We think you're near Los Angeles

Currently in Los Angeles

Location: Los Angeles Current temperature: 53°F: Current condition: Scattered Clouds See Extended Forecast

Should John Edwards be a 'prohibited person'?


  (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File)

Is there a dark and violent side to former senator and democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards? Two recent reports make that disturbing case.

From the New York Daily News:

John Edwards' ex-aide Andrew Young speaks on alleged Rielle Hunter sex tape - and fears for his life

He got taken for a ride? He didn't want to end up like Vince Foster? He used to wake up at 3:00 AM and arm himself with a bat and a knife?

Should we just dismiss this as someone who wants to sell a book spicing things up?

But now there's corroboration of a propensity for violence. From the New York Post:

Disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards reportedly beat his cancer-stricken wife during a horrific marriage-ending fight.

We're all aware that a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence qualifies one for becoming a "prohibited person" under the Lautenberg Amendment--forever barred from even touching a firearm?

We should also know that while Edwards made noises about supporting sport shooters as a campaign necessity in North Carolina, NRA's Chris Cox had this to say:

In the early years of his Senate career, Edwards voted to "commend" the Million Mom March, to end private sales at gun shows, and to maintain long-term federal registration of gun buyer records. He voted for national registration of all gun show vendors, and voted to ban importation of ammunition magazines. There wasn't much in the way of gun control legislation that Edwards didn't support.

While it's true that Edwards hasn't been convicted of anything, his gun-grabbing Democrat pals are trying to not let that minor detail stop them--in fact, none other than Frank Lautenberg is at it again, proposing that people merely suspected by the government be barred from buying guns via a "terror watch list."

Don't expect the gungrabbers to point this out when it involves one of their own--had it been a prominent pro-gun politician, well, do you think they'd keep silent? But hey, they're too busy with important stuff, like pestering coffee companies.

 

More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell |Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German 

 

Advertisement

By

Gun Rights Examiner

David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine,...

Comments

  • straightarrow 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    Here's something everyone seems to forget. The original Lautenberg amendment exempted law enforcement and military from suffering the penalties proposed under it. It was only passed after those exemptions were removed, but an ex-post facto provision added.

    Now, why would Lautenberg or anyone else wish to exempt their minions, henchmen, if you will, from the same law everyone else was subjected to? The answer to that question should explain all anyone needs to konw. If it does not, then someone is stupid.

  • straightarrow 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    Ain't insomnia a bitch?

  • DDS -- NRA Life Member 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    As long as Sen. Lautenberg stands behind his legislation that makes men and women in our armed forces "non-deployable" because they cannot "posess" a firearm, then yes, it should also apply to former senator, ambulance chaser, and world class sleaze-ball John Edwards.

  • Chris Mallory 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    He should be barred owning arms, but I would say that even if he wasn't a wife beater. Government employees should be barred from owning arms.

  • Qi Ji Guang 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    And to consider, that this piece of criminal scum wants to ban all of our guns...It seems like he favors a monopoly of violence where only the "elites" and "patricians" like him can have full authority over the rest of us. This piece of **** views the common people as slaves.

  • Qi Ji Guang 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    WAN BA DAN! (Douchebag)

  • Henry Bowman 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    There's a greater point here, which is, would John Edwards actually give a damn either way?

    Teddy Kennedy was widely understood to have committed manslaughter, if not murder, and roundly deserved to be a prohibited person, yet he was not. But what of it? I couldn't even imagine him "dirtying his hands" with a gun anyway. He had hired goons to carry his guns, just like he had a chauffeur to drive his car (in public safety terms, probably the most justified chauffeur expense in the history of American government).

  • Ted 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    Yet again, those silly laws appy to us common folk, not the Polituburo. We all know they're better than us, otherwise they wouldn't be Only Ones. /sarc.

Add a new comment

Join the conversation! Log in here or create a new account if you've never registered before.

Got something to say?

Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!

Don't miss...