Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

March 27, 2013 - 10:46 am

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) claimed Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are “out of step with the constitution” for threatening to filibuster any gun control legislation in the upper chamber.

“The constitution does not prohibit reasonable gun safety. And it’s what most Americans want,” Ellison said on MSNBC.

“And they — you know, these folks in the NRA like Mr. LaPierre keep on telling folks things that are not true, such as we want to take their guns away,” the congressman continued. “Nobody is going to take your guns away unless you have some sort of weapon of war. If you have a regular gun and you’re, you know, don’t have a criminal background or are not mentally infirmed, you ought to be able to own one. Those guys, they’re the ones out of step, not the constitution. Not Harry Reid.”

Ellison said “the country really is progressive.”

“Americans are fair minded people who believe that people ought to live their lives as they choose to. As long as they don’t hurt anybody else,” he said. “…The fact is, you know, the American people are way ahead of Congress on a lot of things. I mean, there was a recent poll by Gallup which said that 72 percent of all Americans believe we should have public infrastructure spending. Meaning our roads and our bridges and our transit lines, even a majority of Republicans think so. And yet we’re in full-on austerity mode in Washington.”

“The public thinks we ought to raise the minimum wage. Well, you know, in Washington we’re arguing, you know, whether minimum wage actually causes unemployment. Which is ridiculous and untrue. But, I mean, the people are way ahead of Washington. And the people really do deserve to have their will be reflected in their government.”

Ellison said conservative “believe that the rich don’t have enough money and the poor have too much.”

“They believe that we’re not our brother’s keeper. They believe that the environment is a thing you can use and use and use and never have to worry about,” he said. “They think that, you know, not everybody’s equal and not everybody has a fair shake at American life. They just see it differently.”

Bridget Johnson is a career journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Anything that infringes on ones constitutional rights of justice, domestic tranquility, general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty and posterity.... is NOT without limitations! Likewise, the Supreme Court has historically confirmed -- however slowly catching up to a needed limitation.

Someone reading something into the constitution as written, which simply is NOT there, for self serving purposes, is not a constitutionalist! Gun ownership can have limitiations without infringing on the right to own and bear arms. The more a right is abused, the more forthcoming limitiations!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Time to give Zeke a history lesson.

From the early days of the Republic until the 1850's civilians had the same weapons as the military. Something changed in the 1850's; Breechloading rifles became available to the public while the Military still used smoothbore muskets. The Sharps rifle was not introduced into the military inventory until the Civil War when the Sharps rifle was given to marksman (snipers) hence the term "Sharpshooter" was born

In 1860 the Henry lever action rifle was introduced but was only used in small numbers in union cavalry units but was available to private citizens as well. The standard infantry rifle of the war was the Springfield Model 1861 Minie muzzle loading rifle. The 1861 Springfield was the standard infantry rifle until the introduction of the Model 1873 trapdoor Springfield single shot breechloader. From 1865-73 civilians dumped their muzzleloaders for Spencer and Winchester model 1866 lever action. While the Army was upgrading to a single shot breechloader, civilians got the 15 shot Winchester ’73 aka “the gun that won the West.”
The next military upgrade occurred in the 1890’s with the Krag-Jorgansen bolt action rifle but civilians got the Winchester model 1894 with new smokeless powder 30-30 round. Civilians still outgunned the military. After the Spanish-American War and our experience facing the Mauser Gewehr ’98 the Army designed a counter, he famous 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle. Actually, we just copied the Mauser design with some improvements. But wait, in 1903 Winchester introduced the Model 1903 autoloading (semiautomatic) hunting rifle. They follow up this design with the model 1905 and 1907 autoloaders. Remington joined the semiautomatic game with their model 1908 or Remington 8 which lives on today as the model 750. So once again civilians had a more advanced rifle than the military. It wasn’t until 1941 that a majority of US infantrymen had the M-1 Garand. So from 1850-1940 civilians had more powerful weapons than the military.
The two most popular bolt action hunting rifles today are the Winchester Model 70 and the Remington Model 700 series. Both are Mauser action military style weapons. The AR-15 is an autoloader which ultimate traces its roots back to civilian technology introduced in the first decade of the 20th Century. I want you to repeat after me: Bolt Action rifle = military innovation; Semiautomatic rifle = civilian innovation.
One more thing about the difference between the ammunition used in an AR-15 and a typical “big game” round used in bolt action hunting rifles. The AR-15 uses the 223 Remington/NATO 5.56 cartridge which was introduced as a varmint round in 1950. (Actually the 223 was a slight modification to the Remington 222 cartridge). The 223 round is a 55 grain small bore high velocity round with a muzzle energy around 1200 ft/lbs. Many deer and elk hunters use the famous 30-06 Springfield 30 caliber round. It uses a 180 grain bullet and has a muzzle energy of close to 3000 ft/lbs. The 30-06 was designed as military round for the ’03 Springfield. Civilian hunting rifles are far more powerful than the puny round used by the military. So I want you to repeat after me. AR-15 ammunition = a civilian medium powered varmint round. Bolt action rifle Ammunition = high power military round.

Final word. Like most opponents of the Second Amendment you know nothing about firearms.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Considering these guys have misidentified the semi-automatic .22 rifle as an "assault weapon" and a "weapon of war"..... I'll continue to be worried about your idea of "common sense".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Like I trust a cultist like Ellison.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Mr. Ellison's Marxist Islam, and god of the Kaabba is out of touch with the Constitution. Islam, and BLT Marxism go hand in hand.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ellison is a dolt. The intent of the Constitution is exactly that the common citizen should possess weapons of war. The founders knew that the Kentucky long rifle in the hand of the American worker was superior to the Brown Bess recently carried in the hands of the defeated governmental tyrants, and that such superiority would prevent a future dictatorship. What they did not know was that a future generation of Americans would elect tyrants like Ellison.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'd believe Mr. Ellison if he could give me a definition of what is a "Regular gun" and what is an "assault weapon"?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I....I....I'm not even sure where to start with all the BS that the "Honorable Representative" spread around in this short synopsis.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Better questions Ellison should be asking:

- want $6/gallon milk?
- want $5/gallon gas?
- want to pay $50 per bullet for your self defense?
- $100 co-pay's on your insurance?
- marry your transgender brother?
- make being a caucasian a crime?...vote for me! (and all the crazy crap I spew out of my pie hole)

I'd rather discuss existentialism with Honey Boo Boo than listen to this knucklehead.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Nobody is going to take your guns away unless you have some sort of weapon of war." Seriously? Missouri H.B. 545 wants to confiscate your "assault weapon," retroactively. Minnesota H.F. 241 wants to ban future purchases of "Assault Weapons," and if you currently own one you must register it with the state, and grant the state permission to enter your home to inspect storage. Ohio SB 18 wants to retroactively ban "Assault Weapons." Sen Dianne Feinstein back in 1995 told 60 Minutes the ONLY reason her 1994 Ban didn't CONFISCATE weapons was because she "didn't have 51 votes" [in the Senate].

Yeah, no one wants to take away our weapons. Pssst, buddy - wanna buy some really nice property in Florida?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When I am looking for a rational discussion about economic issues and/or constitutional issues, the last names I look for are Keith Ellison and MSNBC. Seeking their opinions is like asking Honey Boo Boo about astrophysics!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All