PDA

View Full Version : And the unthinking stupidity begins...



AngelAuthor
Jan 11th 2011, 07:16 PM
GOP REP. WILL INTRODUCE NEW STRICT GUN LAW
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gop-rep-will-introduce-gun-control-legislation/


A popular GOP congressman announced today that he will soon introduce gun control legislation that will make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.
Why?


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.
NO IT WON'T!! Laws like this have no effect on nutjobs like Loughner!! Had this law been in effect a week ago you know what would have happened on Saturday?

EXACTLY WHAT DID HAPPEN! It's not like he used some massive rifle, or shotgun strapped to his back that people would have been able to see and intercept him before he got close. It was an ordinary glock handgun.

Sorry. I expected this kind of absurd control/power-grab right after this happened, but it still hacks me off to see it.

Clavicula_Nox
Jan 11th 2011, 07:19 PM
A certain NC US Representative is having himself deputized so that he can carry a concealed weapon anywhere, legally ignoring restrictions on locations that normall prohibit such carrying. I interpreted this as the ruling class arming itself while simultaneously attempting to disarm the plebes. I was annoyed.

AngelAuthor
Jan 11th 2011, 07:21 PM
That's along the lines of another thing that's annoying me: another congressperson is talking about introducing a bill to increase penalties for shooting a federal official. Again...WHY? They're nothing but a human just like the rest of us and I see no reason why killing them should be any more severe a crime than killing an ordinary schmuck who works at McDonald's. This top-down, institutionalized class warfare has to stop.

RabbiKnife
Jan 11th 2011, 07:24 PM
GOP REP. WILL INTRODUCE NEW STRICT GUN LAW
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gop-rep-will-introduce-gun-control-legislation/


Why?


NO IT WON'T!! Laws like this have no effect on nutjobs like Loughner!! Had this law been in effect a week ago you know what would have happened on Saturday?

EXACTLY WHAT DID HAPPEN! It's not like he used some massive rifle, or shotgun strapped to his back that people would have been able to see and intercept him before he got close. It was an ordinary glock handgun.

Sorry. I expected this kind of absurd control/power-grab right after this happened, but it still hacks me off to see it.

If Representative King thinks that federal law prohibits carrying a handgun or gun within 1000 feet of a school, he should read U.S. v. Lopez.

There is no such law. The law that replaced the pre-Lopez law is pretty weak, not nearly as restrictive as Rep. King would have you believe.

This was the first case in the re-awakening of the Supremes to tell Congress "enough already with your stupid, overreaching laws that try to use the Commerce Clause to regulate where and when a bear and defecate in the woods and everything else you idiots want to control."

Firefighter
Jan 11th 2011, 07:24 PM
It's not like he used some massive rifle, or shotgun strapped to his back that people would have been able to see and intercept him before he got close.

If he had a rifle, it wouldn't be necessary to get within 1000 feet. ;)

RabbiKnife
Jan 11th 2011, 07:25 PM
That's along the lines of another thing that's annoying me: another congressperson is talking about introducing a bill to increase penalties for shooting a federal official. Again...WHY? They're nothing but a human just like the rest of us and I see no reason why killing them should be any more severe a crime than killing an ordinary schmuck who works at McDonald's. This top-down, institutionalized class warfare has to stop.

Just trying to pass laws to protect them while they steal.

Let them eat cake!

RabbiKnife
Jan 11th 2011, 07:26 PM
If he had a rifle, it wouldn't be necessary to get within 1000 feet. ;)

If the right person had the right rifle, it wouldn't be necessary to get within 1000 meters...
:)

Firefighter
Jan 11th 2011, 07:34 PM
If Representative King thinks that federal law prohibits carrying a handgun or gun within 1000 feet of a school, he should read U.S. v. Lopez.

There is no such law.

This was the first case in the re-awakening of the Supremes to tell Congress "enough already with your stupid, overreaching laws that try to use the Commerce Clause to regulate where and when a bear and defecate in the woods and everything else you idiots want to control."

Title 18 U.S.C 922

Clavicula_Nox
Jan 11th 2011, 07:34 PM
That's along the lines of another thing that's annoying me: another congressperson is talking about introducing a bill to increase penalties for shooting a federal official. Again...WHY? They're nothing but a human just like the rest of us and I see no reason why killing them should be any more severe a crime than killing an ordinary schmuck who works at McDonald's. This top-down, institutionalized class warfare has to stop.

Well, North Carolina already has laws that give harsher penalties for Murdering or Assaulting Police Officers, Sports Officials who are cnducting their official duties, Women, and qualifying children. Why not federal officials, too? I can see the logic, though I disagree with it.

