Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamisjockey on January 10, 2011, 09:36:03 AM
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html
Hopefully Boenher has the balls to tell this moonbat no.
-
I don't think the American people are buying that any more. That ship has sailed. Too many have awakened. Of course, that won't keep the usual suspects from trotting out the ancient agenda.
-
I cam see it happening, easily.
Boehner:
Ok. Support me on repealing, stripping down or defunding ObamaCare. And we will respond by finding a middle ground on sensible gun control, but only if it does not go after hunters and sportsmen.
Far Left, gun grabbing whackaloons:
sure, we can do that. We will agree to revisit health care and revamp. And on the gun control. We will put a sunset provision, to make you feel better.
Probably not word for word, but damn close.
-
The Tea Party is about economics, but there's enough constitutionalists in the bunch that a sellout like that could result in the Republican Party's worst nightmare: the Tea Party movement becoming a third party.
I think Boehner is smarter than that.
-
I hope your right.
-
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1AehXg0vN
There's the real threat in that article.
-
One of the problems of course is, that after an incident like this, we see a runaway train of "We've got to do something!!!!" political responses. With politicians, if one side starts the train rolling, then the other side jumps on board as a self-defense measure, because they don't want the perception of callousness to be associated with them.
In reality, the only people who have to "do something" immediately are the operational first responders to the incident. Everyone else should be taking a step back and waiting until concrete information arrives, then give thoughtful consideration to potential political responses.
-
There's the real threat in that article.
Indeed. The slippery slope slide of "zero tolerance" from the classroom to the public at large.
-
Well, the 1A, as we all know, was designed to protect the very political speech some appear to want to ban. This, like a crackdown on the 2A, has been coming for a long, long time. They will, sooner or later, probably sooner, force the issue. Fine, it is what it is. We need to force the response, which is to defend liberty at all costs, any way we can.
-
There's the real threat in that article.
Don't forget the other alarming issue from the moonbat in NY. Stockpiling ammo. Who defines what a stockpile is?
-
No good American needs more than ten rounds. Didn't we learn that some years ago? How many enemies you got, anyway? :)
-
You know, I'm tired of taking the high road and using logic and facts when speaking to anti's. I'm not going to do that anymore. I'm going to call a spade by it's name. No violence, no threats, but instead of trying to logically present facts ( anti gun people just dont care) I will ask then why they like looking like idiots to reasonable people.
One can only have a logical debate if the other side is capable of seeing/understanding said logic. The anti's just dont care. They want guns banned. Logic and fact be damned.
-
I'm not opposed to that. It's the same approach that militant atheists are taking toward religious believers.
Know your audience, though. If it's some random blogger who isn't set on a hardline liberal hoplophobic position... someone who has written only one or two posts advocating gun control is more likely gun-control-curious rather than a gun control slut. Starting out by accusing such a person of being ignorant of logic is a bad move that will make you look like a jerk.
The nuclear option is best reserved for hard targets that have had ample opportunity to consider the issue logically, and have ignored that opportunity in favor of hoplophobic whinging.
-
Agreed. Was thinking along the same lines. Good post tyme
-
I refuse to login to NY Times, so can't link the story, but here's a quote from Brady Campaign that I saw on Calguns:
Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”
Bold mine. Interesting that they are arguing that a Glock is not suitable for personal protection.
-
The spokesman for the Brady group just admitted that there IS a gun suited to use for personal protection?
;)
-
Interesting that they are arguing that a Glock is not suitable for personal protection.
Only if you have a lot of people attacking you at once and you need to kill them all very quickly.
;)
-
It's not good for personal protection because it refuses to shoot at bad guys. It only shoots good people, a design flaw that Glock has been working to correct for years. The gun should have been recalled long ago, but the NRA has been blocking efforts by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to do so.
The flaw was first noticed in 1991, when a police officer drew his pistol and aimed it at a gang member who was pointing his gun at the officer. The officer fired, but the gun jerked a foot to his right and emptied the clip into a garbage can. The officer sustained multiple gunshot wounds from the gun the gang member fired, which is designed to only shoot police. These "cop killer guns" are not sold at Walmart or other sporting goods chain stores, but can be had through unregulated sales at gun shows via the "gun show loophole".
