Gun Control Proposed in US House

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

N.Y. Republican wants to outlaw guns near officials, judges

From NBC’s Michael Isikoff and Luke Russert

New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.

King announced the measure at a press conference today with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who heads a gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and who is backing the bill. King's move may indicate there may be gaining momentum for some sort of gun-control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting.

King's spokesman was unable to immediately say whether the congressman, who has been generally supportive of gun control measures, would back a separate bill being pushed by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban the kind of high capacity magazines that alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, used during Saturday's attack.
Here is part of King's statement:

“Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.”

King is a moderate Republican from a state with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. He has often worked with Bloomberg on gun issues. It remains to be seen whether any of his fellow Republicans would sign on to such a bill. Remember, the new GOP-led House is composed of many members that have strong pro-gun ratings from the National Rifle Association.

Personally, I think he's an idiot.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[firemedic 7]

Quote

Quote

N.Y. Republican wants to outlaw guns near officials, judges

From NBC’s Michael Isikoff and Luke Russert

New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.

King announced the measure at a press conference today with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who heads a gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and who is backing the bill. King's move may indicate there may be gaining momentum for some sort of gun-control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting.

King's spokesman was unable to immediately say whether the congressman, who has been generally supportive of gun control measures, would back a separate bill being pushed by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban the kind of high capacity magazines that alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, used during Saturday's attack.
Here is part of King's statement:

“Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.”

King is a moderate Republican from a state with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. He has often worked with Bloomberg on gun issues. It remains to be seen whether any of his fellow Republicans would sign on to such a bill. Remember, the new GOP-led House is composed of many members that have strong pro-gun ratings from the National Rifle Association.

Personally, I think he's an idiot.

+1 on the idiot.

Maybe they should ban mental illness instead.
It would have the same effect as banning carrying a gun within 1000' of a politician or judge as well as possessing a hi capacity magazine.

[scruffy 0]

Being reactionary beats being reasonable any day in Washington it seems.

I've shaken hands with my rep while carrying and the world didn't come to an end.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[doughboyshred 0]

The last thing we need is a law to restrict our ability to overthrow the government if ever necessary. IMO the most important part of our second amendment rights is that if our government were ever to turn against us (Think Myanmar), then we have the ability to fight back. Regardless would a law like this have kept Loughtner from carrying to the event? Not a chance. Could it have restricted the ability of the private security guard that was there from having a gun? Possibly. Completely misguided (as are most gun control attempts).

[champu 1]

Quote

...it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.”

Schools are buildings. Buildings have pre-defined locations. Government officials are people. People have legs and other means locomotion. This idea is intellectually bankrupt.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.

Bzzzt. Incorrect. It wouldn't have done a darned thing for the Tuscon shooting - his gun was concealed until he pulled it out and started shooting.

Anti-gun folks just don't get reality: Passing laws does not stop madmen.

And what about the people that live in the neighborhood with the judges? Are they all going to have to surrender their guns and forfeit their 2nd Amendment rights?

The knee-jerk stupid reactions will continue like this for a while...

[D22369 0]

Anti-gun folks just don't get reality: Passing laws does not stop madmen.
***


Exactly! all gun laws do is keep law abiding citizens from defending themselves from someone who doesnt give a shit about the law - admittedly the odds of needing to defend yourself from some waste of oxygen shoulda been aborted fucktard is relatively low, its nice to have the option to protect yourself and your family if needed rather than depending on 911 which we all know is government sponsored dial-a-prayer.

how bout we change the law a tad bit, make anything other than a justified self defense shooting a manditory death sentence? make the penalty stiff enough and the crimes will slow to a trickle. - there will always be a few dumbasses who will give it a go, but many who may be tempted to pull a gun and shoot will think of the penalty and decide not to.

fuck the bleeding heart twats, I dont give a shit about the criminals bad childhood or whether his father "touched him" no insanity defense allowed .... mad dogs (canines) are put down, and those poor bastards dont have morality, (which people supposably do) - but sometimes I seriously doubt

100+ years ago most people carried guns and for the most part people were polite and didnt start shit, imagine whipping out your gun back then and shooting someone, you would probably get several shots off before you had some incoming... nowdays peeps seem to want to be victims... I honestly dont understand the mentality...

