See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:05 pm, Mister P said:

   King always seemed prone to hysterics to me.

2. #2
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:07 pm, RTater said:

   And government officials and federal judges can all stay at least 1,000 feet away from me and my liberty.

3. #3
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:08 pm, sbw999 said:

   More to the point, how would this panic-button bill have prevented the mentally unstable Jared Loughner — who had no respect for laws, let alone words, grammar, decency, or life — from carrying out the Tucson rampage in the first place?

   Precisely Michelle, and McCarthy nails it down even further. In fact perhaps a police presence (with guns in the open) might have dissuaded this nut from committing this crime. If this crazy continued to shoot, only a gun packing citizen (in the absence of the police) could have stopped him. Im rather surprised that such a piece of nonsensical pointless legislation is being proposed by a man that I have respect for as a hard nosed conservative, Peter King.

4. #4
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:11 pm, thefoundingfathers said:

   There is a common sense rule that you should not make any decisions after you have experienced a severe shock in your life. Because you will make a snap decision that will an extremely poor choice. The intentions are wonderful, but we know what the road to hell is paved with.

   I think the members of Congress should take a moment (actually several months) before they make any rash decisions on making laws to “prevent” this from happening again. We already have enough laws that make this a crime. Laws don’t prevent law abiding sane citizens from breaking them. If you enforce the laws with right punishment instead of the mamby pamby slap on the wrist much of the crime we have would go away.

5. #5
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:11 pm, battleaxe said:

   I propose a new constitutional amendment:
   Any legislator that proposes a product ban, tax increase, or government spending increase will immediately be docked all of their congressional pay to date (including all past terms), kicked out of congress, and removed from all federal, state, and local government pension programs.

6. #6
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:25 pm, Rorschach said:

   Suppose just for a fleeting moment that this bill passes, that means that someone could be walking down a sidewalk or driving down a street with their legally carried sidearm and violate the law when they pass a building with a federal office in it without ever knowing they did so.

   What a STUPID idea.

7. #7
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:33 pm, glockomatic said:

   I know a good many people who can make 1000 yard shots, let alone 1000 feet. Maybe King should just ban public appearances by government officials. They’d all secretly love that anyway, wouldn’t have to mix with us lowly proles.

8. #8
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:33 pm, robhic said:

   It’s just one more thing the denizens of congress feel entitled to that the “little people” don’t get. I mean, they are just a bit more equal than the rest of us, aren’t they?

9. #9
   On January 11th, 2011 at 5:35 pm, WLBCO said:

   I live within a 100ft of my U.S. Rep. Does this law make me a crook if passed since I own handguns.

10. #10
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:39 pm, txvet2 said:

    Already sent Rep King an e-mail, and included the URL of this thread. Somehow I doubt I’ll get a reply, although I might get a visitation.

11. #11
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:43 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    Interesting. You’d think if they were really worried about violence directed at them, and that the violence was caused by right-wingers mad about perceived loss of liberty, they would STOP writing legislation restricting freedom. But of course, he is a congressman, so logic doesn’t enter into his thinking at all.

    Someone should put a bulls eye on this guys district for the next election. Oops! HATE SPEECH! HATE SPEECH! HATE SPEECH!

12. #12
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:48 pm, zyzzyg said:

    Agreed. The proposed law is an overeaction and would be difficult to enforce.

    Enforcing current law is the way to go.

13. #13
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:50 pm, Hangfire said:

    The guy’s a GOP Rep. from Noo Yawk. How conservative could he be anyway?

    He’s probably a RINO poster child. Never heard of him.

14. #14
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:52 pm, Hangfire said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:48 pm, zyzzyg said:
    Agreed. The proposed law is an overeaction and would be difficult to enforce.

    Enforcing current law is the way to go.

    I knew if I lived long enough, I’d agree with you on something.

15. #15
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:52 pm, tre said:

    Makes sense Mr. King. After all, just ask a student in Virginia Tech how well gun-free zones work.

    Why do so many law-makers want to lash out at law-abiding citizens when they’re upset?

16. #16
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:54 pm, Southpaw said:

    How is this law ever supposed to work? This idiot is a United States Representative?

    I suggest he be targeted for defeat in 2012.

    What?!? What did I say?!?!

