View Full Version : Peter King, Boxer, McCarthy & Lautenberg GUN CONTROL...UPDATED 3rd time..
Belmont31R
01-11-11, 13:18
Illegal to bring a gun within 1000 ft of the president, vice president, members of congress, and federal judges.
Gee thats going to stop someone like Loughner from doing what he did! :rolleyes:
More "gun free" zones full of defenseless victims, and then the left bemoans guns every time there is a shooting. They fail to mention people are such easy targets because they don't want campus carry, they don't want teachers and staff armed in K-12 schools, they don't want pilots armed, they don't want average everyday people to be able to be armed, ect. Yet lets create more areas where the good guys can't carry. Im sure prospective assassins are going to rethink their thoughts because a law says they can't carry within 1k feet of their target.
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html
Edit for the McCarthy interview link:
Apparently 30rd magazines are "weapons of mass destruction" according to McCarthy:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/11/132826365/Rep-McCarthy-To-Propose-Ban-On-High-Capacity-Ammo
Boxer wants Federal restrictions on CCW despite the fact a CCW holder came seconds away from shooting Loughner, and helped pin him down.
Also wants new Federal AWB. Of course she admits it wouldn't have stopped this shooting but why waste a good crisis if you can further your agenda?
“The kind of gun laws we have here in California that give people their gun ownership rights while also preventing the sale of guns to criminals, to people with serious mental illness and people who may abuse a spouse or partner,” said the California Democrat at a press conference in Riverside.
“Now I’m not saying that these sensible gun laws would have stopped this killer, but I do know this: It should not be easy for a killer to obtain a weapon that could kill or wound 20 people in just a few heartbeats, and stop those heartbeats.”
http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2011/01/11/sen-boxer-calls-for-more-federal-gun-control/47302/#comment-204276
UPDATE: Here is the text of the proposed bill to ban magazines over 10rds from being sold or transfered. So if you already own them you can still use them just can't buy new ones or sell them to someone else.
http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/uploads/mccarthy-magazine_bill.pdf
Update 2:
Lautenberg has introduced a bill containing the magazine ban, gun show loophole, and denying people on terror watch list from purchasing guns...
“This package of common-sense gun safety bills would sail through Congress if it wasn’t for the special interest gun lobby. It’s time to put aside business as usual in Washington, and start considering the safety of our families over special interests,” Lautenberg said. “In our country, terrorists can buy weapons at gun stores, convicted felons can buy Glocks at gun shows, and just about anyone can get their hands on a 30-round magazine designed to shoot and kill quickly. Congress has a responsibility to enact common-sense reforms that will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, and prevent another massacre like the one we saw in Tucson.”
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=330513&
Update 3:
Boxer also wants every state to be "may issue" CCW where you have to show "cause" to get a permit...
Senator Boxer said, “The tragic events in Tucson earlier this month are a reminder of why we need common-sense gun laws. This measure will establish reasonable permitting standards for Americans who wish to carry concealed firearms. According to a recent poll, more than 60 percent of respondents believe there should be a reasonable permitting process for those who wish to carry concealed firearms.”
http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/012111.cfm
What a stupid law. I mean, there's typical leftist thinking, but then there's this. The people that are going to use a gun aren't going to be deterred by this law, but moreover, they're already planning on killing said people and will attempt to do so; they can already be charged with attempted murder and/or murder, so why tack this (comparatively) puny charge on top of that? It will only disarm those who carry for defense.
I could understand their mentality if it allowed them to charge someone who was previously immune from prosecution, but this? Seriously?
madisonsfinest
01-11-11, 13:29
Sounds like its a direct response to the guy who brought an AR to an Obama Speech. I would agree that everyone should not be able to carry up close where the President is at
Belmont31R
01-11-11, 13:37
Sounds like its a direct response to the guy who brought an AR to an Obama Speech. I would agree that everyone should not be able to carry up close where the President is at
Imagine if the CCW holder at Saturday's shooting had shot Loughner to end the shooting. From all accounts he was only seconds late from being able to do just that. Under this law he would not have been able to be in that position.
Creating another gun free zone is just going to put everyone else at increased risk. CCW cannot stop every crime, and it didn't here but he came damn close. Its not going to stop loony people from trying to shoot our elected government officials.
I would agree that everyone should not be able to carry up close where the President is at
then you'd be a silly ass. the president's presence does not somehow nullify my Constitutional right to self defense.
kaiservontexas
01-11-11, 13:39
I want a 1 mile only I can have the gun zone around me. I also want that to include nobody can speak without my permission. :haha:
Honestly, somebody needs to explain to them they are no more special then any other human being on this planet. That they are not any form of nobility. Lastly they need to stop wasting our time with useless legislation.
Another thing I was thinking of with regards to this law. What happens when they drive by our house? It is not like we moved towards them. It is just a thought because he is suggesting a mobile gun free zero tolerance school zone type situation that is constantly moving about the nation.
why not just make it illegal to shoot a politician?
and a thousand feet? that's 333 yards.. well within range of any barely competent marksman.
kaiservontexas
01-11-11, 13:43
You know BKB I think it is illegal to shoot people period without just cause such as self defense. shrugs . . . I do not know if they can grasp that concept though . . .
dennisuello
01-11-11, 13:44
Call his office and tell them what you think. I got right through and was put on a 1 minute hold. Then I told them that like all other gun control laws, this would not have prevented what happened in Tucson, and would only stop law-abiding citizens, not deranged persons with criminal intent.
(202) 225-7896
Robb Jensen
01-11-11, 13:51
Yes because crazy-ass-people always obey laws!
Illegal to bring a gun within 1000 ft of the president, vice president, members of congress, and federal judges.
Gee thats going to stop someone like Loughner from doing what he did! :rolleyes:
More "gun free" zones full of defenseless victims, and then the left bemoans guns every time there is a shooting. They fail to mention people are such easy targets because they don't want campus carry, they don't want teachers and staff armed in K-12 schools, they don't want pilots armed, they don't want average everyday people to be able to be armed, ect. Yet lets create more areas where the good guys can't carry. Im sure prospective assassins are going to rethink their thoughts because a law says they can't carry within 1k feet of their target.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html
GermanSynergy
01-11-11, 13:52
What constitutes a "government official"?
Meter maid?
What if a Rep wanted to go hunting or do a photo op with constituents during same?
Would a gun shop be breaking the law selling a sidearm to a "government official"?
Sounds like ****ing retarded RINO BS to me....
We should make murder illegal, it would totally stop crazy people from killing other people.
I just got off the phone with Representative King's office and, bluntly put, they didn't give a crap about my concerns. The secretary who I spoke to said "We're just making sure this doesn't happen again" and then hung up. That does it.
I'm going to run for office in 12 years. If the people who are supposed to represent us can't do so without putting their own interests first, then I'll take their job when the opportunity comes and do it for them.
When that time comes, I will do everything to repeal these ridiculous laws made by those who hide behind the guise of public safety to cover their own impotence.
I just got off the phone with Senator King's office and, bluntly put, they didn't give a crap about my concerns. The secretary who I spoke to said "We're just making sure this doesn't happen again" and then hung up. That does it.
that's probaby an indicator that they're getting a LOT of calls unfriendly to the idea.
dennisuello
01-11-11, 14:11
I just got off the phone with Senator King's office and, bluntly put, they didn't give a crap about my concerns. The secretary who I spoke to said "We're just making sure this doesn't happen again" and then hung up.
