PDA

View Full Version : NY Rep. King to introduce gun safety bill



BrianW
01-12-2011, 06:21 AM
(Warning disclaimer: This post may offend some, in which case you might want to go hug yourself) :razz:

Long Island Republican Rep. Peter King says he plans to introduce tough new gun safety legislation in Congress.
King said his bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials.
http://libn.com/blog/2011/01/11/king-to-introduce-gun-safety-bill/

Dnf was asking in the Giffords shooting thread why the right was acting so defensive? Well, here we go. Maybe it's because every time some mental aberrant/criminal perpetrates a tragedy like in Tucson, some jackwagon decides it's their duty to chug on over and give law-abiding citizens a collective kick in the crotch in the guise of "We have to do SOMETHING!". Does anyone really think that if this bill was law on Jan 8th, that it would have averted that shooting? All it would actually do is create yet another "gun free zone" where the criminals who don't care about laws would know they're relatively safe because citizens couldn't defend themselves or the politicians/bystanders this would supposedly protect. :rolleyes: And while Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said the Speaker would not support Kingís legislation, the office of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the majority leader is reserving judgment until the King bill is finalized. :confused: Meanwhile Sarah Brady & her posse kick off their new "Enough is Enough" campaign to exploit the emotions of the moment. :-x And the AWB will be re-introduced in a short manner of time, guaranteed. Because it's not those :twisted: people, it's those evil guns again.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers say that "incendiary punditry" helped ignite the Arizona rampage. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the violence-laced remarks from Glenn Beck, Bill OíReilly and other political commentators should be toned down, even though the more important role that mental health played in the deadly shooting is being overshadowed & they were likely not the impetus for the shooting spree. Never mind that Jared's friends, classmates & instructors were afraid of him and the system failed. It doesn't matter that apparently he had a grudge against Giffords long before Palin hit the national spotlight.
We now have calls for a "civility commission" from Sheriff Dupnik and others. Great! Maybe they can establish some "verbal morality code" ala "Demolition Man" where we can be monitored & fined for using 1984 "bad speak" words/phrases that are too "inciting", "offensive", "combative", 'vociferous" yada yada.

Can you picture what could happen to some our most famous documents and oratories with THAT in place?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" No, we're sorry Mr. Henry but that's much too inflammatory, inciting & combative.


The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. Mr. Jefferson could you please tone down the vociferous, incendiary nature of your rhetoric? You could offend the Tories and someone might want to shoot a Redcoat or a Hessian.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" We must insist tha you use a more civil tone in your discourse with the Soviets, Mr Reagan!

Defensive? Hell yes I am! Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. That's as true now as it was when Franklin said it. But unfortunately the "might's" & "maybes" of our Loughners, Lee's, Chapman's, Hinckley's etc always seem to find a way to take precedence over, what should be, unalienable rights.

Hew
01-12-2011, 06:50 AM
That is a fantastic piece of literature. Nice work. You should send it to your local paper as a letter to the editor and see if they'll publish in their op-ed.

My only quibble would be the first sentence, "Dnf was asking in the Giffords shooting thread why the right was acting so defensive?" You shouldn't have had to write your post in response to Dnf's question, because it was already self-evident to all but the most obtuse and disingenuous that the finger of blame was being pointed at the right well before the facts became known. That dumbsh!t sheriff pinned it on conservative media and the Republicans in Congress within hours of the shootings. The lefties in cable were blaming it on the culture of hate created by conservatives. The blogosphere flying monkey left was blaming Palin. So there was already plenty of reason to be defensive; your excellent post not withstanding.

Edit...and btw, screw Peter King. As a society we can agree or disagree politically on the merits of gun control. But if you believe that gun control prevents crimes, like King apparently does, then having those laws only applicable to protect people like him is offensive. He's worth protecting and we're not?!?

dback
01-12-2011, 08:19 AM
That is a fantastic piece of literature. Nice work. You should send it to your local paper as a letter to the editor and see if they'll publish in their op-ed.

+1 Absolutely

Buzz
01-12-2011, 08:27 AM
I couldn't believe it when I heard it. A thousand feet? So what if he happens wander within a thousand feet of me and I'm legally carrying a gun with permit? I'm going my way and he's going his. I have no idea he's going to be there, but they discover that I have a concealed weapon. Do I go to jail? What stupidity.

BonMallari
01-12-2011, 08:37 AM
I couldn't believe it when I heard it. A thousand feet? So what if he happens wander within a thousand feet of me and I'm legally carrying a gun with permit? I'm going my way and he's going his. I have no idea he's going to be there, but they discover that I have a concealed weapon. Do I go to jail? What stupidity.

so pheasant hunting with John Thune would be out of the picture :rolleyes:



totally absurd piece of legislation

Buzz
01-12-2011, 08:54 AM
so pheasant hunting with John Thune would be out of the picture :rolleyes:



totally absurd piece of legislation

Reminds me of coming back from duck hunting in full camo. I pulled into my brother-in-law's driveway, got out, and there was Tom Daschle getting out of a car across the street. He was going to a fund raiser hosted by the neighbor. He looks at me and gets a big smile on his face & walks over to see the ducks I'd shot. I had my shotgun in a partially unzipped case in the back and he starts talking shotguns. I was shocked.