    Oh.
    Ok. To clarify for all you whiney, nanny state, panty buncher, agenda driven, pseudo-journalists in the lamestream media, I MEANT ITEMS 2D AND 3A FROM THE LIST OF DEFINITIONS BELOW:

    Target:

    1: a small round shield

    2a : a mark to shoot at
    b : a target marked by shots fired at it
    c : something or someone fired at or marked for attack
    d : a goal to be achieved

    3a : an object of ridicule or criticism
    b : something or someone to be affected by an action or development

    4a : the metallic surface (as of platinum or tungsten) upon which the stream of electrons within an X-ray tube is focused and from which the X-rays are emitted
    b : a body, surface, or material bombarded with nuclear particles or electrons; especially : fluorescent material on which desired visual effects are produced in electronic devices (as in radar)

17. #17
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:54 pm, Hangfire said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:35 pm, WLBCO said:
    I live within a 100ft of my U.S. Rep. Does this law make me a crook if passed since I own handguns.

    It definitely makes it a requirement to filter your air and use air fresheners.

18. #18
    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:55 pm, Blueline2 said:

    Some time ago, an individual I arrested for possession of a gun was a convicted felon who knew he was looking at a mandatory 15 years in Federal Prison for doing so. He still ran around with a gun…because that’s what criminals DO. They break laws. Pass a new law, they’ll break it too. Rep. King, pass this law and the only thing it will guarantee is that the only person with a gun in your 1,000ft. radius will be a criminal.

19. #19
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:02 pm, granite said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:55 pm, Blueline2 said:

    He still ran around with a gun…because that’s what criminals DO. They break laws.

    That’s not funny; but, at the same time, it is funny.

    Well said, officer.
    Stay safe.

20. #20
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:04 pm, Dave Turson said:

    King needs to read DJ Jaffe’s column:

    I fear legislators will react to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting by giving themselves added police protection — that is, covering their own butts while leaving everyone else’s exposed.

21. #21
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:08 pm, Ron said:

    Ummm, how do I know when I’m within 1000 feet of a judge or federal official? Make them all wear hunter’s orange? No, seriously…

22. #22
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:08 pm, swmntman said:

    I will be introducing legislation that would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials.”

    Ummm… certain high-profile government officials? Hopefully they will be required to wear a “I’m a high-profile government official” sign? Is this really stupid or am I just not seeing it?

23. #23
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:10 pm, swmntman said:

    Ron – great minds!

    I will be introducing legislation that would require certain high-profile government officials to “grow a pair”…

24. #24
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:10 pm, tarpon said:

    A freeway trip should be funny.

25. #25
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:15 pm, Truesoldier said:

    Ok so we ban guns around elected officials (creating yet another priveldged clas of citizen). Please do tell me Rep. King how banning guns would stop all the violence? For the sake of argument, let’s say Rep. King’s bill passes and even the criminals cease carrying guns around officials there are plenty of other non-gun weapons that can and have been used in attacks against people.

    Here is just one of the more recent attacks that occured in Seattle:

    SEATTLE — Police said a man is dead after he was attacked with a hatchet in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood Monday.

    After this occured there was no outcry by Rep. King to ban all hatchet’s. Ok I know the person killed in Seattle was not a “federal official” so I guess it does not require legislation. So how about this one Rep King?

    Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was injured by a mohair goat on Thursday during a press conference to highlight subsidies to the mohair industry.

    The goat nicked Weiner’s right hand with one of its pointy, foot-long horns, hard enough to draw blood.

    Did Rep. King put forth legislation to ban all livestock coming within 1000 feet of “federal officials”?

26. #26
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:17 pm, rocketman said:

    ***
    Rep. King believes in Rhambo’s maxim, “Never let a good crisis go to waste!”
    ***
    Too bad a normal citizen with a concealed handgun wasn’t standing just behind the crazy loser when he raised his pistol to shoot. A lot of innocent dead victims would still be alive. And a lot of lawyers and state and federal officials would be wondering where their next meal ticket would be coming from.
    ***
    Sorry, (not) Rep. King–none of our Constitutional rights are negotiable. Not by you–not by Comrade Obama–not by Big Sis (aka Clownitano). They came from God–and will stay with the people forever.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

27. #27
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:22 pm, MacEamonn said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:10 pm, swmntman said:

    Ron – great minds!

    I will be introducing legislation that would require certain high-profile government officials to “grow a pair”…

    ….or find something else to do.

28. #28
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:32 pm, right_on said:

    Look, I don’t condone violence, but I believe every law abiding citizen of this country has the right to keep and bear arms. That means own, and carry. What part of the Second Amendment does Rep. King not understand?

