendment from Publicola entitled: "Newt Doesn't Get It" from four years ago. The comments below are all Publicola's. It wasn't really necessary for me to add anything.

Last week on the Hugh Hewitt Show Newt Gingrich answered a few Right to arms related questions. A caveat: Hewitt is not very knowledgeable on the mechanics of the Right to arms. I think he has a general idea of the theory & supports it to some extent but I wouldn't say he's adamant about the issue, so Hugh didn't ask any follow up questions that could have clarified Newt's views. I'm going with what Newt said but it's possible that his views may be slightly different than what they seem. No way to tell unless there is some follow up to his statements. So I'm relying on only what he said in his interview with Hewitt & what I think his answers imply.

HH: "...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."

Note that he says a number of weapons that were covered by the ban aren't "assault weapons" & that it was written poorly. The first is partially true but I'd have argued that all the weapons covered by the ban were not "assault weapons" as it was a contrived term to facilitate that specific law. The second - well it was written absurdly, but the premise was the absurdity more so than the language, which Newt seemed to imply the latter in his statement.

But he did vote against it before he voted against it so that's a point to his credit.

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."

A huh. Basically Newt is saying that he has no clue what the 2nd amendment was about. I do wonder what he would define as extraordinary.

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."

HH: "Yeah."

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a radio talk show, or a congressional seat, or a presidential campaign, but does that mean we throw the weight of the law against those people even though they've done no harm to anyone? Of course what would be funny is if one of his neighbors did own a belt fed .50 (since Newt lives in Virginia & Virginia doesn't restrict automatic weapons as long as they're possessed in compliance with federal law).

Luckily for Hugh Cali doesn't allow folks to own items that the 2nd amendment had in mind, so any automatics in his neighborhood are owned either by the LAPD or criminals (that was redundant wasn't it?).

But Hugh & Newt seem to be in agreement that arms designed for martial use shouldn't be owned by mere civilians.

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."

I'm not in favor of politicians doing anything for their own amusement on their own time, but again would it be proper to craft laws to stop them?

& tanks - what the hell is it about the Hugh Hewitt show that always involves tanks? Maybe it's a corollary to Godwin's law - on the Hugh Hewitt show if any discussion of the 2nd amendment continues for more than 45 seconds someone will mention tanks.

From what it seems Newt supports the 2nd amendment, but only to a certain point. When martial arms are involved he gets uncomfy. I'm not real clear on where he'll draw the line - whether it's just belt fed .50's or perhaps something more common - but it's clear he has a line.

As I said I'd love to get some clarity on his answers, but A: Hugh isn't very knowledgeable about the mechanics involved B: doesn't seem to be enchanted with the actual purpose of the 2nd amendment & C: seems to reserve the hostile witness treatment for principled conservatives.

Then again Hugh is a Romney supporter who'd probably also back Giuliani if Romney lost the primary to him.

It may be a generalization but I'm gonna roll with it for a while - it's hard for me to believe someone seriously supports the Right to arms if they back Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Hillary, Obama, Edwards & possibly Newt.

Yes; Newt voted against the AWB but it seems the problem he has is in the basic underlying theory of the 2nd amendment - that every citizen be capable of defending against a soldier or cop bent on carrying out tyrannical directives. unless that is corrected he will be an unpredictable ally of ours, though the Fuddites would have a sure friend.

Again I'd like a follow up session on Newt's answers but I don't think Hewitt has the desire or capability of doing so.