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

how bout we change the law a tad bit, make anything other than a justified self defense shooting a manditory death sentence? make the penalty stiff enough and the crimes will slow to a trickle. - there will always be a few dumbasses who will give it a go, but many who may be tempted to pull a gun and shoot will think of the penalty and decide not to.

Remember.. many of these guys end up dead with self inflicted gunshot wounds... or the even more commmon Death by Cop. No deterring someone who want to die but wants to take as many with him as possible

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

The last thing we need is a law to restrict our ability to overthrow the government if ever necessary. IMO the most important part of our second amendment rights is that if our government were ever to turn against us (Think Myanmar), then we have the ability to fight back. Regardless would a law like this have kept Loughtner from carrying to the event? Not a chance. Could it have restricted the ability of the private security guard that was there from having a gun? Possibly. Completely misguided (as are most gun control attempts).

Violence is not the answer. The way to "fight back" against government is non-violent non-cooperation. Violence undermines righteousness. Besides, the government has you hopelessly out gunned anyway, and would crush any violent (popular or not) opposition.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

The last thing we need is a law to restrict our ability to overthrow the government if ever necessary. IMO the most important part of our second amendment rights is that if our government were ever to turn against us (Think Myanmar), then we have the ability to fight back. Regardless would a law like this have kept Loughtner from carrying to the event? Not a chance. Could it have restricted the ability of the private security guard that was there from having a gun? Possibly. Completely misguided (as are most gun control attempts).

Violence is not the answer. The way to "fight back" against government is non-violent non-cooperation. Violence undermines righteousness. Besides, the government has you hopelessly out gunned anyway, and would crush any violent (popular or not) opposition.

You are mistaking the military with the government. They are separate entities, and most military personnel have privately owned firearms as well.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The last thing we need is a law to restrict our ability to overthrow the government if ever necessary. IMO the most important part of our second amendment rights is that if our government were ever to turn against us (Think Myanmar), then we have the ability to fight back. Regardless would a law like this have kept Loughtner from carrying to the event? Not a chance. Could it have restricted the ability of the private security guard that was there from having a gun? Possibly. Completely misguided (as are most gun control attempts).

Violence is not the answer. The way to "fight back" against government is non-violent non-cooperation. Violence undermines righteousness. Besides, the government has you hopelessly out gunned anyway, and would crush any violent (popular or not) opposition.

You are mistaking the military with the government. They are separate entities, and most military personnel have privately owned firearms as well.

Do you believe that the military will sit idly by during an attempt to overthrow the government?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[diablopilot 2]

Sure, lets just allow the "Royalty" or the country to be that much more separate from the masses.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Do you believe that the military will sit idly by during an attempt to overthrow the government?

depending on the situation I believe there may be members of the military who will disobey orders to act on US soil against US citizens.

--
Rob

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The last thing we need is a law to restrict our ability to overthrow the government if ever necessary. IMO the most important part of our second amendment rights is that if our government were ever to turn against us (Think Myanmar), then we have the ability to fight back. Regardless would a law like this have kept Loughtner from carrying to the event? Not a chance. Could it have restricted the ability of the private security guard that was there from having a gun? Possibly. Completely misguided (as are most gun control attempts).

Violence is not the answer. The way to "fight back" against government is non-violent non-cooperation. Violence undermines righteousness. Besides, the government has you hopelessly out gunned anyway, and would crush any violent (popular or not) opposition.

You are mistaking the military with the government. They are separate entities, and most military personnel have privately owned firearms as well.

Do you believe that the military will sit idly by during an attempt to overthrow the government?

Our military is made up of individuals, many of which would join in an armed revolt if one became necessary.

[skyrider 0]

Unfuckin Believable!

and even harder to believe he calls himself a republican!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you believe that the military will sit idly by during an attempt to overthrow the government?

It depends upon how bad the government is. If it's bad enough, they might even go so far as to assist in the overthrow.

Fortunately, the checks and balances we have built into our system should prevent the government from ever reaching that point.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Do you believe that the military will sit idly by during an attempt to overthrow the government?

It depends upon how bad the government is. If it's bad enough, they might even go so far as to assist in the overthrow.

Fortunately, the checks and balances we have built into our system should prevent the government from ever reaching that point.

Check your history. Who do you think generally fuels revolutions?

The legislation is ridiculous. The Secret Service already keeps people from carrying around their charges. The other elected officials generally have some form of security in public as well. How do you enforce such a thing? Isn't anyone likely to shoot you really unconcerned that it is illegal to carry the weapon near you?

Laws dreamed up in emotional circumstances are usually very, very bad laws.

What is really scary is that this guy wants to insulate the government from the people...like nobility...if elected officials are afraid of the electorate, they might want to address the question of why...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Do you believe that the military will sit idly by during an attempt to overthrow the government?

It depends upon how bad the government is. If it's bad enough, they might even go so far as to assist in the overthrow.
.
.
.

Replying to the thought here, not the poster...

"Might" is the key word here. I think the likelihood of that happening in the U.S. is right there next to nil regardless of how bad it got.

I think the idea of an attempted overthrow of the U.S. g'ment is loony at best and would never succeed. It would be insane to even try...it would be "suicide by law enforcement".

It would take a coordinated effort by many and there is no way to get enough people together to even vote out the BS politicians much less put together a coordinated movement such as that. Americans are just too stoopid. There will never be another Boston Tea Party.

Besides that, as witnessed in the past with no hope for change in the future, the Feds will trample all over the constitution to waylay anyone even thinking about that...much less actually attempting it.

Freedom...BS. I, for one, do not enjoy living in a police state where "rights" are little more than words written on an old piece of paper to be interpreted, re-interpreted and re-interpreted again until they are twisted sufficiently to fit whatever definition fits your "I know what's best for you" definition.

With respect to weapons...I like Florida's "stand-your-ground" law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110112/ap_on_re_us/us_self_defense_shooting

"TAMPA, Fla. – A pistol-packing jogger in Florida won't be charged for shooting and killing a teenager who attacked him during a midnight run.

Prosecutors said Tuesday they are convinced Thomas Baker acted in self defense when he fired eight shots at 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier near Tampa in November .

Prosecutors say Florida's "stand-your-ground" law was a factor in their decision. The law, passed in 2005, gives people the right to use deadly force as long as they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to stop another person from hurting them."

BANG! One less asshole that creates problems for ALL of us.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

You just cant help yourself can you John.

GUNS FOR EVERYONE

Thats the ticket

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

Best post I have read in weeks!

[davjohns 1]

I don't see us ever returning to the old west...but it was a pretty polite place. Men tipped their hats to ladies and made way for them on the sidewalk. You left your gun in the holster and acted like a polite person unless you wanted twenty other guns pointed at you.

Bill the Kid is still notorious because he killed 21 men. Today's serial killers get into triple digits before we can track them down. And they don't necessarily even use firearms.

I'm not advocating. Just pointing out facts. If more people in the crowd were armed, the shooter might not have gotten many rounds off...or random fire might have hurt even more. Hard to say in this situation. But we can cite quite a few situations where an armed public could have made a disaster into a much smaller tragedy. Check the front of American Rifleman to verify.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

Best post I have read in weeks!

How many people have you "cut" again???
In all my travels around the world.. I have never felt the need to "cut" nor to shoot anyone.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.

think of the implementation details. They'll all need to wear a 10ft flagpole with a NO GUNS flag on it, with flashing lights, so people can see them coming and cross the street to go the other direction.

Of course this also works great as a targeting beacon for anyone that is interested in shooting said royalty.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A better idea.. is to make sure a guy like Jared never had a chance to walk into the store and legally buy the Glock. If we are going to have a NICS... for heavens sake lets get people like him and Cho on the damn thing in the first place.

Uh-huh, and if we start putting people on a no-guns list just because they act a little crazy now and then, where is that going to lead? I can imagine that the many hate-filled rants you have spewed in this forum, might constitute a case that YOU should be on that list too.

You just cant help yourself can you John.

GUNS FOR EVERYONE

Thats the ticket

so are you going to join Kallend in again ignoring the obvious problems with your solution? The loss of privacy, loss of rights, and the consequences (increased violence) that will come from discouraging people from going to see a shrink?