    “Shall make no law…”
    The right of the people….
    shall not be infringed.”

    Creating a “special protected class,” elected officials, is not what is needed. They already have laws on the books made for their protection…just how well they have worked is up for debate.

    Elected officials are not more special than any other American citizen. There are thousands, if not millions, that could and would do the job, maybe better, if something happened to them.

    If they choose to carry a weapon for their own protection, like Rep. Chaffetz of Utah, so much the better. But making new prohibitions regarding gun possession is not the answer. Here is one solution;

    Any member of Congress who is afraid someone will harm them has two options at their disposal:

    1) hire security at their own expense, not ours, or

    2) resign and go home. Someone who is not afraid will take their place.

    Politicians are among the most hated people in the world, and that has not, nor will it ever change. We the people already spend too much money on their safety and comfort. Danger from nutjobs comes with the territory. So, stop whining, and complaining.

    Expanding the imagined safety of elected officials does not make America any safer. It makes her more insolvent.

29. #29
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:33 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    I think they should pass a bill requiring all members of congress to conceal carry at all times.

30. #30
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:36 pm, greenfairie said:

    Politicians always go into “do something” mode after a tragic or horrific event happens.

    How about a Crazy People Control bill?

31. #31
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:36 pm, Freddy said:

    Seems silly to limit this to ‘high profile federal government workers’.

    There are many people over at the DMV, particularly with the 30 day waiting list for drivers licenses, that those people are at risk as well.

    In fact, IF Rep King’s idea were to go forward, all we would need to do is lower the bar to include ALL Federal and State government workers. Then we could have the total ban on all guns that the left desperatly desires.

    While this might sound silly, this is EXACTLY the method the progressives have employed with their never ending government takeovers.

32. #32
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:49 pm, Hangfire said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:36 pm, Freddy said:
    There are many people over at the DMV, particularly with the 30 day waiting list for drivers licenses, that those people are at risk as well.

    Oh, those people require a little “hands on” treatment.

33. #33
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:51 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    So King believes that we responsible citizens can be trusted with guns so long as it is at least 1001 feet from an elected official. Once we get within 1000 feet, we suddenly change and become homicidal maniacs.

    It’s the same with me when I get behind the wheel of a car. As soon as I see a crowd, I plow right into it. I can’t help it. The car makes me do it.

34. #34
    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:57 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Just to “teach us a lesson”, I would suggest that our entrenched criminal class of elected wussies resign en masse in protest. I can see the headline now:
    
    “Indispensables Evacuate Washington! Crime Rate Plummets! Economy Surges!”

35. #35
    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:04 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Just as polls are already showing that these little rights-extinguishing liberal temper tantrums drive Tea Party recruiting, it is now being reported that hand gun sales are suddenly soaring in AZ.

    Every time they talk about taking away our guns, they convince more and more of us that we really should own one (or more).

36. #36
    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:17 pm, TomB said:

    I will be introducing legislation that would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials.

    With a slight change I could get behind it:

    I will be introducing legislation that would make it illegal mandatory for all qualified persons to knowingly carry a gun whenever they are within a 1,000 feet of certain high-profile any government officials.

    There. Drop it in the hopper.

37. #37
    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:39 pm, Sanddog said:

    How about legislation to prosecute any politician who pens legislation that would reduce, eliminate or dilute any constitutionally protected right?

    You’ll be safe enough behind bars, Rep King.

38. #38
    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:49 pm, letget said:

    As a Texan, I would imaging most elected here would have the ‘means’ with them to see to it they are safe. If not, we here will see to it they are ok. I might suggest king read, understand, and get a grip on the 2nd as is in the Constitution. As Heston said, from my cold dead hands. king, you and those like you are not gonna win this one!
    L

39. #39
    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:52 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    How about renewing the assault weapons ban?

40. #40
    On January 11th, 2011 at 8:02 pm, single stack said:

    Our would-be masters don’t understand why we’re disgusted and upset with them? Seriously?

41. #41
    On January 11th, 2011 at 8:20 pm, Christian Soldier said:

    the first RINO collapse-
    there will be others-
    this does not surprise me…
    C-CS

42. #42
    On January 11th, 2011 at 8:21 pm, aero said:

    Representative Peter King, America owes you a debt of gratitude for your brilliance and your keen legislative mind. Thank you for bringing your wonderful suggestion into the public discourse.