The cop killer guns are assault weapons that fire a 50 mm bullet and can easily be hidden in a pocket. Because of their relatively low cost, they're the weapon of choice for terrorists trying to shoot down commercial airliners.
-
And helicopters. You forgot to mention helicopters. Cause the gang member firearms have special bullets that home in on a helicopters rotors.
-
Don't forget the heat-seeking bullets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ
:facepalm:
-
A Glock is good for protecting yourself against the pack behavior that collectivists have done so much to encourage over the past decades.
***
For many of us the "debate," in the sense of rational argument, is over. The goal should not be co-existence but peaceful separation. There's a nation within this nation--maybe thirty per cent--that will never be compatible with anything we believe. The sooner we acknowledge that and realize the fight we're in the sooner we will be able to save this Republic.
-
I refuse to login to NY Times, so can't link the story, but here's a quote from Brady Campaign that I saw on Calguns:
Bold mine. Interesting that they are arguing that a Glock is not suitable for personal protection.
Someone better tell that to all those police being forced to carry inadequate firearms! ;/
-
I'm not opposed to that. It's the same approach that militant atheists are taking toward religious believers.
Know your audience, though. If it's some random blogger who isn't set on a hardline liberal hoplophobic position... someone who has written only one or two posts advocating gun control is more likely gun-control-curious rather than a gun control slut. Starting out by accusing such a person of being ignorant of logic is a bad move that will make you look like a jerk.
The nuclear option is best reserved for hard targets that have had ample opportunity to consider the issue logically, and have ignored that opportunity in favor of hoplophobic whinging.
I agree with tyme on this as well. I would like to add that even when I deal with really wacky hopolophobes, I generally try to keep is civil and "high road" and use as much fact an logic as possible. I do this not for the sake of the anti, but for the sake of fence sitters who may be watching in the sidelines.
-
It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”
And this has been my fear since Heller came through, with the "reasonable restrictions" language. I've heard it from many of the lawyers floating around the courthouse. The word is REVOLVER. "If you want to keep a revolver in your house for protection..." or "If you need to get a permit and carry a revolver..." or "You don't need some high capacity semi-auto like a SEAL Team/Delta Force member..." I fear that this shooting is going to sprout a real attack on semi-autos, or at least the mags over ten-rounds. I've even heard some fairly logical people, and fellow gun owners and enthusiasts saying that they don't need 15, 20, 25 round mags for hunting/recreation/protection.
I can see the argument being made in Congress and in Courts..."We're not saying that all guns should be restricted. We're saying that these automatics...these killing machines that can spew out 15/20/30 bullets without reloading...are the problem, and it's reasonable to ban these items because we are still allowing for individuals to own revolvers to protect themselves. After all, if revolvers won the West, armed our nations police for hundreds of years, and fought in both World Wars, that's good enough for John Q. Public to keep his family safe from what goes bump in the night."
So, my friends, I may be shopping for a new revolver soon. I fear the writing is on the walls...
-
Just a short blurb at the bottom of the linked story, but it looks like they're going for the ten round limit:
The revelation about the shooter's high-capacity magazines led one longtime Senate gun control advocate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., to announce plans to re-establish a prohibition that lapsed in 2004 on magazines that feed more than 10 rounds at a time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110111/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot
-
We all need to watch this very carefully. "One of their own" was a victim. Never mind the other victims. We can't trust republicans to no side it on some sort if gun ccontrol. We need to write, email, fax and if possible, go visit our critters. We need to let them know that new gun bans will not slove anything. We need to let house members know they could be facing stiff election challenges in 2 years If they jump on the "Ban" wagon.
Some of the statements coming from republicans are disturbing me. This is not just an attack on the 2A, it is also a full force attack on free speech. Our political class will be using this to further cement the divide between them and us. This will not just blow over, IMO. Some jacked up legislation will come of this.
-
Anyone who thinks they're going to stop at semi-automatics, or normal-cap magazines, is feeling way too comfortable. This hasn't been the pattern worldwide. The goal is plenary disarmament, and that will include knives, clubs, axes, icepicks, and fingernails before they're done--unless they are resisted forcefully. Subverting any right to self-defense is the ultimate aim. Our Anglophone allies abroad have already made the deal with the Devil, you know.