I called 30 minutes ago and I at least got a "thank you for your input". :D
Magic_Salad0892
01-11-11, 14:12
I read this when Belmont first posted it.
I've spent almost the entire time until now trying to think of something intelligent to say.
Here's my verdict.
You can't give a smart reply, to a stupid situation.
Commissar Obama feels threatened by free citizens.
Some call that a clue.
that's probaby an indicator that they're getting a LOT of calls unfriendly to the idea.
You'd think they'd be intelligent enough to understand that if people don't like the law they're proposing, then they shouldn't try to pass it since their job is to represent those people.
Littlelebowski
01-11-11, 14:16
Funny how the politicians worry so much about themselves.
Magic_Salad0892
01-11-11, 14:18
They get paid more, doesn't that mean they're more important?
... Didn't think so.
Should be tell them?
If you're on facebook, light that up too. He has a page.
You'd think they'd be intelligent enough to understand that if people don't like the law they're proposing, then they shouldn't try to pass it since their job is to represent those people.
easy enough to dismiss it... "none of these people are from our district." and they're probably right.
Magic_Salad0892
01-11-11, 14:24
If you're on facebook, light that up too. He has a page.
I don't have a facebook, can you post a link?
I can't find it. I don't think I can search people if I'm not a member.
If you're on facebook, light that up too. He has a page.
got a link? i'm not finding it
I did notice that all the charges filed against that jackass in AZ had something to do with a gubbermint or federal official. No murder charge was filed for that 9 year old girl.
madisonsfinest
01-11-11, 14:30
Imagine if the CCW holder at Saturday's shooting had shot Loughner to end the shooting. From all accounts he was only seconds late from being able to do just that. Under this law he would not have been able to be in that position.
Creating another gun free zone is just going to put everyone else at increased risk. CCW cannot stop every crime, and it didn't here but he came damn close. Its not going to stop loony people from trying to shoot our elected government officials.
My application was only to the President. You don't think that the President of the United States should be provided with the utmost security? Should LEO's have to waist all of there time keeping their eyes watching those carrying guns at speeches by the President rather than the less obvious threats? I'm for CCW's to responsible people, but I don't agree that it should apply to every place all of the time. Should they be allowed in court rooms, jail visiting areas, mental health facilities, etc...
Magic_Salad0892
01-11-11, 14:32
I did notice that all the charges filed against that jackass in AZ had something to do with a gubbermint or federal official. No murder charge was filed for that 9 year old girl.
That disgusts me.
My application was only to the President. You don't think that the President of the United States should be provided with the utmost security? Should LEO's have to waist all of there time keeping their eyes watching those carrying guns at speeches by the President rather than the less obvious threats? I'm for CCW's to responsible people, but I don't agree that it should apply to every place all of the time. Should they be allowed in court rooms, jail visiting areas, mental health facilities, etc...
NOBODY carries guns in jails, not even the jailers. thats because of the risk of a prisoner getting ahold of a weapon, not because the prisoners are at risk of being shot by a CCW holder or cop.
concealed means concealed. why would LEOs "waist" all of "there" time keeping an eye on guns they don't know exist?
the 9 year old girl, who was born on 9/11/01, is the one we should be the most upset about. but since she was a nobody, and only killed because somebody had taken her to see the intended target speak, we don't really hear much about her.
one thing, though... we do have a rare opportunity with this ****. usually, we've got no perpetrator, because they either die by cop or die by suicide... but this piece of shit is alive, unhurt, and will stand trial for his deeds. arizona DOES have the death penalty, i assume?
Magic_Salad0892
01-11-11, 14:38
Should they be allowed in court rooms Yes, jail visiting areasYes, mental health facilitiesAs long as you're not in the room with a patient, etc...
Mine in blue.
ETA: Bkb0000 death is too nice for this guy, let him rot in ****-me-in-the-ass prison. I've heard they don't like child shooters there.
NOBODY carries guns in jails, not even the jailers. thats because of the risk of a prisoner getting ahold of a weapon, not because the prisoners are at risk of being shot by a CCW holder or cop.
Yet oddly enough from time to time the prisoners in jails and prisons get a hold of guns. Weird, I am sure that is somehow against the law and even the rules. Yet it does happen, and in that tightly controlled of an environment.
madisonsfinest
01-11-11, 14:41
Sorry I meant open carry. I guess I don't agree with all of the views here. I think there are places where there should be some restrictions...
I did notice that all the charges filed against that jackass in AZ had something to do with a gubbermint or federal official. No murder charge was filed for that 9 year old girl.
I'm assuming that's because you'd be hard-pressed to find that he pre-meditated and planned the murder of her and to charge him with such would not only tie up the system, but create a potential loop-hole, depending on the verdict. I bet they're playing it safe by only including charges that carry Federal penalties.
Just my guess, anyways.
Magic_Salad0892
01-11-11, 14:45
Sorry I meant open carry. I guess I don't agree with all of the views here. I think there are places where there should be some restrictions...
Yeah. Open carry sucks. Tactical reason. No element of surprise.
Convenience store robbery:
''Hey I have a gun! Shoot me first!''
I'm assuming that's because you'd be hard-pressed to find that he pre-meditated and planned the murder of her and to charge him with such would not only tie up the system, but create a potential loop-hole, depending on the Verdict. I bet they're playing it safe by only including charges that carry Federal penalties.
Just my guess, anyways.
Good point, but there are still charges that apply. That will probably the state that files those.
A timely quote:
"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
- George Washington
Belmont31R
01-11-11, 14:48
I think the Feds only have jurisdiction over Giffords and the judge since they are federal officials.
The state will get the "regular" people.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-11, 15:25
Great, 2000 foot bubbles roaming around trying to make us felons at any time. Can we make them drag a big ballon like they have at car dealer lots so we know to stay away?
Are they going to start to randomly frisk people inside the Bubble?
Great, 2000 foot bubbles roaming around trying to make us felons at any time. Can we make them drag a big balloon like they have at car dealer lots so we know to stay away?
So are you thinking that it should be attached around the neck?
We should make murder illegal, it would totally stop crazy people from killing other people.
Exactly any other millions of laws underneath that one won't do a damn thing.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-11, 16:49
So are you thinking that it should be attached around the neck?
If it is a federal law, who knows how the attachment point would be required.
Sounds like its a direct response to the guy who brought an AR to an Obama Speech. I would agree that everyone should not be able to carry up close where the President is at
They already can't.
Belmont31R
01-11-11, 17:13
Apparently 30rd magazines are "weapons of mass destruction" according to McCarthy:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/11/132826365/Rep-McCarthy-To-Propose-Ban-On-High-Capacity-Ammo
If you're on facebook, light that up too. He has a page.
http://www.facebook.com/reppeteking
There's the link. I can't find any way to post comments, though.
rubberneck
01-11-11, 17:28
Imagine if the CCW holder at Saturday's shooting had shot Loughner to end the shooting. From all accounts he was only seconds late from being able to do just that. Under this law he would not have been able to be in that position.