    Anyone who does not immediately see the wisdom of your proposal probably does not have the IQ of a rock. I am very glad Washington is blessed with lawmakers of your constitutional knowledge.

    I feel secure knowing that you were elected by hundreds of thousands of voters who know just how much the country needs brilliant minds like yours making America a better country in every way.

    God speed to you, sir.

43. #43
    On January 11th, 2011 at 8:22 pm, NJMark said:

    I don’t see why they don’t just make murder illegal.

    Because making something illegal means it can never happen.

    Seriously, the guy was willing to break the laws against murder! But Rep. King thinks he’d have obeyed some distance regulation?

44. #44
    On January 11th, 2011 at 8:31 pm, ThackerAgency said:

    So are police escorts allowed to pack heat on security detail for congressmen? If so, not a very comprehensive law.

    The answer is Peter King should arm himself and carry every where he goes.

    Even if he didn’t carry, but told everyone he did, it would have as good of an effect.

    Guns don’t kill people. Guns protect people and provide food.

45. #45
    On January 11th, 2011 at 8:33 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 6:10 pm, swmntman said:

    Ron – great minds!

    I will be introducing legislation that would require certain high-profile government officials to “grow a pair”…

    So Hillary would have six then?

    Her’s, Obama’s and another pair?

46. #46
    On January 11th, 2011 at 8:42 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:52 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    How about renewing the assault weapons ban?

    How about enforcing the 20,000+ gun control laws already on the books?

    During the anti-gun hysteria of the 1990′s when the left was trying to pass another gun control law every other week, that interesting little tidbit hit the media.

    Over 20,000 gun control laws on the books across the nation, yet so many charges and sentences were plea-bargained down or completely away.

47. #47
    On January 11th, 2011 at 9:06 pm, bjc said:

    *Note to Rep. King: Guns are good, just not in the hands of the criminally insane; Try doing a root cause analysis, and I believe Sheriff Dipstick would get prominent mention.

48. #48
    On January 11th, 2011 at 9:10 pm, tre said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:52 pm, Red State Skeptic said:
    How about renewing the assault weapons ban?

    I have a better idea; make illegal to shoot people! That way we law-abiding citizens can still own guns.

49. #49
    On January 11th, 2011 at 9:31 pm, shimauma2 said:

    I think there should be a law requiring government officials to visibly pack heat. If Gifford and most of her crowd had been packing, that potsmoking libtard loser would never have attacked her. Leftards are cowards at heart and even if he’d got high enough to fire, having several folks with guns on the scene might have ensured that punk wouldn’t have gotten off 20 rounds.

50. #50
    On January 11th, 2011 at 9:45 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    P Rep. Peter King should be banned from being within 1000 feet of a TV camera.

    ===
    Let your sidearm be like American Express:
    Don’t Leave home without it.

    Resistance is mandatory

51. #51
    On January 11th, 2011 at 9:47 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    The ruling elites want to increase their power over us peons…

    It appears the GOP “leadership” has learned nothing.

    King is a moron.

52. #52
    On January 11th, 2011 at 10:05 pm, beenthere said:

    Since we can expect a wave of similar garbage legislation from the usual clods and creeps (of both parties, to be fair), and since not one of these grandstanding jackasses would bring themselves to say or by any actions show caring or concern regarding any aspect of the Ft. Hood massacre — other than the usual pc/diversity platitudes, of course — I urge, insist in fact, the following amendment be attached to each and every one of these “laws”:

    All people of the Mohammedan faith are exempted from these or similar legislative measures for all time.

    Great benefits will flow from this, too many to list. At the very least, the American people will know where they stand, the outreach of our masters will be greatly extended, and no one anywhere will have to deal with anything bothersome (e.g. like the lives of America’s soldiery) should it violate pc strictures.

53. #53
    On January 11th, 2011 at 10:06 pm, waveman said:

    This is not a collapse. Rep. King is a part of the Lieberman/Lautenberg/Bloomberg cabal that has introduced and/or pushed for many gun banning proposals for years. He’s never met a gun ban that he didn’t like.

    As of 2008, the NRA gave him a lifetime “C” rating, which this Life Member thinks is being generous. In 2008, his rating was a “D”. Can’t locate 2010.

    Gun Owners of America gave him an “F” in 2010.

54. #54
    On January 11th, 2011 at 10:30 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    The guy’s a GOP Rep. from Noo Yawk. How conservative could he be anyway?

    And yet conservatives will run to the polls to vote for him because he’s not a Democrat.

    …. or is he?

    So hard to tell these days, isn’t it?

    I will say that Boehner has earned a place on my wait and see list, but as a party, Republicans are simply Democrats who favor a different form of socialism than Democrats. Regardless of which you vote for, you’re getting a socialist nutbag in the end.

    Give me a chance to vote for a conservative, and I will. I held my nose for Mr. Christie and he’s done better than I thought he would, but his benefit has been more in talking the talk than in walking the walk. When he’s right, he’s unapologetic about it, and that’s what we need from conservatives – which is why I’m so unapologetic about my positions.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

55. #55
    On January 11th, 2011 at 10:30 pm, Speakup said:

    Louphner committed no act of impulse, he planned this heinous act for years, he did the unthinkable with malice and forethought, if the FBI had stopped his purchase of a firearm and he couldn’t get one off the street he would have devised other means to achieve the same result.

    The man was determined to do exactly what he did, no firearms law will ever stop that.

56. #56
    On January 11th, 2011 at 10:37 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    More gun laws will not stop a psycho bent on destruction. Locking up psycho’s would.

57. #57
    On January 11th, 2011 at 10:50 pm, SHoward said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:52 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    How about renewing the assault weapons ban?

    To those that favor gun control, that may sound reasonable on the surface, and maybe to the un-informed as well. The trouble is, and no one in the media has caught on, that big long magazine wasn’t actually illegal. You just couldn’t make new ones during that period. Before the ban, high-cap mags were produced at a rate of over 1 million per day. He still could have got one or a dozen, just had to pay more.

58. #58
    On January 11th, 2011 at 11:05 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    How about renewing the assault weapons ban?

    How about no.

    How about enforcing the Second Amendment? It would have only taken one bullet from one of the other people in attendance to minimize this nutcase’s damage.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

59. #59
    On January 11th, 2011 at 11:10 pm, txvet2 said:

    The only thing that stupid “assault weapons ban” did was make sure that guys like the Ft Hood shooter had to reload more often. How bright is a law that bans weapons based on how they look? Typical for the left, though. With them everything is about appearances.

60. #60
    On January 11th, 2011 at 11:20 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Another indication that Congress considers themselves the New Royalty. They want their own Healthcare, returement plan, housing transportation, and now special protection. Pretty soon they will have their own dachas like the old Soviet Union.

    Frankly they are cowards unwilling to take on the risks of public life.

    These people only want privilige and power. Vote them out!.

61. #61
    On January 11th, 2011 at 11:21 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:52 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    How about renewing the assault weapons ban?

    MS13 and the cartels would be pleased.

    Idiot!

62. #62
    On January 12th, 2011 at 12:01 am, jhn1 said:

    now who thinks it won’t be a race to go to every meeting of likely 2nd supporters with SWAT in tow to get within 1000 ft to have all open or CWP

63. #63
    On January 12th, 2011 at 12:06 am, Speakup said:

    Lets take the liberal one size fits all agenda to its logical conclusion and pass a law that mandates all qualified and trained adults to carry a loaded firearm.

64. #64
    On January 12th, 2011 at 12:32 am, Truesoldier said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 7:52 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    How about renewing the assault weapons ban?

    Sure, why not. Just please give your neighbor some time to put up this sign in their yard first.

65. #65
    On January 12th, 2011 at 1:18 am, happy2behere said:

    Glock sales doubled in AZ since the shooting and increased significantly in other states. King forgot to check the wind first.

66. #66
    On January 12th, 2011 at 8:35 am, John Deaux said:

    Instead of 1000 feet, maybe we need a 30 day “cooling off period” between a tragedy and any legislation intended to deal with it.

67. #67
    On January 12th, 2011 at 8:49 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    I don’t think Americans should have to tolerate a situation in which their rights are circumscribed, through no fault of their own, by society’s lowest common denominator.

    Are you kidding? That’s a favorite pastime of lawmakers! Just look at all the inane “zero tolerance” laws, or ‘Hate’ (Thought) Crime legislation.

68. #68
    On January 12th, 2011 at 9:01 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 10:50 pm, SHoward said:

    To those that favor gun control, that may sound reasonable on the surface, and maybe to the un-informed as well. The trouble is, and no one in the media has caught on, that big long magazine wasn’t actually illegal. You just couldn’t make new ones during that period. Before the ban, high-cap mags were produced at a rate of over 1 million per day. He still could have got one or a dozen, just had to pay more.

