AC360 Monday 8p

There are growing questions about the ferry crew's actions. The latest on the South Korean ferry disaster live on AC360.
January 10th, 2013
11:29 PM ET

Gingrich: Biden should go to Chicago

Newt Gingrich discusses gun legislation and suggests Vice President Biden visit Chicago to understand why the laws and system there haven't worked. "Chicago has very strict gun laws; it is also the deadliest city in America where 500 people were killed in Chicago last year," he told Anderson Cooper. "What should we maybe learn from inadequate policing, inadequate enforcement, about a city whose laws on paper are terrific, but whose reality has been really pretty disastrous."

 

Post by:
Filed under: Guns • Newt Gingrich • President Obama
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. Jim g

    There is nothing on the table taking guns from law abiding citizens. Cutting back on magazine size will not destroy the 2nd Amendment. Getting the federal government to set up a better data base so when you purchase a gun, they type in your name and poof, if your clean you get it. These agencies need to get connected so this information is available to each other. With a better information highway between the government, we may have prevented 9/11. The laws on the books need to be enforced and no plea bargains on crimes involving guns. You use a gun in a crime you get a stiff sentence period. By ranting at each other nothing good will come about. Sit talk, listen and do something that makes sense and preserves the 2nd amendment but also our right to safety.

    January 21, 2013 at 4:45 am |
  2. MichaelNC

    Why shouldn't a law abiding background checked mentally healthy American be allowed to own a high capacity black semi-automatic rifle provided it is properly stored? Don't just say that they "don't need it". Tell us why? Because they end up being used in less than 1% of crimes? Because they scare you? Give us a reason, because to be honest, I'm a little concerned that you feel free to take something from citizens that under the current interpretation of the law, is completely legal. Your current explanation of "they don't need it" is neither logical nor compelling. I'm willing to talk this out but I'm not getting any actual reasons yet. Oh, and don't bring up Aurora or Newtown. See, non-Caucasians have been getting mowed down for years and nobody cared like this. So let's not be hypocritical here. Oh and Bloombergs comment that if we save evn one life makes it worth it? No, we trade lives for liberty here. And Bloombergs un-substantiated statement of "less guns make you safer" isn't any good either. While I'm not saying guns make you safer, no one can show how not having them does make you safer. Look up proving a negative before you go there.

    January 19, 2013 at 12:02 am |
  3. Jennifer Johnson

    Why just active duty military?

    January 18, 2013 at 6:44 pm |
  4. Jason

    Gracie, clips are not the issue, magazines are. If people in general want to attack my right to bear arms, they should at least familiarize themselves with the things that they want to ban. It is those things that they know nothing of, yet are so scared of that they want to ban them. It just does not make sense that a person would want to remove the rights of another law abiding citizen, especially on a subject that they do not know much of. Removing guns from society will not stop people. A quick look at the anarchist's cookbook will tell you more efficient means of doing these atrocities should someone be crazy enough.

    January 17, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
    • RoscoeDude

      Jason, people are simply very upset at children being murdered and I agree. They are in need for some form of power over the evil world out there. Those of the left want to ban guns and us on the right want to go armed and we are supported by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Yet there are some that will still want to do something, anything that is a feel good band aide attempt. New laws will do nothing, they will stop no one from such crazy actions, but these people do not care, they want some power over the environment.

      January 20, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
  5. Gracie Williams

    Regardless of the issue, there is no need for Americans to carry high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic assault weapons that have an attachable clip. Military (active duty) and some forms of police officers are the only ones who need such a weapon. Gingrich also has his facts wrong. Chicago is one of the deadliest cities but not the deadliest cities in the United States. Even so, the weapons issue is a serious one that needs to be looked at.

    January 11, 2013 at 7:43 pm |
    • Adam Eklofe

      Isn't it great that we all have the right to speak freely on this topic, even if we don' t all agree with one another? Specific firearms are not the problem, and high capacity magazines are not the problem either. President Obama, stated that "cheap handguns" were the problem in Chicago, even though illegally armed criminals are probably the real problem. We need to quit smacking criminals on the hand, and truly punish them for their actions. Disarming or restricting law abiding citizens of arms will not help our problems. Let us not forget, that box cutters and airplanes were used to kill thousands in one massacre on our soil not that long ago. When there is a will, there is a way, and unfortunately that goes for good and evil.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
      • jack

        well said adam, i own several assault weapons and have not killed anyone since march 1969 up near the cambodian border.
        as far as i am concerned any weapon, be it a BB gun or a barrett 50 cal sniper rifle, that is being used to shoot at me is an assault weapon no matter how it looks

        January 19, 2013 at 2:39 pm |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.