Everyone on this board knew the assault on the 1A and 2A was inevitable; it was only a question of when, of what the occasion for the attempt at suppression would be. Well, it's here.
-
a prohibition ... on magazines that feed more than 10 rounds at a time.
Good idea! Semi-autos can only chamber and fire one round at a time.
Feeding ten rounds at a time would cause one heck of a jam :P
-
Everyone on this board knew the assault on the 1A and 2A was inevitable; it was only a question of when, of what the occasion for the attempt at suppression would be. Well, it's here.
Yes it is here. What will happen? Who knows? I just have a bad feeling about this. Our critters have never really listened to what we want. The AWB was a direct knee jerk reaction from the Shootings in CO. We all know that when the Republicans took back congress in 94, they could have repealed the AWB. In the years that the Republicans held a majority in congress and had the white house, not one pro gun bill made it's way to becoming law. Save for the LEO nationwide carry (that us gun owners were hoodwinked to help with nothing in return). This will get nasty, fast. Real fast.
-
AWB in effect 09/13/94 - Columbine shootings 04/19/99.
Stockton, CA, Maybe? Luby's in Killeen? It makes bugger-all difference, but facts matter.
-
You are correct. Got my facts wrong on dates.
Fact remains, republicans did nothing.
-
Exactly how many normal-cap magazines were:
1. Ordered?
2. Back-ordered?
3. Manufactured?
4. Manufacturers put in raw materials purchase order for from their suppliers?
In September 2004?
And in the last 7 years, after having our rights violated for 10 years and seeing the economic microcosm of the FOPA and machine guns manifest itself in properly designed magazines, how many people have augmented the mag supply in civvie hands to what degree?
I know I've bought near fifty mags for various platforms (AR, M14, XD, CZ, Glock, Marlin 795) that exceed the old ban's limitations. Maybe even close to 100 mags.
Any legislation that even WHISPERS mag restrictions that so much as picks up an R-cosponsor will have me dropping a few hundred to a thousand bucks on plastic to further augment my mag situation. I'd probably double my mag situation, and even buy a reasonable load-out for any guns I'm even day-dreaming of buying, let alone actually own.
We all need to watch this very carefully. "One of their own" was a victim. Never mind the other victims. We can't trust republicans to no side it on some sort if gun ccontrol. We need to write, email, fax and if possible, go visit our critters. We need to let them know that new gun bans will not slove anything. We need to let house members know they could be facing stiff election challenges in 2 years If they jump on the "Ban" wagon.
Some of the statements coming from republicans are disturbing me. This is not just an attack on the 2A, it is also a full force attack on free speech. Our political class will be using this to further cement the divide between them and us. This will not just blow over, IMO. Some jacked up legislation will come of this.
BMOZ is 100% spot-on. They don't care about murder. They care about their own lives, and their own power. They also propose assaults on the 1A, as well as the 2A.
They're morally bankrupt cowards.
They're perfectly happy to attempt to strip us of speech and defense. They truly do not care.
-
And guns and ammo had just gotten back to reasonable prices.
-
I don't currently own any high cap stuff, but now I'm tempted to buy some high cap mags jic.
-
BMOZ is 100% spot-on. They don't care about murder. They care about their own lives, and their own power. They also propose assaults on the 1A, as well as the 2A.
They're morally bankrupt cowards.
They're perfectly happy to attempt to strip us of speech and defense. They truly do not care.
Interesting segue to this article. Note how they need budget increases to accomplish their goals.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/lawmakers-talk-gun-control-start-packing-heat/
-
Interesting segue to this article. Note how they need budget increases to accomplish their goals.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/lawmakers-talk-gun-control-start-packing-heat/
They don't need professional "Secret Service" style security to protect themselves.
This guy MIGHT have been forestalled by the resources available to the SS, but Representatives and Senators are supposed to be more approachable and accountable than the President.
(Although I'd argue that the President should also be as approachable as the House/Senate...)
If Giffords staffers had CCW permits, along with her, and actually carried with the intent of protecting themselves and their loved ones, they would have reacted instantly when the guy made motion to produce his Glock.
ONE STAFFER WITH A .38 DERRINGER COULD HAVE STOPPED THIS.
