View Full Version : gun control legislation to be introduced monday
chad
9th January 2011, 07:18 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html
that didn't take long.
my fav part is where the story says the proposed legislation might include banning the "stockpiling of ammunition."
ShortJohnSilver
9th January 2011, 07:28 PM
Gun grabbers favorite dance:
Lindy Hop in Fresh Blood
Andy9999
9th January 2011, 07:39 PM
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1Abks4e1j
McCarthy’s bill will look to protect ordinary people, she said, but did not offer further details.
:conf: :conf: :conf: :conf: :conf:
this is the reason Everybody should have olne
mamboni
9th January 2011, 07:40 PM
McCarthy is a gun control extremist. She would sieze every firearm from a spud gun to an AK47 from every private citizen if she could. So the premise of her ilk is that strict gun control would have prevented this tragedy as no one would have had a gun? What utter nonsense - as if law breakers and those intent on breaking the law would be hindered in any way from getting a gun? The only people prevented from obtaining a firearm by these moronic anti-gun laws are 'law-abiding' citizens (i.e. the ones that don't commit violent crimes). The counterargument is more persuasive: if a few private citizens in the crowd were carrying, it is very likely that they could have neutralized this madman and saved some lives. An armed society is a polite society - crime statistics prove this.
7th trump
9th January 2011, 08:04 PM
McCarthy is a gun control extremist. She would sieze every firearm from a spud gun to an AK47 from every private citizen if she could. So the premise of her ilk is that strict gun control would have prevented this tragedy as no one would have had a gun? What utter nonsense - as if law breakers and those intent on breaking the law would be hindered in any way from getting a gun? The only people prevented from obtaining a firearm by these moronic anti-gun laws are 'law-abiding' citizens (i.e. the ones that don't commit violent crimes). The counterargument is more persuasive: if a few private citizens in the crowd were carrying, it is very likely that they could have neutralized this madman and saved some lives. An armed society is a polite society - crime statistics prove this.
To sum up your post Mamboni.............A coworker made a comment about some security camera's we were installing for JD said "these camera's only keep the honest guy out. Wont stop a theif from jumping the fense".
Cebu_4_2
9th January 2011, 08:24 PM
The big gun grab, I dont think Bohner will go for it, not without shedding enough tears for everyone else to decline it.
Piglosi? Well we know how she would vote.
Going to be placing a few orders tonight for more ammo just in case.
Kali
9th January 2011, 08:45 PM
The big gun grab
They can grab deez nuts!
mrnhtbr2232
9th January 2011, 08:47 PM
Gun control in general:
Zero compliance from criminals.
High compliance from idiots who voluntarily surrender guns they shouldn't have to begin with.
Case-by-case compliance or non-compliance from ordinary gun owners.
In none of these categories does gun control accomplish a reduction in crime or increase in personal safety.
SilverMagnet
9th January 2011, 09:13 PM
McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.
So if her husband would have been killed by a drunk driver she would have joined M.A.D.D. ? Excuse me lady but keep your damn hands off my guns.
Grand Master Melon
10th January 2011, 12:44 AM
I despise opportunists like this broad. She is what's wrong with the USA.
Mad_Max
10th January 2011, 05:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U&feature=player_embedded
freespirit
10th January 2011, 06:17 AM
laughable...she doesn't even know what a barrel shroud is, but they should be banned??? is she for real??
this to me is another knee-jerk reaction. like most politicians, she is engaging her mouth before making sure her brain is in gear. what an idiot!
you guys feelin the noose yet?
007
10th January 2011, 06:22 AM
The solution is not gun control. The solution is more armed citizens. If half of the crowd had been armed then Jared might not have done it. And if he still tried it then perhaps more people would be alive today.
jimswift
10th January 2011, 06:53 AM
if a few private citizens in the crowd were carrying, it is very likely that they could have neutralized this madman and saved some lives. An armed society is a polite society - crime statistics prove this.
The solution is not gun control. The solution is more armed citizens. If half of the crowd had been armed then Jared might not have done it. And if he still tried it then perhaps more people would be alive today.
This has been my contention on the whole thing. If the majority of sane people carried, this would be a non issue. Not sure even a crazy person would go into a room and draw a piece and think he was going to do something if he knows everyone else has a gun.
