Skip to comments.(Vanity) A Response to Rep. King in Light of Tucson
Posted on 01/14/2011 9:14:26 PM PST by grey_whiskers
The latest news cycle has been dominated by the shootings in Tucson. (I refuse to call them "tragic" as is the trend; and I refrain from calling them an "accident" as did our oh-so-informed EX-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. I guess she didn't get the "sour grapes" memo, as though fomenting anti-GOP riots NOW will still undo the November elections. But I digress.)
As part of the orchestration, there have been calls from the usual quarters for "more controls on guns". How this is supposed to help, when the shooter passed a Federally mandated background check, despite having made death threats which were reported to the Sheriff's Office, and being kicked off his college campus until he had a psychological evaluation proving him sane (how's *that* for cognitive dissonance?), is anyone's guess. But logic has never been the strong point of the left.
In addition to the
looney Maoist thugs on the left, a couple of Republicans have seen fit to wade in. Rep. Peter King (Infidel-NY) has proposed a Bill to be introduced into Congress to outlaw the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of government officials. Now, this is a bad enough idea on its face that even Jon Stewart of The Daily Show (ordinarily on the side of the Dems) made fun of it. For one thing, the logistics alone would be a nightmare -- how do you enforce a 1,000-ft limit rather than 990, and how do you handle it when the Congresscritter is walking around? And for another, how can you tell who the government officials ARE?
But I think that the Bill has the germ of truth in it; except that (being a Congressman, and therefore *by definition* more interested in his own perks than in ordinary Americans), he has it backwards. Especially since the item in question is by definition a Constitutional Right: what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" does he not understand? (Why is it only liberal causes, found only in penumbrae, which are in the Constitution? As I have said before, where is my penumbra in the 2nd Amendment to allow me to have a Harrier Jump-Jet so I can beat the morning rush hour to work?)
My proposal is this: instead of outlawing guns within 1,000 feet of government officials, let us outlaw government officials within 1,000 feet of guns! After all, they work for US, don't they? (*)
And it'd do the job of keeping the Congresscritters nice and safe, too.
(*) Why don't more cities and municipalities declare themselves "Congress-free zones" anyway? As Mark Twain put it, "'No man's life, liberty, or property is safe, while Congress is in session."
The real question is how was it that Sheriff Dupnik kept Jared from facing any charges during the slew of death threats and drug arrests that he racked up during the last year of his descent into psychosis.
Nothing showed up on the background check because all Jared’s LEO run-ins were quietly “fixed”.
But I’d still like to see proposed designs of the giant bullet-proof plexiglass bubble over the Capitol...
In regard to a proposed law by Representative King and Senator Lautenberg to forbid carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of an elected federal official or federal judge, I think the unaddressed problem here has to do with inflammatory rhetoric. For just one example consider that in Fairfax County Virginia guns appear to live passive lives. However, as soon as they cross the Potomac River and enter the Anacostia area of Washington D.C., they become psychopaths when hearing rules associated with rigid gun control legislation.
We need to take a lead from the Obama administration, which has excised such phrases as unlawful enemy combatant and war on terror from any discussion surrounding the events of 9/11 and thereafter. Guns need to understand we are not at war with them. If we approach them with an open mind and without preconditions, then we can arrive at lasting détente.
Using this more embracing, benevolent approach to interacting with guns; legislation should consider ways to make guns feel welcome. Representative King and Senator Lautenberg should propose that individuals with a concealed carry permit, who attend an event at which a Congress person or federal judge appears, must be not more than 1,000 feet from the individual. In this way guns would not feel offended, and would be unlikely to react violently.
I would like to see a law introduced that would prohibit any lawmaker from introducing legislation based on responding to a headline until at least 18 months had elapsed since said headline. This simple act would probably reduce the number of bills to 3 or 4 per year.
I don’t know that Americans should trust federal officials with guns in their official capacity, anymore. They seem to have rejected being under the constitution - the rule of law. That makes them a danger to the Republic. That is especially true of King who thinks he is one.
And here I was going to propose they pass a law requiring all Congressman/Senators to carry guns.
I am (momentarily) basking in the (usually fleeting) impression that all FReepers are above average.
Simple, if one of them starts walking towards you, pull out your gun and throw it on the ground in the opposite direction.
Uh.. I foresee some problems with that approach, especially if they start walking around with armed guards.
Me too, but you just know some idiot is going to put air hole in it.
Well, he was a liberal... could that be it? Did the Sheriff treat conservative 'threats' the same way? I'll bet on blood libel, double standards, politics where it doesn't belong, bias, liberal shenanigans... etc.
OMG - I think you’ve got something there...
Every time some nut-job uses a gun in a crime politicians want to punish those who didn’t commit the crime.