Under this law that good samaritan could be prosecuted.
It's a stupid and unenforceable law. Since moving to my new town in July I have run into my Congressman twice on the street. Both times I was carrying. If this law law had been in effect I would have become a felon because I simply had the misfortune to cross paths with an elected official while carrying.
I am really ashamed of Congressman King. I always thought he had a good head on his shoulders. The fact that he is co-sponsoring this stupid and useless bill ruins whatever opinion I had of him.
Since moving to my new town in July I have run into my Congressman twice on the street. Both times I was carrying. If this law law had been in effect I would have become a felon because I simply had the misfortune to cross paths with an elected official while carrying. .
A couple years ago during the election, I walked out of the court house to find my wife and two daughters being interviewed by a congresswoman and a camera crew. They had been playing around outside while they waited for me. None of us had any idea she was going to be filming a campaign ad that day.
Bam, I was an instant felon under this newly proposed law.
http://www.facebook.com/reppeteking
There's the link. I can't find any way to post comments, though.
You have to "Like" that person at the top of the page and then you'll be able to post comments.
They're also looking to reinstate the "high-capacity magazine ban". Be prepared for magazine shortages and exorbitant prices. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110111-714059.html
They're also looking to reinstate the "high-capacity magazine ban". Be prepared for magazine shortages and exorbitant prices. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110111-714059.html
I'd be pretty damn surprised if they could get a mag ban passed in either house of Congress right now.
I'd be pretty damn surprised if they could get a mag ban passed in either house of Congress right now.
Me too. But I wouldn't be surprised if prices go through the roof and availability is rather scarce, similar to the Obama scare not so long ago.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-11, 19:03
I was thinking about getting into the M&P platform this week. Baaad week.
Might be a good time to unload some of my "20 rnd stainless steel- they'll never rust or wear out AR mags" that I bought before I figured out P-mags.
If this law law had been in effect I would have become a felon because I simply had the misfortune to cross paths with an elected official while carrying
If that bill becomes law, this isn't America anymore.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-11-11, 19:31
You can not legislate the poor into prosperity. On the same token, you can not legislate the criminals into righteousness. Those who would follow the legislation would already be the law abiding.
The mentality of over-regulalization in the American government is astonishing and sickening. Punish those who break the laws, come down hard and swift on criminals. Glorify those who follow the laws, don't pass new one's because a criminal acted completely in his nature.
A law will only ever effect those who would follow it.
VOTE THESE ****ING TRAITORS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT UNTOUCHABLE ROYALTY. IF WE CAN ELECT YOU, WE CAN JUST AS EASILY ELECT ANOTHER.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-11-11, 19:34
If that bill becomes law, this isn't America anymore.
Exactly. That would would 1000% positively SICKEN our founding fathers. Those who we have elected to represent us are legislating themselves into total power more and more.
I feel like a tinfoil wearing crazy with these posts, but these laws are a clear betrayal to OUR constitution.
Just more crap from elitist pricks that believe that they are actually worth something.
The_War_Wagon
01-11-11, 19:48
why not just make it illegal to shoot a politician?
Pffft... I'll see your politician, and raise you a human!
Murder should be ILLEGAL! There should be LAWS against it, so that it never happens; and should someone DARE break that law, life in prison, and maybe even execution could result! THAT'LL show those lawbreakers!!!
Oh wait - what? :confused:
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-11, 20:31
You can not legislate the poor into prosperity. On the same token, you can not legislate the criminals into righteousness. Those who would follow the legislation would already be the law abiding.
The mentality of over-regulalization in the American government is astonishing and sickening. Punish those who break the laws, come down hard and swift on criminals. Glorify those who follow the laws, don't pass new one's because a criminal acted completely in his nature.
A law will only ever effect those who would follow it.
VOTE THESE ****ING TRAITORS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT UNTOUCHABLE ROYALTY. IF WE CAN ELECT YOU, WE CAN JUST AS EASILY ELECT ANOTHER.
So good I Sig'd it.
I'd be pretty damn surprised if they could get a mag ban passed in either house of Congress right now.
Exactly, but you know what? Write your representatives and write Speaker Boehner. I did, and here is what I said:
Mr. Boehner,
I write to you today as a concerned citizen. In the wake of the Arizona tragedy, the anti-gun left has already begun to propose new legislation infringing upon our constitutional rights. I am registered in Florida as a "no party affiliate" voter, but have voted only Republican since I have been of age. Please assure me you will not allow the bills McCarthy authors to come to the floor for a vote. Besides being unconstitutional, they are ridiculous and we as a country have much bigger issues to contend with. Repealing Obama's healthcare bill, our economy and unemployment should stay at the forefront of our efforts. Thank you sir, and please show your loyal Republican supporters that you will support our conservative ideals.
-me
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-11-11, 21:17
Exactly, but you know what? Write your representatives and write Speaker Boehner. I did, and here is what I said:
Mr. Boehner,
I write to you today as a concerned citizen. In the wake of the Arizona tragedy, the anti-gun left has already begun to propose new legislation infringing upon our constitutional rights. I am registered in Florida as a "no party affiliate" voter, but have voted only Republican since I have been of age. Please assure me you will not allow the bills McCarthy authors to come to the floor for a vote. Besides being unconstitutional, they are ridiculous and we as a country have much bigger issues to contend with. Repealing Obama's healthcare bill, our economy and unemployment should stay at the forefront of our efforts. Thank you sir, and please show your loyal Republican supporters that you will support our conservative ideals.
-me
Good job, I just wrote to Boehner and my colorado Congressman Cory Gardner.
Fox News is now stating that his 2nd magazine had a spring failure and that's the reason he was able to be subdued.
Also, per the FBI, gun sales are up 60% in Arizona for yesterday as compared to a year ago.
Heavy Metal
01-11-11, 23:19
Speaker Boehner says no new Gun Control. Nixes it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls
GermanSynergy
01-11-11, 23:23
I still bought a Gen 3 Glock 17 today.
Speaker Boehner says no new Gun Control. Nixes it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-11, 23:23
Rachel Maddow is going nuts tonight on gun control. Why can't we get the mag limit back.
She makes all kinds of errors about gun laws. Machine guns are illegal, Laughner couldn't had bought a hi-cap mag before the AWB sunset.
Heavy Metal
01-11-11, 23:25
I still bought a Gen 3 Glock 17 today.
Like you needed an excuse for that!:haha:
Belmont31R
01-11-11, 23:58
Like you needed an excuse for that!:haha:
I watched her show yesterday...
She brought up numerous mass shootings...most of which were in gun free zones like colleges/schools, happened in businesses that down allow employees to be armed, or were in states that don't have CCW or allowed CCW at the time. Like the Luby's shooting which got CCW on the fore front after one of the victims testified before Congress that she had a gun in her glove box but could not legally carry it with her inside the restaurant where she was subjected to the whims of the shooter because of the laws at the time.
Like I said earlier...liberals want all these gun free zones, and then are "shocked" when there are shootings there where people are defenseless. What better place to go off the deep end then a place you know where you're most likely not going to encounter someone who is armed?