Horn
10th January 2011, 07:00 AM
if a few private citizens in the crowd were carrying, it is very likely that they could have neutralized this madman and saved some lives. An armed society is a polite society - crime statistics prove this.
The solution is not gun control. The solution is more armed citizens. If half of the crowd had been armed then Jared might not have done it. And if he still tried it then perhaps more people would be alive today.
This has been my contention on the whole thing. If the majority of sane people carried, this would be a non issue. Not sure even a crazy person would go into a room and draw a piece and think he was going to do something if he knows everyone else has a gun.
The Democrats would then claim mandate that all citizenry should be provided one by government entitlement.
mamboni
10th January 2011, 07:11 AM
if a few private citizens in the crowd were carrying, it is very likely that they could have neutralized this madman and saved some lives. An armed society is a polite society - crime statistics prove this.
The solution is not gun control. The solution is more armed citizens. If half of the crowd had been armed then Jared might not have done it. And if he still tried it then perhaps more people would be alive today.
This has been my contention on the whole thing. If the majority of sane people carried, this would be a non issue. Not sure even a crazy person would go into a room and draw a piece and think he was going to do something if he knows everyone else has a gun.
The Democrats would then claim mandate that all citizenry should be provided one by government entitlement.
That will never happen because it runs directly opposite to their leftist (i.e. more centralized power; a defenseless passive citizenry) ideology. While much of Federal legislation appears reactionary, there is an underlying theme and trend towards accrual of power in Washington and undermining of citizenry constitutional rights and activism.
Horn
10th January 2011, 07:23 AM
if a few private citizens in the crowd were carrying, it is very likely that they could have neutralized this madman and saved some lives. An armed society is a polite society - crime statistics prove this.
The solution is not gun control. The solution is more armed citizens. If half of the crowd had been armed then Jared might not have done it. And if he still tried it then perhaps more people would be alive today.
This has been my contention on the whole thing. If the majority of sane people carried, this would be a non issue. Not sure even a crazy person would go into a room and draw a piece and think he was going to do something if he knows everyone else has a gun.
The Democrats would then claim mandate that all citizenry should be provided one by government entitlement.
That will never happen because it runs directly opposite to their leftist (i.e. more centralized power; a defenseless passive citizenry) ideology. While much of Federal legislation appears reactionary, there is an underlying theme and trend towards accrual of power in Washington and undermining of citizenry constitutional rights and activism.
What will it take to finally reunite the clans then?
Think of it, it could be a new religion for the U.S. a right of passage for each adult.
And a boost to the economy as well.
Passing the biathlon could be mandatory requirement to attain such reward entitlements then...how about that?
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/biathlon-14.jpg
BrewTech
10th January 2011, 07:40 AM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1AdwUaq16
Stupid me... here I was thinking that threatening to harm people was already a crime.
Methinks the term "threatening" will be redefined.
Twisted Titan
10th January 2011, 07:43 AM
NEVER TURN IN YOUR GUNS ........EVER.
THE DAY YOU DO IS DAY YOU ACKNOWELEDGE A POWER HIGHER THEN YOUR GOD THAT GAVE YOU YOUR FREEDOMS!!!!
Neuro
10th January 2011, 07:46 AM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1AdwUaq16
Stupid me... here I was thinking that threatening to harm people was already a crime.
Methinks the term "threatening" will be redefined.
Yes it would probably be defined as exposing them as Liars and traitors!
Book
10th January 2011, 07:52 AM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
What happened to "equal protection of the law"?
:oo-->
BrewTech
10th January 2011, 07:57 AM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
What happened to "equal protection of the law"?
:oo-->
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Santa
10th January 2011, 08:22 AM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Is this one of the symbols he wants to outlaw?
http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/junk/the-finger.jpg
mamboni
10th January 2011, 08:45 AM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Is this one of the symbols he wants to outlaw?
http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/junk/the-finger.jpg
Probably yes. :-[
Personally. I don't even want to leave my property anymore, so repressive the atmosphere has become in this country.
Twisted Titan
10th January 2011, 09:04 AM
Just herd on Bloomberg the Gun man had a Glock 19 and then he says the following:
You dont use a G19 to hunt Bambi......you use a G19 for one thing and that is to kill people.
This one is not going to go away quitely and it is no mistake that this happened in AZ
Whatever you want you better try and get it like right now......... purchases of Sliver and Gold should be put on hold Tommarrow might litterally be too late.