I wish to God that people would TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their own protection, instead of constantly trampling all over the rest of us. :'(
-
While a new capacity limit is an obvious attack angle, I'm more worried about increased purchase restrictions, based on comments about the inadequacy of current NICS/background checks. Imagine a DHS-administered screening requirement authorized administratively under Obamacare.
-
Imagine a DHS-administered screening requirement authorized administratively under Obamacare.
Or a DHS Check, administered by the TSA.
I am a strong supporter of 2A rights, and still wanting some restrictions we deal with now to go bye bye. But what is scaring me the most is the attack on free speech. That is chilling. They are both intertwined, but with speech regulations, they can twist it so much that whoever is tasked with defining what is extreme speech would be King.
-
Interesting segue to this article. Note how they need budget increases to accomplish their goals.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/lawmakers-talk-gun-control-start-packing-heat/
Jessie Jackson Jr. His stance makes me laugh. He wants more tax dollars for protection, to move offices to safer places, making the divide greater between the political class and the people. He can have his extra dollars, just trim it off the entitlement programs he is so fond of.
This will not end good. The 1st and the 2nd amendment will take severe hits before this is over.
-
Some of the congress critters are crapping their pants over their safety.
Dan Burton Wants a Plexiglas Bubble surrounding congress:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028139-503544.html
Peter King wants to outlaw weapons within 1,000 feet of representatives.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/11/5814091-ny-republican-wants-to-outlaw-guns-near-officials-judges
-
And of course it had to be Republicans to be first to jump on that bandwagon. What an embarrassment. If we encase them in Plexiglas, do we have to let them out?
-
Better idea, make a law outlawing all representatives within 1000' of congress.
This is a great week for congresscritters to follow that wise old adage: Don't just do something, sit there!
-
All of this was going to happen. Better it happens now than, say, 20 years ago or 20 years from now. We are aware, awake, and can push back.
-
And of course it had to be Republicans to be first to jump on that bandwagon.
Hence why I say we can't trust them. There are now 3 things that ensure bipartisan actions, 1) a pay raise (republicans and democrats will step over any differences to vote themselves a raise 2) threat of a 3rd party (republicans and democrats will band together and go o the mat to prevent the rise of a 3rd party 3) **newest** that one of their own a victim, both parties only give a damn about themselves. The Constitution is an afterthought.
-
Peter King wants to outlaw weapons within 1,000 feet of representatives.
333 yards is a pretty easy shot with a rifle. ;/
-
Some of the statements coming from republicans are disturbing me.
Which comments? Which Republicans?
You are correct. Got my facts wrong on dates.
Fact remains, republicans did nothing [about the AWB].
Uh, no. You got your facts wrong again.
The actual fact is that Repubs did everything in their power to oppose the AWB, including passing a repeal in the House in '95 or '96 (filibustered by Senate Dems), forcing the sunset provision into the original bill, and quashing multiple attempts to renew the ban when the sunset came up.
I'm sorry that we couldn't defeat the AWB outright, but we certainly did try. Absent our efforts, the AWB would have been more onerous than it was, and it'd still be in force today.
You're welcome. ;)
(I hate having to constantly nag everyone about the Republicans, but so long as these knee-jerk attitudes and outright falsehoods persist, someone must keep the record straight.)
-
gonna be pesky with facts and reality are ya? >:D statist! [popcorn]
-
Dan Burton Wants a Plexiglas Bubble surrounding congress:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028139-503544.html
A bubble around congress? Ah, no, not exactly.
Burton's idea was to glass-over the opening between the visitor's gallery and the floor of the House, mainly to prevent protesters (think Code Pink) from disrupting the proceedings. He discussed it briefly on a local radio show a while back, and it made a bit of sense when he described the rationale. While it didn't strike me as an OMG-we-must-do-this-right-now kinda thing, it also didn't strike me as particularly foolish either.
-
The actual fact is that Repubs did everything in their power to oppose the AWB, including passing a repeal in the House in '95 or '96 (filibustered by Senate Dems), forcing the sunset provision into the original bill, and quashing multiple attempts to renew the ban when the sunset came up.