Speaker Boehner says no new Gun Control. Nixes it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls
Gun control is dead. The goal is to create more "prohibited persons" laws, where it is legal to manufacture and sell firearms, but there will be no one qualified to buy them, thus effectively outlawed.
This injustice is brought to you by the GCA of 1968.
It started with prohibiting violent felons, it will end with prohibiting anybody who farts.
I guarantee you, this is the way the Second Amendment will no longer mean anything.
Right now is the eye of the storm. Soon you will see them chanting "we don't want to ban guns, we only want to prevent criminals from getting them".
But the new laws will be designed to create "criminals". They will turn you into a "criminal", then you can kiss your firearms "rights" goodbye.
Funny how the politicians worry so much about themselves.
yeah barely a squeak over virginia tech or the fort hood shooting, but one of them gets shot and it's a big deal. :rolleyes:
I watched her show yesterday...
She brought up numerous mass shootings...most of which were in gun free zones like colleges/schools, happened in businesses that down allow employees to be armed, or were in states that don't have CCW or allowed CCW at the time. Like the Luby's shooting which got CCW on the fore front after one of the victims testified before Congress that she had a gun in her glove box but could not legally carry it with her inside the restaurant where she was subjected to the whims of the shooter because of the laws at the time.
Like I said earlier...liberals want all these gun free zones, and then are "shocked" when there are shootings there where people are defenseless. What better place to go off the deep end then a place you know where you're most likely not going to encounter someone who is armed?
i watched that same bullshit, and the dipshit sheriff of NY, who gave absolutely zero insight to anything and was basically just a waste of airtime.
i love how they like to cite the experimental, failed, and abandoned AWB as though it was some kind of previous time of sanity in "common sense" gun control. "well, you see, these 'hi-capacity' magazines actually used to be prohibited before 2004..."
i love how they like to cite the experimental, failed, and abandoned AWB as though it was some kind of previous time of sanity in "common sense" gun control. "well, you see, these 'hi-capacity' magazines actually used to be prohibited before 2004..."
And of course they won't talk about the north hollywood shootout which consisted of full auto rifles with big 75-100rd drums, that happed during the AWB.
oh no, that won't be discussed.
Belmont31R
01-12-11, 02:19
i watched that same bullshit, and the dipshit sheriff of NY, who gave absolutely zero insight to anything and was basically just a waste of airtime.
i love how they like to cite the experimental, failed, and abandoned AWB as though it was some kind of previous time of sanity in "common sense" gun control. "well, you see, these 'hi-capacity' magazines actually used to be prohibited before 2004..."
The frustrating part isn't that their anti gun is that they don't even know what the **** they are talking about. Id love to walk on that set with a pair of AR's. One a Colt M4 ban era carbine with the comp and pinned stock. Another a random current era M4 whatever. Ask her which one was legal during the ban and which wasnt.
Even McCarthy....the staunch gun control expert...got owned on air not even knowing what the **** she was talking about.
These people don't even know what it is they are trying to ban. That people could still own the same guns just as long as they were made pre 94. People just think all these mags and guns went away or something like they never existed. All it did was cause guns to be sold in a slightly different configuration and mag prices to double/triple.
Id also ask her how many people were convicted of AWB violations.
I can take someone who lost a loved one because of a shooting but I can't stand these asshat liberals who push for gun control who have no clue what they are even talking about. No idea what actually happened. Its all feel good non-sense on a subject they have no expertise on. No facts. No nothing but a slogan and emotion.
Belmont31R
01-12-11, 02:21
And of course they won't talk about the north hollywood shootout which consisted of full auto rifles with big 75-100rd drums, that happed during the AWB.
oh no, that won't be discussed.
Thats because they intentionally leave out the whole truth and/or completely omit cases that don't fit their agenda.
Just like machine guns. Im sure they'd love to confiscate all of them from private hands yet only 1-2 times has one been used in a crime that was legally owned.
variablebinary
01-12-11, 02:29
How the hell does that bitch McCarthy keep getting elected.
Stupid sow.
Anyone remember this, which basically cost Tucker his job at MSNBC. Prime example of how dumb she is, but she feels qualified to speak on gun rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
How about this dumb bitch and her notion on heat seeking bullets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&feature=related
i'd thought she was the Shoulder-Thing-That-Goes-Up Lady, but forgot to look it up and verify.
Let me make a suggestion. Loosen the tin foil (you know who you are) and send your senators and reps letters. Point out the fact that studies have shown that the 1994 AWB had no significant impact on crime.
Point out that current crimes rates (to include violent crime) are down across the country and at low levels. Many of these numbers come from the FBI's own stats.
Point out that most states now allow for CCW. Crime is higher in areas that still have the most restrictions.
Also you could point out that most gun owners are law abiding citizens. Anyone who wants to kill someone can always find a way. Just like the lady who went off the deep end and used her car to kill almost a dozen people.
The focus needs to be directed on CRIMINALS. People have to be held accountable for their actions.
Case in point. She killed almost as many people with her car as the were killed in Tucson.
Woman drove car down Reno sidewalk in '80, killing six, injuring 23
Sunday, January 30, 2005
The only woman on Nevada's death row died Saturday at the Southern Nevada Women's Correctional Center in Las Vegas, authorities said. She was 75.
Priscilla Ford had been suffering from emphysema and was pronounced dead at 11:05 a.m., said Fritz Schlottman, spokesman for the Nevada Department of Corrections.
Ford killed six people and injured 23 others when she drove her 1974 Lincoln Continental down a crowded Reno sidewalk on Thanksgiving Day in 1980.
"She had been very quiet for so long," Schlottman said. "No one ever had any problems with her (in prison). I don't remember hearing about her violating any rules."
Ford's numerous appeals of the death sentence cost taxpayers a lot of money and unfairly caused victims' families to relive the tragedy, Washoe County Assistant District Attorney John Helzer said.
Ford had exhausted her state appeals but still had federal appeals left to challenge the death sentence, he said.
"That was such a sad case. It was such a tragedy for so many people," Helzer said. "The fact they had to relive that case, appeal after appeal. Her death will probably bring some peace to those people. She should have been executed a long time ago."
In 1995, Ford lost a state Supreme Court bid to get her sentence eased to life without parole on grounds she didn't get a fair trial.
Ford's lawyer had argued there were all sorts of constitutional problems caused mainly by inadequate legal counsel during her 6-month trial.
But prosecutors had argued there was no basis for the appeal -- and given Ford's mental state it was unlikely she would ever be executed anyway.
Expert medical witnesses said Ford was suffering from a variety of mental illnesses, but prosecutors maintained she knew the difference between right and wrong."She was angry that day (of the killings) and what she did was what she attempted to do," Helzer said. "She stayed angry and probably died angry."
The official cause of Ford's death will be determined by the coroner, Schlottman said.
"If they think an autopsy is warranted, they'll do one," he said, adding Ford had been a heavy cigarette smoker.
Ford's death leaves 83 men on Nevada's death row.
Ford was a Michigan native with an IQ of 140. A schoolteacher, she had moved to Reno from Maine about three weeks before the rampage. She told acquaintances she went to Reno to look for her missing daughter, Wynter Scott. Washoe County authorities had placed the girl in a foster home in 1973 after Ford was arrested for trespassing.