T
chad
10th January 2011, 09:14 AM
wisconsin public radio had a show devoted to the killing this morning and had an ongoing poll of every caller asking "if semi-automatic hand guns should be banned."
this is how they do it. high cap mags are on the chopping block first. next semi auto handguns. then revolvers. then semi auto rifles. then bolt action rifles. then black powder. then knives.
Twisted Titan
10th January 2011, 09:23 AM
.........................
madfranks
10th January 2011, 10:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U&feature=player_embedded
http://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/barrel-shroud.jpg
mike88
10th January 2011, 11:47 AM
What a crew of self serving oppurtunists. Her fellow congressman is gunned down, and she looks at this as an opportunity to get her name in the spotlight. Pretty rough club of 535. 15% approval rating for the assclowns nationwide. Yet they want to isolate themselves further with more "special priveleges"? If the pols had the best interest of their country at heart, they could go anywhere and be welcomed into people's homes. Their shady activities are the reason they are running scared of the people they are sworn to serve.
midnight rambler
10th January 2011, 12:48 PM
Instead of passing more useless laws they need to be reflecting upon why it is that they perceive disaffection from the people.
Apparition
10th January 2011, 01:00 PM
"Never let an opportunity go to waste."
Yep, they won't.
On the other hand, I doubt this will pass.
keehah
10th January 2011, 06:43 PM
Judge John Roll, AZ shooting victim, ruled against background checks, Brady Bill (http://tp://www.examiner.com/celebrity-in-national/judge-john-roll-arizona-shooting-victim-ruled-against-gun-control-brady-bill#ixzz1AgdEpEaH)
Brady Bill Declared Unconstitutional by District Court in Arizona (http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/bradybil.html)
"I have met thousands of concerned patriotic Americans, and one things has remained constant," Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona noted, "the people of this great country are afraid! Afraid of big government, afraid of losing their lands and homes to ruthless tax collectors, afraid of losing their children to bureaucrats who disapprove of spanking, and most of all, afraid of having their God-given rights and freedoms trampled by the very servants charged with protecting them."
He filed a lawsuit against the federal government in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in which he challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Bill gun control act. Judge John Roll of Tucson agreed
http://www.prisonplanet.com/classy-father-of-9-year-old-victim-dont-exploit-my-daughters-death-to-revoke-freedoms.html
What a classy, brave and thoughtful individual John Green is – father of the 9-year-old girl murdered by Jared Loughner – Green contradicts the distasteful rush to exploit Saturday’s tragic events as a vehicle through which to eviscerate the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Speaking to Fox News, Green labeled Loughner’s rampage a “random act” and said that the death of his daughter should not be exploited to revoke freedoms.
Speaking on the subject of how travel became a nightmare after 9/11, John Green said, “We don’t need any more restrictions on our society,” as a consequence of the shootings, and said that tragic events such as those that led to the murder of his daughter was the price Americans have to pay for freedom.
Santa
10th January 2011, 07:40 PM
Speaking on the subject of how travel became a nightmare after 9/11, John Green said, “We don’t need any more restrictions on our society,” as a consequence of the shootings, and said that tragic events such as those that led to the murder of his daughter was the price Americans have to pay for freedom.
Now this is a man I hold in high esteem. God bless his soul...
freespirit
10th January 2011, 07:54 PM
and his daughter's as well....
keehah
10th January 2011, 08:41 PM
This Judge, with a record of backing the constitution was going to rule on Obama's new currency controls.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/4:2010cv00703/568697/
United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al
Plaintiff: United States of America
Defendants: $333,520.00 in US Currency and Saturn Aura XE 2007, VIN 1G8ZS57N97F136757
Case Number: 4:2010cv00703
Filed: November 30, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Santa Cruz
Presiding Judge: John M Roll
Nature of Suit: Forfeiture / Penalty - Other
Cause: Bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Book
10th January 2011, 08:48 PM
Their shady activities are the reason they are running scared of the people they are sworn to serve.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0711/capitol_police.jpg
They didn't spend all those billions militarizing the Police for "Homeland Security" in fear of mooslims.
:)
ShortJohnSilver
10th January 2011, 08:56 PM
With the questions surrounding the deat of Judge Roll, the congressional aide dead in the burning car, and the dead guy in the landfill, is it time to start an "Obama Body Count List" the way one was compiled for Clinton?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.