Ok. I stand corrected again. In 95 and 96 they tried to repeal. Hmm. 97, 98, 99, 01, 02, 03- any attempts at repeal. You seem to know the facts, more than I. Was their any pro gun legislation passes between 94 and 08? Nothing comes to mind.
And thanks for the correction. I prefer to have good facts, I was slipping one this one. Maybe you can give us a little history on Peter King, the current republican calling for gun legislation.
-
Dan Burton Wants a Plexiglas Bubble surrounding congress:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028139-503544.html
Can we make it airtight, soundproofed and opaque?
-
Congress is already in a bubble. Can it get any thicker? The thicker the insulation the greater the outside anger will be that they fear so. Shame they don't/won't get that.
Obama's talking tomorrow down in Tucson. If he blames the shooting on "the Right" I think all bets are off. But then everyone knew this year and the next would be "interesting" in the extreme.
-
Ok. I stand corrected again. In 95 and 96 they tried to repeal. Hmm. 97, 98, 99, 01, 02, 03- any attempts at repeal. You seem to know the facts, more than I. Was their any pro gun legislation passes between 94 and 08? Nothing comes to mind.
The Repubs never had enough control of the Senate to override the Dems on the AWB, so all action on that front was stopped.
There was a manufacturer lawsuit protection bill somewhere in there, but my memory is foggy on that point.
Overall, it was a stalemate between the Reps and Dems on gun control, and most everything else. A lot of us were really freaked out about the 2008 election results, because the Dems gained the numbers to break the stalemate and they could have passed anything they wanted. We couldn't have stopped them. As it turns out, their attention was focussed on other (arguably more dangerous) policies, not gun control, and with the 2010 elections we're now back to stalemate.
And thanks for the correction. I prefer to have good facts, I was slipping one this one. Maybe you can give us a little history on Peter King, the current republican calling for gun legislation.
I'm not familiar with Peter King. He seems to be a lackey of Mayor Bloomberg. He's not from my neighborhood, not the way Burton is, and his brand of Republicanism is foreign to me and my Hoosier ways.
Time will tell whether his proposal is anything more than hot air. I suspect it's not, but we'll see. If it does amount to something real, there are a good many of us ready to stand up and chop him down to size.
-
...... Dan Burton Wants a Plexiglas Bubble surrounding congress: ......
I prefer something more escape-proof ..... :laugh: [tinfoil]
-
Time dilation field. It didn't quite stop the replicators in Stargate, but while Legiscritters are more dangerous, I don't think with 1 physicist* in Congress it is capable of dealing with something like that*, so their risk of escape is zero.
(* Bill Foster (D-IL) wasn't re-elected. Neither was Vernon Ehlers. Are there any other physicists in Congress other than Rush Holt?)
Interestingly, there's an article with quotes from Bill Foster about this tragic incident.
http://couriernews.suntimes.com/news/3247291-418/foster-constituents-events-giffords-public.html
-
I'm pretty fed up with the all the BS "reasons" attributed to the nutbag that did this.
Every partisan hack rectum with an axe to grind finds a way to blame the other side.
"It is an attack on our way of life."
"It is an attack on our system of government."
What a load of crap.
It was an act of madness perpetrated by a mad man.
And, like any number of other such atrocities, we are starting to find out that there were many warning signs and some serious red flags raised that in hind sight could (should?) have prevented this.
In my mind the worst offender may be that idiot POS sheriff. He had mutliple contacts with the shooter and declined to persue charges. I wonder if it had anything to do with the boys mother working for the county supervisors.
We have to be more civil, civil my ass, the next time I have some pissant liberal tell me some talk radio host caused I'm gonna explain in intimate detail why they are a freaking moron and are not fit to roam free in civilized society.
I think the biggest danger that is likely to come out of this is to the freedom of speech.
-
Instead of worrying about the madness perpetrated by one man in Tucson, we should be worrying about the madness perpetrated by many men (and women) in high places. They are assassinating this Republic, nothing less. This is the usual anecdotal distraction.
-
Instead of worrying about the madness perpetrated by one man in Tucson, we should be worrying about the madness perpetrated by many men (and women) in high places. They are assassinating this Republic, nothing less. This is the usual anecdotal distraction.
i do agree! and thats remarkable in and of itself
-
Part of the rhetoric is the fact a Congresswoman was attacked. Sort of the same link you feel if a co-worker, schoolmate, someone right on your street is attacked. That's only natural.