BonMallari
01-12-2011, 09:17 AM
Guns have two enemies...Rust and Politicians

road kill
01-12-2011, 09:23 AM
Some of these KLOWNS are just trying to show their constituents how concerned thay are!!!

I, for one, am impressed!!!:rolleyes:


RK

Julie R.
01-12-2011, 09:27 AM
Brian, I enjoy your posts but agree with dback & Hew, that is an exceptionally fine retort to the coming wave of anti gun legislation. It deserves a wider audience than POTUS--I hope you send it to your local paper.

Marvin S
01-12-2011, 09:29 AM
Talking to our Police Chief last night on this subject - his comment was "the parents were so permissive that they enabled this action". Their "We are really sorry, we didn't know our son was like this" is a defensive move because someone will be coming after their assets, & I hope they do. The problem with having them on your insurance till their 26 also sets other precedents that are easy to exploit!!


That is a fantastic piece of literature. Nice work. You should send it to your local paper as a letter to the editor and see if they'll publish in their op-ed.

My only quibble would be the first sentence, "Dnf was asking in the Giffords shooting thread why the right was acting so defensive?" You shouldn't have had to write your post in response to Dnf's question, because it was already self-evident to all but the most obtuse and disingenuous that the finger of blame was being pointed at the right well before the facts became known. That dumbsh!t sheriff pinned it on conservative media and the Republicans in Congress within hours of the shootings. The lefties in cable were blaming it on the culture of hate created by conservatives. The blogosphere flying monkey left was blaming Palin. So there was already plenty of reason to be defensive; your excellent post not withstanding.

Edit...and btw, screw Peter King. As a society we can agree or disagree politically on the merits of gun control. But if you believe that gun control prevents crimes, like King apparently does, then having those laws only applicable to protect people like him is offensive. He's worth protecting and we're not?!?

Agree with you on your entire post - several years back we had a "conservative" Senator who proposed & got passed a piece of legislation increasing the penalties for assaulting public employess in their line of duty, if I'm not mistaken that has been carried over to include anytime now :(. I asked him what made those people better than a private citizen? He never answered me :o.

duckheads
01-12-2011, 09:37 AM
I agree with all off the above. That is beautifully written and I couldn't agree more. If Brian will give us his permission, we should print this and send it to as many newspapers we possibly can. Also make it an email and send it around the world. What do you think Brian? As Julie stated just to damn good to be only seen by us!

luvmylabs23139
01-12-2011, 09:39 AM
Yeah, this is stupid. Let's just say my husband (for those of you on the left that want to point out that I can't have a CCW as a perm resident) had just run to the store having no idea that a Congressperson was there. He happened to be carrying. Suddenly he is a criminal? What the heck. We happen to live very close to the next district but we pay zero attention to any of that reps meetings because he is not our rep, he is a bleading liberal,. he respresents a district that was carved out as a minority district etc. So now we need to pay attention to where he may be rambling his liberal crap for fear we are in his protected zone? That is plain old stupid.

M&K's Retrievers
01-12-2011, 09:39 AM
With Brian's permission, I'll get the ball rolling by sending it to the Dallas Morning News and The Daily Oklahoman after giving due credit and removing the dnf reference. of course.

paul young
01-12-2011, 10:46 AM
great post, Brian! concise, and on topic. no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.-Paul

Roger Perry
01-12-2011, 11:09 AM
so pheasant hunting with John Thune would be out of the picture :rolleyes:



totally absurd piece of legislation

or quail hunting with Dick Cheney:rolleyes:

Roger Perry
01-12-2011, 11:12 AM
(Warning disclaimer: This post may offend some, in which case you might want to go hug yourself) :razz:

Long Island Republican Rep. Peter King says he plans to introduce tough new gun safety legislation in Congress.
King said his bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials.
http://libn.com/blog/2011/01/11/king-to-introduce-gun-safety-bill/



I wonder how big of an uproar this statement would receive if Rep. Peter King was a Democrat????

road kill
01-12-2011, 11:18 AM
I wonder how big of an uproar this statement would receive if Rep. Peter King was a Democrat????

If it makes your day Rodger, I think it is idiotic and would have not changed anything that has happened.


RK

luvmylabs23139
01-12-2011, 11:18 AM
I wonder how big of an uproar this statement would receive if Rep. Peter King was a Democrat????