RabbiKnife
Jan 11th 2011, 07:37 PM
Title 18 U.S.C 922

See my editication in previous post.

RabbiKnife
Jan 11th 2011, 07:38 PM
Well, North Carolina already has laws that give harsher penalties for Murdering or Assaulting Police Officers, Sports Officials who are cnducting their official duties, Women, and qualifying children. Why not federal officials, too? I can see the logic, though I disagree with it.

I think that if someone kills a federal official that we should kill the murderer three times.

Firefighter
Jan 11th 2011, 07:42 PM
Well, North Carolina already has laws that give harsher penalties for Murdering or Assaulting Police Officers, Sports Officials who are cnducting their official duties, Women, and qualifying children. Why not federal officials, too? I can see the logic, though I disagree with it.

In NC, if I smack Rabbi Knife, it is a misdemeanor. If I smack a handicap person it becomes a felony, EVEN if the handicap is mental illness.

RabbiKnife
Jan 11th 2011, 07:50 PM
In NC, if I smack Rabbi Knife, it is a misdemeanor. If I smack a handicap person it becomes a felony, EVEN if the handicap is mental illness.

Now I understand why you called me and asked if you could keep your guns in the house if you were convicted of a felony... You were planning on smacking me, which would not be necessarily improper...

RabbiKnife
Jan 11th 2011, 08:04 PM
What would the distinction be?

Not much.............

TomH
Jan 11th 2011, 09:55 PM
What would the distinction be?

Proof that they were born in North Carolina!:rofl::rofl:

Fenris
Jan 11th 2011, 10:30 PM
And now we have this:

Rep. Brady (D-PA) plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime "to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."

Firefighter
Jan 11th 2011, 11:36 PM
And now we have this:

Rep. Brady (D-PA) plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime "to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."


http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452719d69e201156f39a0d4970b-pi

Studyin'2Show
Jan 12th 2011, 01:34 AM
http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452719d69e201156f39a0d4970b-pi

Are you threatening elected officials with a snake! :o That's a felony!

Dani H
Jan 12th 2011, 03:40 AM
And now we have this:

Rep. Brady (D-PA) plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime "to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."

When did our leaders turn into such self-preserving coward chickens?

Serving our country as elected officials my foot.

Hrmph. :mad:

dan
Jan 12th 2011, 12:55 PM
What a foolish idea... let's see, the law would prevent carrying a weapon within 1000' of the person YOU ARE PLANNING TO KILL. Oh yea, that is going to be a game changer. :rolleyes:

...His intended victim with a rifle at 334 yards, he couldn't be charged under that law?:rofl:

I always knew we were supposed to be a nation of riflemen, but I never thought gun-control politicians would contribute to that cause.:lol:

Fenris
Jan 12th 2011, 01:49 PM
When did our leaders turn into such self-preserving coward chickens?


I especially love the term "could be perceived" because, you know, that covers pretty much anything. "Oh, you don't like my tax-hike plan? I'm felling pretty threatened right now..."

tango
Jan 12th 2011, 02:05 PM
A popular GOP congressman announced today that he will soon introduce gun control legislation that will make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.

Bit of a blow if you're on a shooting range and realise the guy in the next booth is from the FBI.

notuptome
Jan 12th 2011, 02:06 PM
I think all legislators should be compelled to carry a gun. They should be issued a gun when they are sworn into office. They should be trained on how to use it safely. We expect our young people to go to war and possibly die to defend our liberty for far less compensation than our elected elite receive. Police officers serve for far less compensation than the elected elite. Notice carefully those who wish to isolate themselves from the electorate. They represent themselves and are interested only in financial gain. If you serve for noble purposes you will be willing to make sacrifices.

Change we can believe in? Stop with holding taxes and make each tax payer write a check. Rates will change. Make legislators and college professors carry a gun. End tenure and reward individual performance.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Vhayes
Jan 12th 2011, 03:55 PM
I am not so sure I want to arm anyone who believes additional troops will cause Guam to tip over.... :o
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Good one! And I agree.

Dani H
Jan 12th 2011, 03:58 PM
I especially love the term "could be perceived" because, you know, that covers pretty much anything. "Oh, you don't like my tax-hike plan? I'm felling pretty threatened right now..."

You wrote a bad forum post about me? I'm feeling threatened, so I'ma send the feds to your place and let you know what's up.

Good-bye free speech.

It's a blank cheque to be interpreted at will by mamby pamby government leaders who have entitlement sitting on one shoulder and self-importance on the other, and that's all they ever listen to.

No good can come of this. Ever.

Fenris
Jan 12th 2011, 03:59 PM
I am not so sure I want to arm anyone who believes additional troops will cause Guam to tip over.... :o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face.

RabbiKnife
Jan 12th 2011, 04:21 PM
Rep. Johnson is from the same district that gave us Cynthia McKinney. It's in the water.

Clavicula_Nox
Jan 12th 2011, 06:08 PM
In NC, if I smack Rabbi Knife, it is a misdemeanor. If I smack a handicap person it becomes a felony, EVEN if the handicap is mental illness.

Huh, so anyone who assaults me has their charge automatically elevated to a felony? Nice.

AngelAuthor
Jan 12th 2011, 07:16 PM
I think all legislators should be compelled to carry a gun.
You realize this would put a gun in the hands of someone highly unstable like Nancy Pelosi?

notuptome
Jan 12th 2011, 08:53 PM
You realize this would put a gun in the hands of someone highly unstable like Nancy Pelosi?
I did not say the plan was without risk. She could cause herself injury but perhaps she can be trained to act responsibly. There must always be hope. God does work miracles.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

NHL Fever
Jan 13th 2011, 05:13 AM
The combination of guns with alcohol, passion, or craziness is suboptimal.

AngelAuthor
Jan 13th 2011, 06:53 AM
The combination of guns with alcohol, passion, or craziness is suboptimal.

Agreed. I say we make crazy illegal instead of guns. It will be just as effective.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 13th 2011, 02:42 PM
Agreed. I say we make crazy illegal instead of guns. It will be just as effective.

Ironically, that does seem to have been the problem here. Several people have said that they had a feeling this guy would snap. Even one college student had written to her friends and family that she knew she'd see this guys face on the news some time as the kid who brought a gun to school and shot a bunch of people so she made a point of sitting near the door so she could get away. But unfortunately, the system has to 'wait until they do something' before it can get involved. Well, he did something.

tango
Jan 13th 2011, 04:16 PM
Ironically, that does seem to have been the problem here. Several people have said that they had a feeling this guy would snap. Even one college student had written to her friends and family that she knew she'd see this guys face on the news some time as the kid who brought a gun to school and shot a bunch of people so she made a point of sitting near the door so she could get away. But unfortunately, the system has to 'wait until they do something' before it can get involved. Well, he did something.

Yep, the system always seems to be focussed on the assertion that whatever it was "must never happen again", as if any tragedy is fine as long as it only happens once.

AngelAuthor
Jan 13th 2011, 06:00 PM
Yep, the system always seems to be focussed on the assertion that whatever it was "must never happen again", as if any tragedy is fine as long as it only happens once.
In this regard, the western system seems to be of the opinion that people must die lest we unjustly accuse someone and treat them like they're nuts.

Clavicula_Nox
Jan 13th 2011, 09:15 PM
I concur. I propose pre-emptive corrections and incaraceration.

teddyv
Jan 13th 2011, 09:16 PM
Since men commit probably 90% of violent crimes we should just incarcerate all of them to be safe.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 13th 2011, 09:23 PM
Since men commit probably 90% of violent crimes we should just incarcerate all of them to be safe.

Or maybe just only allow women to have guns and require them to carry them at all times.

Liquid Tension
Jan 14th 2011, 08:44 AM
You realize this would put a gun in the hands of someone highly unstable like Nancy Pelosi?


:rofl: :lol: :rofl:

WINNER!!!!!!!!

:rofl: :lol: :rofl:

thethirdtuttle
Jan 17th 2011, 06:46 PM
I concur. I propose pre-emptive corrections and incaraceration.

While I agree that this sounds good in theory, how in the world would such a system work in terms of real-world application? I mean, how are we supposed to know ahead of time what potential criminals are going to do before they do it? Wait! I know! Maybe we could hook up some psychics up to a vast computer network and have them predict what criminals are going to do before they do it, and then have the police go and arrest them before they have a chance to create mayhem and destruction. Never mind. I just remembered that was just a Tom Cruise science fiction movie entitled "Minority Report." Therefore, it would never actually work in real life. *hangs head in shame and embarassment* I know! Maybe we should lock up Tom and all his Scientologist believing buddies. That would at least eliminate a significant portion of the mentally unstable from walking the streets free. But, that wouldn't work either, because being crazy isn't illegal, no matter how many times you jump up and down on Oprah Winfrey's couch, declaring your undying love for Katie Holmes. At least, not yet.

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin