Friday, January 14, 2011

Gun Ban Around Members Of Congress?

FLG understands the renewed focus of gun control advocates after the Arizona shooting, but this astonished him:
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said in a telephone interview that since he proposed a bill this week that would outlaw having a firearm within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress, his office had received “100 calls an hour from people who think I am trying to take away their Second Amendment rights.”

People who are planning on shooting members of Congress, which is already a crime, aren't going to be dissuaded by yet another law. So, the idea that it would have any effect at all is ridiculous.

Look, FLG believes in pretty strong second amendment rights. He doesn't go as far as the NRA, but nevertheless it's stuff like this that makes FLG think many of those who endeavor to control guns aren't exactly thinking things through logically.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the law is even dumber than you think. It's not just members of congress but federal officials as well or some sort of jargon which must cover Administration, Cabinet, judges, Pentagon and State Department wonks, CIA etc, etc - and how many thousands of those are there?

For this law to work I imagine they will become like fire engines and wear signs on their backsides which read :

"Must stay back 1000 feet if you are carrying a concealed weapon."


Mrs. P

william randolph brafford said...

In the inspirational film version of 2011, Representative Giffords will return to the House Floor just in time to make an impassioned speech that convinces a key bloc of congressmen to vote against this bill.

In real life, I hope this bill disappears. The less showy-but-ineffectual disaster-response legislation Congress tries to pass, the better.

George Pal said...

The U.S. government (President Obama) has asserted it has the right to assassinate American citizens without trial or arrest. Would Rep. King consider an amendment: no government official (or his agent) will be allowed within a thousand yards of an American citizen.

One is not surprised fevered minds (Loughner) may resort to indiscriminate violence but one expects more from his ostensibly sane reps. And the abrogation, by ukase, of the Constitution by this government allowing discriminate violence against citizens makes one wonder – just who is nuts?

David said...

Maybe all government officials should wear fancy uniforms, with insignia denoting their status. Sashes of different colors could designate their rank and how far away from each you would have to keep if armed with a gun or a pocket knife. Bowing would be optional (for now) but strongly encouraged, and wearers of the purple sash (Senators and Cabinet officers) would be allowed to kick anyone who did not promptly move out of their way.

The Ancient said...

I might be persuaded to support a law which banned weapons of any kind at public meetings.

(I don't worry too much about politicians getting shot, stabbed, or blown-up. It's everybody else in the room -- the people who have come to petition Leviathan -- that I'd like to see better protected.)

((Frankly, I'm amazed that we've been spared suicide bombers. I wonder how long that will last?))

arethusa said...

The irony, naturally, is that Giffords is pro-gun. As you would expect of an Arizona Democrat.

Another problem with the law is that lawmakers don't stay in one place, so innocent concealed-carryers could end up getting arrested. Plus, as King himself said, it wouldn't have stopped the Tucson shooter.

I share the Ancient's puzzlement about suicide bombers. I don't think it can be too far away, though, what with attempted car bombs in Times Square already.

Anonymous said...

Purple sashes?

Alright, alright. As long as they pair them with Pickelhaubes and steel toes boots to kick us with.

Ancient, on 9/11, I called a friend at State Dept. whose has been there and in various hot spots around the world since Reagan. He said "It's crazy this has happened but it's crazy it hasn't happened earlier."


Mrs. P

George Pal said...

Pickelhaubes! Mrs. P, you are a peach.

Anonymous said...

Thank you George.

George - you might know the answer to this one - what's the real difference between *grammar* and *speech*?

I mean we've just witnessed a week where a Left wing atheist/madman who believes the government is practicing mind control through (poor) grammar led him to pump a bullet through his congresswoman's head as well pump bullets into 20+ people around her (including a child)which then led the Left wing to accuse the Right wing of really being the ones who committed this mass murder because of mind control the Right wing practices through their......speech which then led to the head of our government to give a (too long) speech saying speech wasn't really behind this mass murder and then introduce a new slogan for us all to live by - *together we thrive* which...if you think about it is grammatically incorrect, isn't it?


Mrs. P

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.