• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Peter King, Leading Republican, To Introduce Strict Gun-Control Legislation

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
King is officially a dumbass. This makes as much sense as creating gun free zones.

I've heard that crisis brings out the best in in people. I'm seeing that the opposite is also true.

A murderer isn't going to shoot up a town hall meeting, because carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a congress critter is illegal? :lamo

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

Peter King, Leading Republican, To Introduce Strict Gun-Control Legislation
 
King is officially a dumbass. This makes as much sense as creating gun free zones.

I've heard that crisis brings out the best in in people. I'm seeing that the opposite is also true.

A murderer isn't going to shoot up a town hall meeting, because carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a congress critter is illegal? :lamo

Don't you get the logic for a law like this? No one would have been killed or injured in AZ if Loughner knew there was the 1,000 ft law in place.

Do you think only responsible gun owners would obey that law?
 
Don't you get the logic for a law like this? No one would have been killed or injured in AZ if Loughner knew there was the 1,000 ft law in place.

Do you think only responsible gun owners would obey that law?

actually, he could have been legally searched and prohibited from attending the event.
 
actually, he could have been legally searched and prohibited from attending the event.

By whom???? In case you didn't notice, Sheriff Dip**** didn't provide any security.

Are we going to start searching every swinging dick that's on the way into the grocery store, just because some congress critter decided to set up her show at the front door?
 
Lets just convert the capital into a supermax facility and keep the congressmen safe and sound within the walls with three squares a day and a dedicated security force to patrol the grounds keeping them safe in their own private cells. In other words, lets just keep them away from us, they're so special and all. We can get the security folk from leavenworth, or maybe gitmo. Problem solved.
 
Bah! This is a ghastly idea.

Personally, I think gun control, if anything, should be a local issue. Nowadays, when I hear gunfire, it means the neighbor's shooting target practice -- unless, of course, it's hunting season. In the city, gunfire means somebody got shot at. The cultural symbolism of a gun varies greatly by region.

But this kind of law needlessly tests the constitution. It's already very, very, very illegal to shoot a congressman. What use is a law like this?
 
actually, he could have been legally searched and prohibited from attending the event.


The whole purpose of her event was to make herself "accessible" to the public. I doubt she would have wanted a cordon of police covering a 1000' perimeter, searching everyone who crossed same... it would NOT have endeared her to her constituents.

Not to mention if we were going to do something like that for every Congresscritter's every public appearance, the cost would be enormous and the inconvenience for the citizenry appalling.

As tightly and professionally as the President is protected, assassins still manage to get within range. Hinkley/Reagan for instance.

Fortunately this law has about a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
 
John Stewart's response was pretty spot on.

"How would law-abiding gun owners know how far they are from government officials? Unless the statute also requires government officials to wear, let's say, cowbells and gun owners carry NFL yardage chains."
 
John Stewart's response was pretty spot on.

"How would law-abiding gun owners know how far they are from government officials? Unless the statute also requires government officials to wear, let's say, cowbells and gun owners carry NFL yardage chains."


I don't care who ya are, THAT was frickin' hilarious. :lamo
 
John Stewart's response was pretty spot on.

"How would law-abiding gun owners know how far they are from government officials? Unless the statute also requires government officials to wear, let's say, cowbells and gun owners carry NFL yardage chains."

hell, get rid of all the useless stuff and just make lawmakers wear the cowbells. i'd support it.
 
hell, get rid of all the useless stuff and just make lawmakers wear the cowbells. i'd support it.

and these too... so you can be sure to see them if they cannot be heard (for their own safety, of course, and so they won't be confused with actual cows):

kid-dunce-hat1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom