(Warning disclaimer: This post may offend some, in which case you might want to go hug yourself)
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.
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. And while Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said the Speaker would not support King’s legislation, the office of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the majority leader is reserving judgment until the King bill is finalized. Meanwhile Sarah Brady & her posse kick off their new "Enough is Enough" campaign to exploit the emotions of the moment. And the AWB will be re-introduced in a short manner of time, guaranteed. Because it's not those 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 O’Reilly 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.