    I will grant you that I am confused and uninformed on this subject, but there doesn’t seem to me any reason whatsoever that an ordinary American who has a gun only for self-defense would need a weapon like Jared Loughner had. What is the harm in banning it?

69. #69
    On January 12th, 2011 at 9:04 am, md1964 said:

    So a law that says you can’t bring a gun withing 1000 ft of a primadona elected official..

    Does that work in reverse?? If I am out and about with my conceal carry…do members of congress or other elected officials have to stay 1000 feet from me? or do I have to make grand announcements as I drive or walk, asking for any elected official to identify themselves..(Loudly to cover over 1000 feet) so I can turn around, cross the street or drive a different way to where I am going.

70. #70
    On January 12th, 2011 at 9:53 am, GraniteMan said:

    On January 11th, 2011 at 5:07 pm, RTater said:
    And government officials and federal judges can all stay at least 1,000 feet away from me and my liberty.

    Shucks, we both had the very same first thought on reading this.

71. #71
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:24 am, Cameron said:

    I will grant you that I am confused and uninformed on this subject, but there doesn’t seem to me any reason whatsoever that an ordinary American who has a gun only for self-defense would need a weapon like Jared Loughner had.

    Jared used a Glock 19, which uses 9mm ammunition. As a firearm goes, the caliber is relatively weak. So what kind of weapon would you suggest?

    What is the harm in banning it?

    The harm is that it won’t do any good towards stopping people like Jared. Targeting people for murder is against the law. Shooting into a crowd like he did is against the law. None of that prevented this shooting from happening.

    And to be blunt: How many of your freedoms are you willing to give up before you feel safe?

    I would suggest that you take a firearms class and learn to shoot. Even if you don’t touch a gun after the class, it would help you understand this issue a bit more.

72. #72
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:29 am, SHoward said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 9:01 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    Just for the record I wasn’t specifically calling you out as uninformed, just pointing out that that is often the case in a matter such as this.

    The weapon itself would not have been banned under the 1994 bill, just the new manufacture or importation of that extended mag.

    As for your question, which is often asked and is a reasonable question, we get into the question of “need.” “Why does anyone need such a gun?” “Why does anyone need such a large magazine?” Let me turn that in a different direction: “Why does anyone need a car that can exceed the maximum posted speed limit?” “Why does anyone need more than 2000 square feet in a home for 4?”

    That question of need is the trouble spot. Who is any one person to tell another what they need? Applied to this situation, on the surface it seems that the murderer could not have carried out his act had he not had that weapon. Indeed, had the Glock magically disappeared from his hand the moment before he fired that would be true. However, you and I both can think of several ways this act could have been carried out with no firearm what-so-ever. Indeed, had he chosen a different method, many more people could have been murdered.

    Having not looked lately, I can only speculate, but in the past according to crime statistics, magazine capacity rarely, if ever, is a factor in homicide. In this case, a shooter with two revolvers and some speedloaders and a lot of training and more people may have been killed.

    Banning certain items because of their potential in the wrong hands leads us to a very dangerous place from the perspective of liberty. And we know what our founders thought of those that would trade liberty for perceived security. Would you really feel safer if high-cap mags were banned? They are in this state (CA). Wanna go for a ride in LA?

73. #73
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:38 am, tre said:

    I will grant you that I am confused and uninformed on this subject

    That’s exactly why you shouldn’t be proposing legislation on this subject. By your own admission, you are uninformed on it.

    I’ll admit that, on the surface, gun control makes sense. Ban something and then criminals won’t get it.
    When one checks into it further, then it becomes more clear. Cities with strict gun controls, like Washington DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angelas, San Francisco, etc. all have higher crime rates because they pass laws, and criminals don’t obey them. Only law-abiding citizens do.

74. #74
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:39 am, granite said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:29 am, SHoward said:

    Who is any one person to tell another what they need?

    BINGO!!

    The opposite-world-view-holding America-hating/destroying elitists believe that they – and only they – are the ones to tell the rest of us troglodytes what we need….

75. #75
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:39 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:29 am, SHoward said:

    Banning certain items because of their potential in the wrong hands leads us to a very dangerous place from the perspective of liberty. And we know what our founders thought of those that would trade liberty for perceived security. Would you really feel safer if high-cap mags were banned? They are in this state (CA). Wanna go for a ride in LA?