Imagine what it would look/sound like if the MSM was being systematically stalked/attacked. [tinfoil]
-
Boy they are shifting into overdrive.
Link. Caution. Take blood pressure meds
http://m.cnn.com/primary/_A5tDLq-ilZDtHMFjU
-
Boy they are shifting into overdrive.
Link. Caution. Take blood pressure meds
http://m.cnn.com/primary/_A5tDLq-ilZDtHMFjU
And this article should decrease the BP...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-12-poll-ariz-shooting_N.htm?csp=34news
And there is little sense that stricter gun control laws in Arizona might have averted the tragedy. Only one in five say they would have prevented the shooting; 72% say tighter controls wouldn't have prevented it.
It seems the American people are well-educated, finally.
-
Although now it looks like Palin will have to respond once again because of her use of the term "blood libel". I'll need to admit my ignorance in that I've never heard the term (that I remember) or knew of its roots.
-
No one has the right to monopolize the language. That's Orwellian, no matter how unctuous those who protest. This is just one more symptom of exactly what is wrong today with American society.
-
Although now it looks like Palin will have to respond once again because of her use of the term "blood libel". I'll need to admit my ignorance in that I've never heard the term (that I remember) or knew of its roots.
I think "blood libel" sums it up nicely. It's when one group falsely accuses another group of murder, then uses said accusations as a justification to kill or attack them.
I've heard of it being used mostly in the context of religious groups. Early Christians were accused of stealing good little children and draining them for their blood, to be used during communion, thus justifying lions and whatnot. During the medieval/Crusades period, it was used by Christians against Jews. I imagine it's an element serious hardcore prejudices all throughout the ages.
A political blood libel definitely describes what's being directed at Palin right now. Kudos to her for describing it that way, it's a very blunt, direct and succinct way to put it.
The media are going to howl over it, though. They don't like it when someone pulls the curtain back and exposes their deceits for what they are.
-
And now we're going to see legislation banning "hate symbols" such as cross hairs.
And Palin is taking a ton of heat for her statement, a statement that lamented the out of control comments and hyperbole. IOW, more out of control comments are being used to attack her lamentation of the use of out of control comments.
-
I hope Palin sticks to her guns, pun intended. Blood Libel is correct. Leftwing news can pound sand.
-
Good idea! Semi-autos can only chamber and fire one round at a time.
Feeding ten rounds at a time would cause one heck of a jam :P
works just fine in my 10 barrel ak. :cool:
:laugh:
-
Can we make it airtight, soundproofed and opaque?
don't forget airtight. we wouldn't want any germs getting in there. :angel:
redacted, bad sang. posting on oxy again. what's wrong with you. :facepalm:
-
. . . and there it goes?
http://www.slate.com/id/2280971/pagenum/all/
Maybe it was a waste of time for me to spend most of Wednesday asking members of Congress what sort of odds gun-control- or mental-health-funding legislation had. Some members tactfully explained that discussion like this could wait for another day. Others reacted to the question as if they'd been asked whether there should be stiffer regulations on what kind of shoes dragons are allowed to wear.
-
. . . and there it goes?
http://www.slate.com/id/2280971/pagenum/all/
They might be giving up this round.
this is not the Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act or the post-Virginia Tech bill. It's the Tea Party Congress. That was never clearer than when dozens of freshmen and staunch conservatives who are popular in the movement lined up to sign the Giffords condolence book, then explained to reporters why the worst possible response to the tragedy would be some new bill—on guns, on mental health, on anything.
Some whining from Barney Frank when asked about the possibility of new legislation:
"The Republicans are in power and have generally opposed it," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. I started to point out that some of Frank's fellow Democrats were arguing that Saturday's tragedy changed the legislative picture because it directly affected a member of the House. Frank politely interrupted me.
"I'm sorry, don't argue with me," he said. "Have you read what John Boehner said? Do you know who Republicans are? I'm telling you what they say, and you're going to give me a logical argument for it? There's always been a separate argument for how much you should be able to shoot without reloading. It doesn't interfere with your right to defend your home, or shoot a deer, or anything. But given the Republicans' religious view of this, I don't see how it's going to happen."