Before the 1980 crime that became known as the "Thanksgiving Day Massacre," Ford had said "the people of Reno will pay in death" for taking her daughter. She also told a U.S. attorney in Maine in 1979 that she would run down pedestrians if he did not help her get her daughter back.
In 1982, she was sentenced to death at the conclusion of a nearly six-month trial, at the time the longest murder trial in Nevada history. She showed no emotion when the verdict was read.
Witnesses said Ford deliberately struck people while driving along the gambling strip on South Virginia Street, sending holiday strollers diving for cover.
"She came right at us; she came right at us with a body still on the hood of the car, and she looked like she was looking for somebody else to hit," Reno resident Marty Edmundson said shortly after the attack.
The black Lincoln twisted street signs, crushed newspaper vending boxes and knocked over a fire call box. The car carried one woman on its hood the length of a city block.
The dead and injured littered the bloody sidewalk as rescue workers frantically administered aid. Nearby casinos remained open. Ford subsequently referred to her victims as "beasts and pigs."
After her arrest, she told a doctor that the voice of Joan Kennedy, then the wife of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., ordered her to kill. "Just run through a whole bunch of people and kill everybody," the voice said.
She pleaded innocent by reason of insanity and testified at her trial, where she told jurors she was "as happy as I could possibly be" on the day of the rampage.
"I am in the state of mind that I am in heaven," said Ford, who told jurors she was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
The prosecutor showed her pictures of each of the six dead victims.
"Were you as happy as you could be and in a heavenly state when you ran into (this person)?" he asked six times.
"Yes," Ford replied each time in a firm voice, appearing glum but unshaken by the photos.
She told the jury she had shown remorse in private, but when asked if she cared about the six dead victims, she said, "How can I care? Is there anything I can do? Feeling good doesn't do any good for them."
Ford took the stand against the wishes of her attorney, who called her testimony "public suicide."
Ford said she began experimenting with marijuana in 1971 and considered it "the tree of life."
She told jurors her husband died after their separation in 1972, one day after she told her children, "I hope God strikes him dead."
She said she left Reno in 1973 in an odyssey aimed at regaining custody of her daughter. Her travels took her to Maine, Vermont and Chicago, where she quit two jobs because she did not like black people. Ford was black.
On appeal, her attorneys contended she was insane at the time of the slayings.
"She did not appreciate the fact that the people she was hitting were human beings," an attorney wrote.
Point out the fact that studies have shown that the 1994 AWB had no significant impact on crime.
Point out that current crimes rates (to include violent crime) are down across the country and at low levels. Many of these numbers come from the FBI's own stats.
Point out that most states now allow for CCW. Crime is higher in areas that still have the most restrictions.
Also you could point out that most gun owners are law abiding citizens. Anyone who wants to kill someone can always find a way. Just like the lady who went off the deep end and used her car to kill almost a dozen people.
The focus needs to be directed on CRIMINALS. People have to be held accountable for their actions.
I don't believe that many of these politicians are stupid. They know anti-self defense/2nd Amendment legislation doesn't work in "stopping crime" or any of that other BS, and neither will their new proposals. It's just a way to build a resume.
Case in point. She killed almost as many people with her car as the were killed in Tucson.
Cars kill more people than guns - ban cars.
Since when did criminals and crazy whack jobs start obeying the law?
Oh yeah, thats right in the utopian universe that the bat shit crazy left live in....:rolleyes:
One of my friends pointing out a very plausible answer to my question of how exactly King's proposal would have stopped the AZ shooting:
Well, obviously being a law-abiding citizen, Jared would have marched around in a very large circle seeking perhaps another perhaps more constructive avenue in which to vent his frustration. Duh.
Since when did criminals and crazy whack jobs start obeying the law?
Crazy whack jobs? I believe the politically correct term in vogue is "batshit crazy" these days.
Personally I think this incident shows we need better involuntary mental health treatment laws in this country. It should be easier to grab somebody and tell them to either submit to treatment voluntarily or get it involuntarily with all that entails. Seems like everybody knew this guy was nuts but nobody could or would do anything about it, and now people are dead because of that failure to act.
Crazy whack jobs? I believe the politically correct term in vogue is "batshit crazy" these days.
Personally I think this incident shows we need better involuntary mental health treatment laws in this country. It should be easier to grab somebody and tell them to either submit to treatment voluntarily or get it involuntarily with all that entails. Seems like everybody knew this guy was nuts but nobody could or would do anything about it, and now people are dead because of that failure to act.
Very slippery slope... That said I could see how you have come to your conclusion.
The problem is when Washington and or politicians get involved rarely are the laws that they enact used properly and not abused. We already have laws on the books that would allow for short term holds on mentally unstable people but people are too afraid to act on them and then disgusting things like this occur.
GermanSynergy
01-12-11, 10:33
Slippery slope indeed.
What's to say that anyone belonging to a certain political party isn't deemed "insane"?
That said, I place the blame on the shooter, and on the authorities that knew about him since 2007 and failed to act.
Very slippery slope... That said I could see how you have come to your conclusion.
The problem is when Washington and or politicians get involved rarely are the laws that they enact used properly and not abused. We already have laws on the books that would allow for short term holds on mentally unstable people but people are too afraid to act on them and then disgusting things like this occur.
Slippery slope indeed.
What's to say that anyone belonging to a certain political party isn't deemed "insane"?
That said, I place the blame on the shooter, and on the authorities that knew about him since 2007 and failed to act.
Precisely... Not to mention it could be used by family members for financial gain, police to hold citizens without due process... The list could go on forever.
We have enough laws already, the issue it that they are not used properly because of the dawn of PC, lawsuits and not daring to offend someone...
GermanSynergy
01-12-11, 10:57
Another point to consider:
If the shooter did indeed make multiple terroristic threats against his teachers,etc, why was he not charged and convicted of a felony for doing so?
The more information that comes out, the more proverbial egg will be on the face of the powers that be in Pima County.
Spurholder
01-12-11, 11:06
Slippery slope indeed.
What's to say that anyone belonging to a certain political party isn't deemed "insane"?
That said, I place the blame on the shooter, and on the authorities that knew about him since 2007 and failed to act.
"Liberalism is a mental disorder."
jklaughrey
01-12-11, 11:14
And I just thought liberalism was part of this so called fad democracy! What ever happened to the separation of the classes.
"God save the Queen" LOL:D
Another point to consider:
If the shooter did indeed make multiple terroristic threats against his teachers,etc, why was he not charged and convicted of a felony for doing so?
The more information that comes out, the more proverbial egg will be on the face of the powers that be in Pima County.
I agree...I think that's why their DB Sheriff is going so over-the-top with the right-wing rhetoric strawman; whatever can distract away from his own shortcomings.
Spurholder
01-12-11, 11:37
And I just thought liberalism was part of this so called fad democracy! What ever happened to the separation of the classes.
"God save the Queen" LOL:D
It's a quote by a certain talk radio personality that GS listens to...as do I from time to time. And England is still screaming...
You'd think they'd be intelligent enough to understand that if people don't like the law they're proposing, then they shouldn't try to pass it since their job is to represent those people.
Their "job" is to represent people, but most of them are there for money and power, and the first and foremost use of that power will always be to attack anything they perceive as a threat. Armed citizens are pretty high up on a lot of their lists lately.