    I’m not under any illusion that the banning of semi-automatic weapons will have a magical cure-all for crime anywhere, but it seems to me that as long as AK’s are banned and anthrax is banned and nuclear warheads are banned for private citizens, it’s not so much of a stretch to ban Loughner’s glock, since it seems to have only evil and horribly destructive uses.

76. #76
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:41 am, granite said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:38 am, tre said:

    Correct.

    As blogger Blueline (hope I got the name right) posted yesterday, “That’s what criminals do; they break the law.”

77. #77
    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:58 am, SHoward said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:39 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    Well, as a matter of fact, AKs aren’t banned, either. Nor were they under the “Assault Weapons Ban.” That ‘ban’ was a ban on the import and new manufacture in country of certain items, not the possession or sale of existing ones.

    In the meantime, over 600,000 times per year private citizens defend themselves with firearms, such as that Glock 19. And, as a matter of fact, my S&W 9mm weapon is just as ‘deadly.’ But it’s not a Glock, so is it okay? A Ruger Mini-30 is the same caliber as and much more accurate than an AK, so is it okay? It wasn’t part of that ‘ban.’

    Can you see no other purpose for an AK? What about sport shooting? What about home defence? It is actually, believe it or not as you wish, very well suited for that role. It’s a medium powered rifle, which means it’s rounds won’t go through everything under the sun.

    So, who gets to decide? Since I can’t manufacture or afford either Anthrax or a Nuke, I’m defacto banned anyhow. But a rifle? A 9mm hadgun? Who gets to decide? The elites that think they’re smarter than the rest of us?

    How about we armed, law-abiding citizens dispense with the bad guys as they present themselves? You cannot ignore the fact that an armed citizen at that rally could have curtailed the brain donor’s actions. Several of them could have done it quicker.

    In the end we have a choice: A government-centric solution that involves loss of liberty in an attempt to make us feel safe, or a freedom-centric one that allows us to maintain our own safety.

    BTW: Using household chemicals and hardware store parts the brain donor could have wiped out that entire parking lot. No guns needed.

78. #78
    On January 12th, 2011 at 11:11 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    it’s not so much of a stretch to ban Loughner’s glock, since it seems to have only evil and horribly destructive uses.

    If a citizen at that rally had produced an identical Glock-19 after the first shot, and used it to subdue Loughner, would that be a “evil and horribly destructive use”?
    Quit talking out of the wrong orifice.

79. #79
    On January 12th, 2011 at 11:42 am, swmntman said:

    Red State said: …I will grant you that I am confused and uninformed on this subject, but there doesn’t seem to me any reason whatsoever that an ordinary American who has a gun only for self-defense would need a weapon like Jared Loughner had. What is the harm in banning it?

    Actually, we don’t have guns “only for self-defense”, we have them to guard against a tyranical government. You see, a long time ago there were these power-hungry politicians that kept taking more and more freedoms away from ordinary people…

80. #80
    On January 12th, 2011 at 11:46 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 10:58 am, SHoward said:

    I obviously need some research on this subject, and I appreciate your input. I do think there is a point where we need pointy-headed elites to tell us what weapons we can have. There already is, of course.

81. #81
    On January 12th, 2011 at 12:13 pm, SHoward said:

    On January 12th, 2011 at 11:46 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    Well, you may be right about the research, as I never seem to hear those details when the news carries stories about ‘bans’ and such. I’ve always had to go to the goobermint websites or the NRA to get the skinny on exactly what is in a given bill.

    As for those egg-heads, yeah, I know there are always going to be limits, at least here in modern times. In the past, many men had the sames arms as the army, because they basically were the army and there weren’t any other weapon systems around. Then came cannons, then the Gatling gun, etc. ad nauseam. For our purposes, we are talking small arms. For the record, I do actually believe that any law abiding citizen should be able to obtain anything he can afford. I have a bit of faith that most people won’t misuse those things, and the ones that do will be stopped by the ones that are law abiding. Perhaps we differ on that point.

82. #82
    On January 12th, 2011 at 1:21 pm, Solo said:

    And yet conservatives will run to the polls to vote for him because he’s not a Democrat.

    …. or is he?

    So hard to tell these days, isn’t it?

    Yes, it is. The fact that he was having a news conference with a far left dolt like Bloomberg should tell you all you need to know about King. He’s just another conservative left of center scumbag that thinks he’s better than the voters that put him in office.