Gingrey defends guns at town hall meetings
Aug 18, 2009 | 3049 views | 22 22 comments | 8 8 recommendations | email to a friend | print
U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Marietta) was on MSNBC Monday to discuss those who have brought guns to health care town hall meetings with host Chris Matthews and U.S Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Nashville).

According to a transcript posted by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Gingrey said: "If they have the right to do that, I have no fear of it. And I’ve had already five town hall meetings, I have six more planned. I don’t plan on wearing a bulletproof vest, in fact, I usually get standing ovations."

Click here to read more of the transcript and see a video.
Share This Article |
similar stories

Like your health care policy? You may be losing it | 20 days ago by RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR,Associated Press

Moment of silence marks 6 months since Newtown | 4 days ago by JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN,Associated Press

Gun control supporters facing recall bids in Colo. | 21 days ago by KRISTEN WYATT,Associated Press

ANALYSIS: A GOP report shows why Democrats attacked Chambliss' 'hormones' comment | 9 days ago by Walter C. Jones, Morris News Service

Wave of attacks kills at least 95 in Iraq | 29 days ago by SINAN SALAHEDDIN,Associated Press

Comments
(22)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
anonymous
|
August 21, 2009
This is Voter.

Yesterday we had freedomlover, the right wing troll, to deal with for several hours and today it was libertas, Goddess of Freedom trolling for the right. It appears we did not give her enough water to float her boat and she gave up. This is getting to be fun.
Reply
libertas
|
August 21, 2009
Rep. Gingrey is sure a southern man. Why he stood with the white folks all the time, denyin' black folk votin' rights when that came back up for renewal and all a couple year back. And the good, simple country baby doctor don't want no lazy people get some health care, no way. He knows all about doctorin' and not letting people get uppity with lawyers that want to bring lawsuits and all. No way. If some doctor done a bad job on sick folk, they should just apologize and shake hands like good folk do. That's the kinda health care we all need and such. Why Dr. Gingrey is good ol' boy with all the doctorin' folk..in fact, the like him so much, they done give him over $2 million dollar while he bin up in Washington. Now that's some hard workin'.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
No crack pot. You are more of a constitutionalist than you are led to believe. You have all the rights. You just have to accept them. You can pray to a rock if you like but the government is going to tax you for it. You and voter are almost there. Your last comment other than you downing yourself is exactly what our founders tried so hard to preserve. Jesus has no cool aid either but has some of the same rules. You have to accept his gift and not the one defined by someone else. Take it love it and get up America.
Reply
anonymous
|
August 19, 2009
Hey lay off the RFPRA they have an awesome after school care program. And if Shorter and the other schools are not paying the RFPRA what it actually costs to use a facility then their fees they pay should be increased to cover actual cost.

I would hated to see some of the parks that they run put under a private for profit. Seams like GA tried to do that with some of the state parks and that did not work out so well for the public.

Sorry I've tired some of this Jesus cool aid before and it did not sit well. But I think that had more to do with who was handing it out.

But hey I'm some crack pot liberal that should have no rights in this country as I do not pray to the correct god (lower case on purpose), have a dislike for a purely capitalistic society, and believe the federal gov. should work to the benefit of all in the society and not just a chosen few.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
Cute. But un-factual. That is what you always do when confronted with facts. You should stop selling yourself so short and beleive in yourself and the good will of a great nation of thinkers.

The 575 in Washington can not be a one size fits all for us. They can't even make minorities happy. Thats why poor stays poor and the schools are so pitiful.

Churches/religion/politics not a good mixture and is the reason you where failed 50 years ago. This stuff did not start with Obama or Bush.

Try Jesus. He has good news for you the individual as well.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
What county workers are you talking about??? They need to get off their lazy butts and sell the airport and the RFPRA. So called law scholars are the reason though. You are coming along real well.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
elephant... Yes absolutly protected by the second if the people of hypothetical place agree to let him in. Remember the second ammendment does not limit the people from using common sense. I've seen armed individuals in churches all over this country. Some have even defended the congregation from stupid ill fated white boys. hypothetical of course...Amen?
Reply
ElephantWhip
|
August 19, 2009
gahalls:

Hypothetical: American Muslim of Middle-eastern descent brings semi-automatic rifle to mosque for call to prayer.