Yet one more reason why we need term limits. It's harder to do the laws-are-for-peons routine when you know you're going to be one yourself shortly.
I think all laws should be based on wishful thinking! :rolleyes:
At any rate, this is a slippery slope. Mobile no-gun zones? Are you freaking serious?
jklaughrey
01-12-11, 12:20
I figured, I was just bringing levity. It without a doubt should be a diagnosis according to the DSM-V.
I agree...I think that's why their DB Sheriff is going so over-the-top with the right-wing rhetoric strawman; whatever can distract away from his own shortcomings.
I wonder how he hasn't been called out on that considering I saw this AM that he was a registered Dem... I have not heard Dems referred to as "right wing" in the past...
I wonder how he hasn't been called out on that considering I saw this AM that he was a registered Dem... I have not heard Dems referred to as "right wing" in the past...
Oh I'm sure he's a Dem. I'm not calling him right wing, I'm saying that his sole MO thus far has been to blame "right wing rhetoric" for inciting violence which is utter bullshit, and probably designed to distract away from himself.
Has Sheriff Dipstick been said to be "acting stupidly" by the Prez yet? Or maybe he is one LEO of AZ that is certain to abuse power as was charged by the opponents of their immigration law?
I agree...I think that's why their DB Sheriff is going so over-the-top with the right-wing rhetoric strawman; whatever can distract away from his own shortcomings.
I don't think he has the mental capacity to be aware of any possible failings by his department to handle Loghner. This is just Dupnik doing his typical pandering to the lefties that keep his worthless ass in power, and the voters in Pima County that are too stupid to know what's really going on in their county.
The citizens of Pima County are up to their necks in crime, especially when compared to neighboring Maricopa County. Thirty years of hyper-partisan Democrat-led law enforcement have resulted in the highest crime rates in Arizona. The citizen who lives in Pima County, compared to media-reviled Joe Arpaio's territory just next door, will have almost three times the chance of being murdered; is more than seven times as likely to be raped; is more than six times as likely to be assaulted; and more than seven times as likely to have experienced a property crime such as burglary, arson or car theft.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/dupniks_real_outrage_detroiton.html
Oh I'm sure he's a Dem. I'm not calling him right wing, I'm saying that his sole MO thus far has been to blame "right wing rhetoric" for inciting violence which is utter bullshit, and probably designed to distract away from himself.
Agree completely. It is typically their MO to deflect blame away from themselves whenever possible. It seems to be SOP with politicians and public servants in times like these.
This may be of helping in combatting this crap
--
Dr. E. Fuller Torrey: A Predictable Tragedy in Arizona - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073973345594508.html
--
ForTehNguyen
01-12-11, 16:34
Another point to consider:
If the shooter did indeed make multiple terroristic threats against his teachers,etc, why was he not charged and convicted of a felony for doing so?
The more information that comes out, the more proverbial egg will be on the face of the powers that be in Pima County.
His mother is a state worker for Parks and Recreation. It would be quite the inconvenience to have a son with a criminal record while being a state worker and all
I hope they write it and forget to provide the exemption for LE and security details.
The stupidity is boundless, apparently.
montanadave
01-12-11, 16:59
This may be of helping in combatting this crap
--
Dr. E. Fuller Torrey: A Predictable Tragedy in Arizona - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073973345594508.html
--
Excellent article which hits the nail squarely on the head. The deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, which began in earnest 50 years ago, was heralded by almost everyone as the humanitarian thing to do, moving psychiatric patients out of the back wards where they had been warehoused for years in often intolerable conditions. Unfortunately, once the decision was made to transfer these patients to the "least restrictive environment" (in the parlance of the the mental health field), that often translated into shoving them out of state hospitals into transitional care facilities, group homes and the like which were poorly regulated, underfunded, or simply nonexistent.
The ugly truth was that it was cheaper to keep these unfortunates locked up in a state hospital, frequently overmedicated and undertreated, than it was to provide the ongoing outpatient support and social services safety net required to transition them into the mainstream.
Deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was a good idea but, as is too often the case, the execution sucked.
I think that the reason for the mentally ill not recieving the care they need, or at the very least the confinement they need, is a cost issue more than it is a humanitarian issue. Here in the United States we do atleast one thing better than any other country in the world, and that is locking people up. Our country is home to about 5% of the total world population. It is also "home" to nearly 24% of the world's total incarcerated population. The general consensus for why our jails and prisons are full is because of the war on drugs, and the fact that we are opting to lock up often non violent drug offenders and let carzy folks such as ol Jared out on parole to make more room. For whatever reason, the criminal justice system has not realized that these mentlly ill people pose a GREAT threat to society when they are put on parole because they refuse to buy/take their meds. O know that it is a vicious circle, but public safety should be higher on their list than anything.
edit: I realize that the Arizona shooter was never incarcerated, but people like him are put back into society all the time.
The_War_Wagon
01-12-11, 17:57
If only liberalism was as IMMEDIATELY painful to THEM, as it is to the REST of us. :rolleyes:
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/thestupiditburns.jpg
Cars kill more people than guns - ban cars.
Government kills more people than cars. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
Why there's no more debate on gun control - Jan. 12, 2011 -- Fortune (Blog)
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/12/news/arizona_shooting_gun_control_debate.fortune/
----
This guy is totally dumb. He needs to be corrected (click on his name at the top of the article and you get his Reporter Page and there is an email him link at the bottom). I already sent him a message. Also, the editor at the NYT needs to know about his totally inaccurate and lying article that is really low on facts.
------
Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys? - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13kristof.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
-----
This guy is totally dumb. He needs to be corrected (click on his name at the top of the article and you get his Reporter Page and there is an email him link at the bottom). I already sent him a message. Also, the editor at the NYT needs to know about his totally inaccurate and lying article that is really low on facts.
------
Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys? - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13kristof.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
-----
Nothing but a severe psychopathy will drive someone to do something like that. Politicizing any tragedy is sickening. It was wrong when it was done to push through The "Patriot" Act after September 11, and it's wrong now.
Gun sales have gone up significantly in the past couple years while violent crime is on a decade long low and trending down. Which is a truly remarkable thing during a recession, since poverty has far more to do with violent crime than gun ownership.
I think the worst thing about articles like that is the statements they make like they are common sense facts, but are in fact backwards and unsupported statements. I believe it's intentional, which is even worse.
What ever happened to reporting in this country?
Why there's no more debate on gun control - Jan. 12, 2011 -- Fortune (Blog)
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/12/news/arizona_shooting_gun_control_debate.fortune/
----
Great article, thanks for sharing Chad.
GermanSynergy
01-13-11, 21:26
The American media is run by Leninists, that's what happened.
Rush Limbaugh & other conservative outlets are the only source for real news.
Nothing but a severe psychopathy will drive someone to do something like that. Politicizing any tragedy is sickening. It was wrong when it was done to push through The "Patriot" Act after September 11, and it's wrong now.
Gun sales have gone up significantly in the past couple years while violent crime is on a decade long low and trending down. Which is a truly remarkable thing during a recession, since poverty has far more to do with violent crime than gun ownership.