It is encouraging to see Frank throwing his hands up in disgust on this one. Hopefully, this is a signal that the antis aren't going to try to fight too hard for legislation this time around.
-
That's right, don't argue with him. Don't you know who he is? And don't you know that he knows all, including everything about Republicans (including the fact that they eat babies)?
-
I'm telling you what they say, and you're going to give me a logical argument for it?
Ha ha, that cracks me up. Don't you dare use logic!
-
Ya gotta love Barney Frank. He almost single handedly destroyed the U.S. economy, and yet he still has the chutzpah to show his face in public.
-
Ha ha, that cracks me up. Don't you dare use logic!
In Barney's defense (and I HATE defending him), it's more likely he's saying, "You don't have to convince me of the logic of pushing gun control now, I want it but I'm telling you it won't happen."
He's annoyed the guy is trying to convince him of something he already knows isn't happening.
-
He's annoyed the guy is trying to convince him of something he already knows isn't happening.
That was my impression as well.
-
Wow. Just how stupid is King?
“I‘m not saying that a person’s going to follow the law, but I’m saying it gives the police an extra weapon themselves to use,” he said. “They would have the right to take the weapon from the person.”
According to King, he’s also hoping police will be trained to detect suspicious “behavioral traits,” which will prevent non-threatening people from being targeted
.
Yep. That will work out good. Not.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/laura-ingraham-calls-out-gop-rep-over-his-strict-gun-law-proposal/
-
Mad Ogre offers this: "You know, we have a lot of people in Federal Offices, and Judges. Do you know all of them? Can you recognize them all 300 yards away? I know I can’t. So when Representative King in New York, a Republican mind you, says that he’s introducing legislation... well... here. Check this out. This is a hard thing to make work. I know all of us are Good Law Abiding Subjects and none of us want to break the Law. So how do we know who these judges are from a distance? To prevent this bill from creating hundreds of thousands of new criminals every day, I have a couple suggestions. First, each Federal Judge must wear a large bright green foam rubber cowboy hat. This makes them visible from 300 yards away. “But what if they are in a crowd or something?” That’s a good question. They must also carry with them a bunch of helium balloons. This why all members of congress and judges can be seen from 300 yards away and anyone with a gun on them can easily avoid them. I think this is an elegant solution to a serious problem. I also suggest carpooling for Congress and the Judges, because this 300 yard rule doesn't just end at the curb... and they want to go green, so it needs to be an economical car, right?"
-
Mad Ogre offers this: "You know, we have a lot of people in Federal Offices, and Judges. Do you know all of them? Can you recognize them all 300 yards away? I know I can’t. So when Representative King in New York, a Republican mind you, says that he’s introducing legislation... well... here. Check this out. This is a hard thing to make work. I know all of us are Good Law Abiding Subjects and none of us want to break the Law. So how do we know who these judges are from a distance? To prevent this bill from creating hundreds of thousands of new criminals every day, I have a couple suggestions. First, each Federal Judge must wear a large bright green foam rubber cowboy hat. This makes them visible from 300 yards away. “But what if they are in a crowd or something?” That’s a good question. They must also carry with them a bunch of helium balloons. This why all members of congress and judges can be seen from 300 yards away and anyone with a gun on them can easily avoid them. I think this is an elegant solution to a serious problem. I also suggest carpooling for Congress and the Judges, because this 300 yard rule doesn't just end at the curb... and they want to go green, so it needs to be an economical car, right?"
I c wut u did ther - or rather, what M.O. did. =D
Do they need to wear big floppy shoes and red rubber noses, too? Hey, I just realized something - that'd be truth in advertising, wouldn't it? :lol:
"How many Congresspeople can you fit into a car?" :laugh:
-
42 :laugh:
-
Wilkow made a prediction that after all the crap being done in Giffords name, should she make a full recovery, she'll likely go (I) or (R).
I guess what I find the most contemputous (sic) of the whole thing, is how quickly they unshelved the gun control stuff.
-
contemputous (sic)
(sic) does not mean what you think it means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic), unless you were quoting that spelling from someone else I have yet to find.