Protected by the 2nd?
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
I do believe that the federal level should set the base line for most laws and regulations and if a state wishes to be more stringent then they should be allowed to do so as long as it does not violate the bill of rights???

The federal level??? The constitution sets the base line. Your way of thinking is why we keep changing the base level and growing an ever too powerful federal government who does not have the ability to sustain itself. Listen to the politicians contridict them selves constantly and then change the titles and talking points.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
The ninth ammendment gives no power to the government to protect rights not specificly written in. It specificly does just the opposite and demands the government to stay out of other rights retained by The People.

9th and 10th compliment each other and drive the point home clearly that it's purpose is to limit government from playing social engineering games.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
Exactly. It falls under limitations on the federal government. The second ammendment tells the feds to make no laws infringing the right to bare arms. Limiting government. And I will wave my constitutional flag for ever. I don't want them regulating my bats and knives either or anything else that can be percieved as arms.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Reply
anonymous
|
August 19, 2009
Also please note the term firearm after that statement, there is no need to read something into to it that is not there.

The tenth amendment, first phrase "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

given that the second amendment is part of this document that you like to wave like a flag it does look like it falls under the federal government.

And do not forget the 9th amendment "Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights." which I think almost contradicts the 10th in a way because it gives the federal government the right to protect from infringement of life, liberty, and property.

I do believe that the federal level should set the base line for most laws and regulations and if a state wishes to be more stringent then they should be allowed to do so as long as it does not violate the bill of rights.

I'll be sure to watch out for that errand garbage truck :-)
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
I have never hated the federal government. It has a vital role to play. You must understand that the government did not start writting the constitution till about the 16th ammendment.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
Very much of one mind. Very consistant. I'm stuck on America as described by the constitution and the bill of rights. After that I have issue with some myself such as the 16th whitch gave government the right to divide and conquor through taxing everything it could possibly concieve as income and severly limiting achievment in this country. The bill of rights and the constitution limited government and describes individual citizens rights. Some how it started giving government rights and limiting the free citizens.
Reply
RealEstateMystic
|
August 19, 2009
gahalls is an example of that kind of conflicted personality disorder which is always hating the federal government on the one hand while invoking the Constitution with the other.
Reply
gahalls
|
August 19, 2009
Note the statement "broad range" In government that means what ever the next guy thinks is ok to regulate. Knives and ball bats are often used assault weapons as well. The group of folks chosen to decide what where assault fire arms mainly put together a list of fire arms that looked mean. ooooowwww sounds like another boooogie man hoax. Your mistake is the idea that the militia is supposed be regulated by the federal government.
Reply
81Jeep
|
August 18, 2009
Assault weapon refers to a broad category of firearms, including military-style semiautomatic rifles derived from assault rifles, and also including some pistols and shotguns. ...

second amendment:(note one 'm') A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State....

note the statement of well regulated
Reply
gahalls
|
August 18, 2009
Define assault weapon. I define them as those who oppose the second ammendment. The congressman only stated that he was not afraid of anyone as long as they obeyed the law.
Reply
rogwrot
|
August 18, 2009
I assume the gun is "registered." How does a nutcase who would take a loaded, exposed assault-type gun to a town hall meeting get approved to carry a gun in the first place?

Taken a step further, if everyone who attended the meeting exercized their right to carry such a weapon, then what would you have? Several hundred people with loaded assault-style weapons at the meeting. That's a loose cannon if I ever saw one.

So what makes this ok is that there are very few nut cases out there who choose to do such a thing and the civilized amongst us are simply supposed to tolerate their dark age mentality and hope for the best for ourselves.

Reply
gahalls
|
August 18, 2009
Feels great for most and bad for some. Thanks for agreeing with me again.

Your liberals in congress will be doing the same soon. Remember they where all whipped up to send in the troops as well and then used it as a political free for all.

If we don't empty the congress soon we will be agreeing on most everything.

Reply
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.