I think the worst thing about articles like that is the statements they make like they are common sense facts, but are in fact backwards and unsupported statements. I believe it's intentional, which is even worse.
What ever happened to reporting in this country?
Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys? - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13kristof.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Because no one is trying to outlaw toys.
I hope they write it and forget to provide the exemption for LE and security details.
The stupidity is boundless, apparently.
Similar to what happened in California, where the outgoing AG, Jerry Brown, just issued an opinion, that LE cannot keep their AW's they've purchased after they retire.
Even being ex-LE, I couldn't be happier......
Bolt_Overide
01-13-11, 22:47
We all knew that some shitheel politician would try to make political hay off of this.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-14-11, 08:51
I'm just trying to wrap my head around why King would do this. He is usually a pretty stand-up guy. I almost wonder if his wife is freaking out and is making him suggest this. Any rationale person knows that this is a BS way to protect people and the lack of any real CCW in NY would make him insensative to the reality in the states where their is CCW.
Someone should ask King if he wants to make one of the heros that held down the crazy till police arrived a felon. One of the guys was an armed CCW carrier.
Someone should ask King if he wants to make one of the heros that held down the crazy till police arrived a felon. One of the guys was an armed CCW carrier.
Even that's coming under fire. This idiot says it's a miracle that Zamudio (the CCW guy who helped subdue the shooter) didn't shoot the wrong person. The article is full of misconceptions (Oh no, he took the SAFETY off! Even though he didn't even clear leather...) and other blathering. All in all Zamudio was very smart about how he handled the situation. He knew that drawing the weapon was not the correct choice for the situation, and he left it in the holster. But some people just don't know what they don't know, and this moron Saletan is one of them.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
Belmont31R
01-14-11, 10:30
Even that's coming under fire. This idiot says it's a miracle that Zamudio (the CCW guy who helped subdue the shooter) didn't shoot the wrong person. The article is full of misconceptions (Oh no, he took the SAFETY off! Even though he didn't even clear leather...) and other blathering. All in all Zamudio was very smart about how he handled the situation. He knew that drawing the weapon was not the correct choice for the situation, and he left it in the holster. But some people just don't know what they don't know, and this moron Saletan is one of them.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
Concealed carry is not for us regular peons.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-14-11, 12:05
These grand "Reservoir Dogs" or "True Romance" where everyone shoots each other just don't happen. If you actually got to that kind of CCW density, bad guys wouldn't use guns anymore because they would be guaranteed of getting shot by someone.
King's main arguement that I've seen him put out is that security people would be able to use their ninja skills and know who is carrying and intercept them and ask if they have a gun.
From a real world standpoint, what really changes? How does PC change for them to search someone? If they see someone with glazed eyes and are fidgiting in their pockets, would this new law change how they approach and interact with the person?
These grand "Reservoir Dogs" or "True Romance" where everyone shoots each other just don't happen. If you actually got to that kind of CCW density, bad guys wouldn't use guns anymore because they would be guaranteed of getting shot by someone.
King's main arguement that I've seen him put out is that security people would be able to use their ninja skills and know who is carrying and intercept them and ask if they have a gun.
From a real world standpoint, what really changes? How does PC change for them to search someone? If they see someone with glazed eyes and are fidgiting in their pockets, would this new law change how they approach and interact with the person?
Its my understanding that hey already have Suburbans that are filled with electronics that can tell them if someone has a firearm on their person... However that level of security has always been reserved for POTUS etc and I don't think they care much about PC...
In all honesty I have always wondered about the lack of security that our congress members have including very high ranking senators etc.... They generally have NONE at all during their private every day lives. I am surprised that it has never been exploited in the past by those who wish to do us harm as a nation...
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-14-11, 12:48
I think the only true security they have, not to sound callous, is that they are highly replaceable. Sure we don't want to loose any of them but someone else fills in for them, probably with the same vision. What effect does that really have? I think that is why they haven't been that targeted in the past, or now- it really isn't a viable strategy. You can't whack your way into getting congress to change direction. That and the fact that no single person in congress is that much more important than the other, all their votes count for the same amount, so their power is pretty diffuse.
Belmont31R
01-17-11, 11:13
Updated 1st post with McCarthy mag ban.... http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/uploads/mccarthy-magazine_bill.pdf
lethal dose
01-17-11, 11:23
a whole lot of tomfoolery, there.
She can try all she wants but it's not going to happen! :mad:
It just seems very unlikely to pass in my opinion.
Wonder if this Demon even knows what a magazine is???
http://images5.cpcache.com/product_zoom/127317995v5_400x400_Front_Color-White.jpg
ForTehNguyen
01-17-11, 12:13
well here she is in all her intellectual glory - What is a barrel shroud?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
According to other posts the new speaker has said no new gun laws will up in this congress! Let's hope so.
Why would you know what something is before you try to ban it? Ban it quick, before more children die at the hands of the evil barrel shroud.
This is a big part of what bugs me about the whole legislative process now. Nobody voting on the bills even knows what they're reading about if they even bother to read them. I think maybe congressmen should have to pass a randomized test about the bill to have their vote count. Don't know anything about guns? Too bad, you don't get to vote on a bill about guns.
Belmont31R
01-17-11, 13:21
Why would you know what something is before you try to ban it? Ban it quick, before more children die at the hands of the evil barrel shroud.
This is a big part of what bugs me about the whole legislative process now. Nobody voting on the bills even knows what they're reading about if they even bother to read them. I think maybe congressmen should have to pass a randomized test about the bill to have their vote count. Don't know anything about guns? Too bad, you don't get to vote on a bill about guns.
What do they know about that they vote on? Hardly anything...
We've gotten to the point people in Congress admit in front of a camera they don't care if a bill is even constitutional. "We'll just leave it up to the courts."
What do they know about that they vote on? Hardly anything...
We've gotten to the point people in Congress admit in front of a camera they don't care if a bill is even constitutional. "We'll just leave it up to the courts."
Yup, code for "We're trying to rampantly expand the powers of the federal government."
Why would you know what something is before you try to ban it? Ban it quick, before more children die at the hands of the evil barrel shroud.
This is a big part of what bugs me about the whole legislative process now. Nobody voting on the bills even knows what they're reading about if they even bother to read them. I think maybe congressmen should have to pass a randomized test about the bill to have their vote count. Don't know anything about guns? Too bad, you don't get to vote on a bill about guns.
Worse than that is that people writing (or in reality probably more correctly sponsoring) the bills don't know what they mean.
A ban on mags may not pass the House, but couldn't it come about by Obama signing an Executive Order?
I dont think that even Obama would be willing to do this. He would put his reputation at too much risk, and would also shatter any doubt that he intends to act as a dictator rather than the President. Besides, he's got bigger fish in the fryer at the moment.
GermanSynergy
01-17-11, 20:25
You go ahead and hold on to that dream....
I dont think that even Obama would be willing to do this. He would put his reputation at too much risk, and would also shatter any doubt that he intends to act as a dictator rather than the President. Besides, he's got bigger fish in the fryer at the moment.
Heavy Metal
01-17-11, 20:37
A ban on mags may not pass the House, but couldn't it come about by Obama signing an Executive Order?
No, executive orders do not work that way.
Heavy Metal
01-17-11, 20:41
I dont think that even Obama would be willing to do this. He would put his reputation at too much risk, and would also shatter any doubt that he intends to act as a dictator rather than the President. Besides, he's got bigger fish in the fryer at the moment.
Obama isn't going to be given the opportunity. I swear, people. WE WON! WE WON BIG! WE HAVE AN OVERWHELMING ADVANTAGE IN THE HOUSE AND A SIGNIFICANT PRO-GUN MAJOITY IN THE SENATE! THE MOST PRO-GUN HOUSE EVER AND THE MOST A-RATED SENATORS EVER! 50 OF THEM! HALF THE SENATE IS A-RATED! THIS HOUSE AND SENATE ARE OUR WET DREAM COME TRUE FROM A PRO-GUN PERSPECTIVE!
Call your rep and senators, tell them you oppose this crap strongly and stop worrying about it. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than this passing into law. This isn't merely uphill, it is like up a cliff. Ridiculously improabable.
Heavy Metal
01-17-11, 20:58
To add one other point: Has anyone beides me noticed the complete lack of alarm on the part of the NRA?
Think they may know something?
The NRA I'm sure is just watching this. They know like most of us it's not going to happen at all! Sure the morons will bring up there bills but that's it! Heavy Metal I totally agree with your statements!
To add one other point: Has anyone beides me noticed the complete lack of alarm on the part of the NRA?
Think they may know something?
Yeah like the fact that this kind of law couldn't pass when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and sure as Hell won't pass with Republican control of the House.
Now I’m not saying that these sensible gun laws would have stopped this killer...
If that is the case how the heck are they sensible? Last time I checked criminal statutes were meant to punish or deter crime... and this law would admittedly accomplish nothing.
No, executive orders do not work that way.
From my understanding, executive orders can work any damn way the president wants them to.
A ban on mags may not pass the House, but couldn't it come about by Obama signing an Executive Order?
Executive Orders are orders to the Executive branch. They are not law. They can screw things up that way in a lot of regards though.
Belmont31R
01-18-11, 16:42
From my understanding, executive orders can work any damn way the president wants them to.
No. Executive orders are the presidents way of enforcing CURRENT law or exercising executive authority.
They cannot be used to make up new laws or enforce anything not already under their control. So a president cannot make up a new law all by himself. They are not even considered laws. They are just enforcement acts or powers that already exist.
Now Congress can give up regulatory authority like they have done with the ATF where Congress has given the ATF authority to interpret the law. However its still up to a court to decide the real legality of something. Like if the ATF said tomorrow all AR's are machine guns because they can readily be made into a machine gun they could bring charges against someone through Federal prosecutors but it would still have to go through the court system. Part of the checks and balances.
Sorta the same thing with the ban on new Gulf oil drilling. Congress has given the EPA broad authority to regulate environmental issues, and thus the president can use that granted regulatory authority to enact a ban. Sometimes Congress doesn't make smart choices, and gives the executive powers that can be tyrannical in nature if abused. Congress can always pass a new law rescinding that granted authority or the courts can rule against the executive.
While we don't have a perfect system we actually do have a lot of protections against abuse. When things go wrong is when the different parts of government are in collusion with each other like having a bunch of die hard liberals in the courts who ignore the Constitution and push their agenda. Congress and the executive tend to be in bed together when you get to like parties in charge. That is where we come in and fix that at the voting booth if people get out of hand. In the past there have been wars between the branches of government like FDR's 'war on the court'. Unfortunately the people voted him back into office 4 times and that war on the court led to a pretty statist SCOTUS for a long time. I am usually more worried about who is on the court than who is in charge of the senate. Laws can be overturned by a new Congress but SCOTUS rulings tend to stick around for a long time, and are the supreme law of the land.
But theres no granted authority to the executive to regulate magazine capacity since the AWB expired.
Heavy Metal
01-18-11, 16:43
From my understanding, executive orders can work any damn way the president wants them to.
Your understanding is severly flawed. There has to be an underlying law to base an EO on. "Making shit up" would constitute an order to commit a felony and be an intstant, cut and dried, impeachable offense.
If your interpretation was right, that would make the President a dictator and Congress superfluous.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-18-11, 19:27
Just listened to Mccarthy on Rick Slaters show (760 AM). She said that NO ONE needs more than 10 rounds, that a law abiding citizen would not be able to stop a shooting if he had a gun, and that the Civil War was not fought on principles of freedom but rather solely on slavery. She cant be reasoned with, only voted out.
Just listened to Mccarthy on Rick Slaters show (760 AM). She said that NO ONE needs more than 10 rounds,
So does she want to limit LEO and .mil to 10 rounds also?
No more belt fed?
No more chain guns?
Will B52s be legally limited to carrying 10 bombs at a time?
Magic_Salad0892
01-19-11, 00:50
that a law abiding citizen would not be able to stop a shooting if he had a gun
....
...What the ****?
Can somebody explain that one to me?
Belmont31R
01-19-11, 01:01
....
...What the ****?
Can somebody explain that one to me?
Part of the liberal agenda...reliant on the gov in some respect to do anything.
Then once they think they have enough laws the LEO's will be disarmed like they are in the UK.
variablebinary
01-19-11, 04:01
That fat piece of cow shit Ed Schultz had her on MSNBC tonight
What she said: "I don't want your guns. I just want your magazines"
That's akin to saying, I don't want your guns, I just want the barrels/bullets/triggers/etc etc etc...
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-19-11, 06:58
That fat piece of cow shit Ed Schultz had her on MSNBC tonight
What she said: "I don't want your guns. I just want your magazines"
That's akin to saying, I don't want your guns, I just want the barrels/bullets/triggers/etc etc etc...
You have Freedom of the Press, but we'll keep you from getting paper to print on.
You can vote, but we're not going to give you ballots.
The lady is mentally ill. She lost her husband and will only be happy if the rest of us are defenseless and suffer the same fate.
HeavyMetal and Belmont,
Thank you guys for clearing that up for me. I have always understood an EO as something the president is supposed to use to "guide" federal agencies so that they can more effectively enforce laws, but that they can also be used outside of that box as well. This made me think that EOs were some kind of presidential loophole that allowed for the President to sign in anything he felt "necessary".
:mad:
http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=155§iontree=189,155&itemid=1719
RancidSumo
01-20-11, 23:29
How exactly does she expect to enforce the section that forbids people from selling the mags they already own? Also, where the **** does she get the right to tell me that I cannot sell my property?
GermanSynergy
01-21-11, 01:11
Because she's a liberal, and that's how things work in their bizarre little world...
How exactly does she expect to enforce the section that forbids people from selling the mags they already own? Also, where the **** does she get the right to tell me that I cannot sell my property?
http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=155§iontree=189,155&itemid=1719
Incrementalism rears it's ugly head again.
Ron Paul - Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul717.html
Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to “do something” to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.
ForTehNguyen
01-21-11, 07:32
shes coming to Houston to receive rehabilitation treatment. We have world class facilities here.
How exactly does she expect to enforce the section that forbids people from selling the mags they already own? Also, where the **** does she get the right to tell me that I cannot sell my property?
Welcome to the existing law we already have in California.
Belmont31R
01-26-11, 20:06
Updated with more proposed bills and info....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.