Here you go Roger. IT is a stupid law!!!!!!

duckheads
01-12-2011, 01:08 PM
We know he is a republican and we don't agree with him. Didn't chris just bring up a bob and tom skit MR Obvious. Looks like we have another one. what a dipstick!

BrianW
01-12-2011, 02:26 PM
Thanks all for your compliments.:)
Permission granted to cross post, e-mail etc as far/wide as y'all care to take it. ;)
Sorry it took so long to get back on.

PS: I hope evryone is e-mailing Rep. King as well!

cotts135
01-13-2011, 06:05 AM
Talking to our Police Chief last night on this subject - his comment was "the parents were so permissive that they enabled this action". Their "We are really sorry, we didn't know our son was like this" is a defensive move because someone will be coming after their assets, & I hope they do. The problem with having them on your insurance till their 26 also sets other precedents that are easy to exploit!!

Permissiveness equal mental illness? MMMMmmmmmmm you are truly blessed to have a Police chief with such depth of thought.:rolleyes:



I do agree with you though that this legislation from Rep King is an overreaction and not really well thought out.

Blackstone
01-13-2011, 06:22 AM
What a waste of legislation that would be. Obviously, Rep. King didn’t apply much logic to this. In case he hadn’t noticed, murder is already illegal. If someone is intent on committing murder, I doubt they are going to worry much about a law making it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of their intended victim. I hope they don’t waste too much time and money discussing this one!

Hew
01-13-2011, 03:21 PM
In case he hadnít noticed, murder is already illegal.
I gather you're not in favor of "hate crime" laws/sentencing, either?

Blackstone
01-16-2011, 04:20 PM
I gather you're not in favor of "hate crime" laws/sentencing, either?

That's kind of comparing apples to oranges. Hate crime laws PUNISH the offender for committing a crime against someone because of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. It may deter some people, but for the most part, if your actions are driven by hatred for some group, you're still going to commit the crime. You will just receive a more severe penalty if you get caught.

Rep. King's bill is meant to PREVENT someone from shooting a public official. It's not going to do that. If you're not worried about the penalty for committing murder, why would you worry about getting caught carrying a gun?

Heck, prisons are already full of guys caught illegally carrying a hand gun. Most of them weren't even on their way to shoot anyone. They just had a gun in case they got in a situation where they felt they had to shoot someone. If a law can't deter them from carrying a gun, do you believe this one is going to stop some nut on a mission to kill someone?

TxHillHunter
01-16-2011, 04:29 PM
That's kind of comparing apples to oranges. Hate crime laws PUNISH the offender for committing a crime against someone because of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. It may deter some people, but for the most part, if your actions are driven by hatred for some group, you're still going to commit the crime. You will just receive a more severe penalty if you get caught.

Rep. King's bill is meant to PREVENT someone from shooting a public official. It's not going to do that. If you're not worried about the penalty for committing murder, why would you worry about getting caught carrying a gun?

Heck, prisons are already full of guys caught illegally carrying a hand gun. Most of them weren't even on their way to shoot anyone. They just had a gun in case they got in a situation where they felt they had to shoot someone. If a law can't deter them from carrying a gun, do you believe this one is going to stop some nut on a mission to kill someone?

Well put! Can't legislate morality....or the actions of a nut!

BrianW
01-17-2011, 08:55 AM
Well put! Can't legislate ... the actions of a nut!

But you can (or at least attempt to) gradually restrict the places where citizens are "allowed" to protect themselves/others with a firearm.
Biggest problem as I see it (besides in 1st post) is
1. Politicians, being people, (?) ;) are mobile.
It's not like establishing a school or a courthouse as a "GFZ" because you always know where it will be. If you go to the market, carrying, coming back from a duck hunt etc. and suddenly realize your congressperson is having an event there, you now have to leave or you'd better hope that no one can see the gun(s) if you decide to ignore/break the law (bad idea) and go about your business.. If you're in the mall, the gym, etc and someone says "Hello Judge XYZ!", you would be required to stop what you're doing and get your firearm at least 1000' away from that person, at least until they're doing with their errand, etc. Depending on who would be selected to be on that list, this could make life very difficult and the easy out is to just leave the gun at home.
Mission accomplished for advocates of gun control.

Also, what do you want to bet that, if passed, this bill wouldn't be like the Lautenberg domestic violence act that bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of all guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of this heinous crime? :rolleyes:

sinner
01-17-2011, 09:03 AM
adding the health care bill to this is absolutely a dumb statement!

Marvin S
01-17-2011, 09:10 AM
Permissiveness equal mental illness? MMMMmmmmmmm you are truly blessed to have a Police chief with such depth of thought.:rolleyes:



I do agree with you though that this legislation from Rep King is an overreaction and not really well thought out.

The way he phrased it did not indicate to me that it was his thought exclusively. I believe it to be the thought process of many LE officials.