Here comes the Gun Control

[sean7]

I'm not sure I understand why you are against Congressmen and women receiving protection. Unlike the President, who only signs bills into law, it is Congressmen and women who introduce, debate and vote on bills, many of which are controversal, at least to large parts of the population, and who are often closer to constituants than the President will ever be. I think that if anyone should have protection, it is members of Congress. Now, that's not to say that any whackjob with a gun who really wants to do harm will not be able to do it if he really puts his crazy mind to it, but protection, such as secret service protection, couldn't hurt. The truth is that while some elected representatives are only in it for the exposure and limelight, many ran for Congress with the intent to change things for the better (depending on what you think "better" is). They aren't making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and, often times, new representatives sleep in their offices because they can't afford to have apartments or houses in Washington and also pay their mortgage in their home state. The point is that they deserve protection from the many wackjobs that are out there.

Yeah, actually the rank & file Representative yearly salary is $174,000 for 2010.

[Dannytheman]

I'm not sure I understand why you are against Congressmen and women receiving protection. Unlike the President, who only signs bills into law, it is Congressmen and women who introduce, debate and vote on bills, many of which are controversal, at least to large parts of the population, and who are often closer to constituants than the President will ever be. I think that if anyone should have protection, it is members of Congress. Now, that's not to say that any whackjob with a gun who really wants to do harm will not be able to do it if he really puts his crazy mind to it, but protection, such as secret service protection, couldn't hurt. The truth is that while some elected representatives are only in it for the exposure and limelight, many ran for Congress with the intent to change things for the better (depending on what you think "better" is). They aren't making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and, often times, new representatives sleep in their offices because they can't afford to have apartments or houses in Washington and also pay their mortgage in their home state. The point is that they deserve protection from the many wackjobs that are out there.

No they don't!!! Not with my tax dollars. And yes they are making over 174,000 dollars a year. (That's if they have no leadership positions) Again, no one forces them to do what they do.

List for me the Congressional killings in the over 200 years of our Republic.
Then tell me you want tax payer paid protection for all of them.

No one is forcing them to run for office! No one!!


Assassinations and Attempts in U.S. Since 1865
•Lincoln, Abraham (president of U.S.): Shot April 14, 1865, in Washington, DC, by John Wilkes Booth; died April 15.
•Seward, William H. (secretary of state): Escaped assassination (though injured) April 14, 1865, in Washington, DC, by Lewis Powell (or Paine), accomplice of John Wilkes Booth.
•Garfield, James A. (president of U.S.): Shot July 2, 1881, in Washington, DC, by Charles J. Guiteau; died Sept. 19.
•McKinley, William (president of U.S.): Shot Sept. 6, 1901, in Buffalo by Leon Czolgosz; died Sept. 14.
•Roosevelt, Theodore (ex-president of U.S.): Escaped assassination (though shot) Oct. 14, 1912, in Milwaukee while campaigning for president.
•Cermak, Anton J. (mayor of Chicago): Shot Feb. 15, 1933, in Miami by Giuseppe Zangara, who attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt; Cermak died March 6.
•Roosevelt, Franklin D. (president-elect of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Feb. 15, 1933, in Miami.
•Long, Huey P. (U.S. senator from Louisiana): Shot Sept. 8, 1935, in Baton Rouge by Dr. Carl A. Weiss; died Sept. 10.
•Truman, Harry S. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Nov. 1, 1950, in Washington, DC, as 2 Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to shoot their way into Blair House.
•Kennedy, John F. (president of U.S.): Shot Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald; died same day. Injured was Gov. John B. Connally of Texas. Oswald was shot and killed two days later by Jack Ruby.
•Malcolm X, also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (black activist): Shot and killed in a New York City auditorium, Feb. 21, 1965; his killer(s) were never positively identified.
•King, Martin Luther, Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot April 4, 1968, in Memphis by James Earl Ray; died same day.
•Kennedy, Robert F. (U.S. senator from New York): Shot June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan; died June 6.
•Wallace, George C. (governor of Alabama): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 15, 1972, at Laurel, Md., by Arthur Herman Bremer. Wallace paralyzed from waist down.
•Ford, Gerald R. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination attempt Sept. 5, 1975, in Sacramento, Calif., by Lynette Alice (Squeaky) Fromme, who pointed but did not fire .45-caliber pistol. Escaped assassination attempt in San Francisco, Calif., Sept. 22, 1975, by Sara Jane Moore, who fired one shot from a .38-caliber pistol that was deflected.
•Jordan, Vernon E., Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 29, 1980, in Fort Wayne, Ind.
•Reagan, Ronald (president of U.S.): Shot in left lung in Washington by John W. Hinckley, Jr., on March 30, 1981; three others also wounded.

[legendarylorot]

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said.

"To protect people, certainly citizens" makes it sound like these elected officials aren't citizens themselves, and are somehow beyond citizens. That mindset can lead to terrible things in the name of progress.

[PocketProtector]

Like it or not, the mantra from the left will become deafening, at least in the short term. They sit around salivating waiting for these things to happen. It's sick. They have talking points all ready to go.
Listen to what PMS Keith says: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/keit...-his-rhetoric/

Talk about someone who should be on a list.

[Stooperzero]

"Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said.

Just playing her regular role to get $$ from the Anti folks.


Alot of Compromise in that statement.

We'll probly get an Extra Block on the 4473
" Have your ever been deemed Mentally deficient"

That'll stop people from getting murdered.

[MDJschool]

None of us on this forum, IMHO, want a mentally deranged individual running around with a loaded gun. If you are ok with that, let me know your thoughts. We, the gun friendly folks, need to help to be a part of the solution, unlike the anti gun folks who go straight to banning everything under the sun.

Let me be the first to say that I want 'mentally deranged individual(s)' 'running around' with loaded guns.

I say that because your use, and our understanding, of the term "mentally deranged" is largely meaningless. Disarmament begins upon the government's use and understanding of the term "mentally deranged". Not that I understand where Loughner was ultimately going with his YouTube videos (I imagine there's a context somewhere that we haven't been given), worry about the having the government "control your grammar structure" is surprisingly resounding: Other than what we've learned from 1984, consider Josh Sugarmann's quest to give a new face to assault weapons, and the government's subsequent adoption of the new-style terminology, for example. So, while you or we might term a 'mentally deranged individual' as 'the guy who went on an unexplained rampage and shot the congresswoman' or 'the guy who showed all these signs and it was inevitable that he was going to shoot the congresswoman', legislators, police, prosecutors, and judges are actually deciding that a 'mentally deranged individual' is someone who strongly believes in liberty protected by the constitutions, or who carries a firearm (and gets cited/arrested for disorderly conduct, as an example of where these snap judgments begin to pop up).

Prior to the shooting, how would you have differentiated and disarmed Loughner?

[PocketProtector]

The Left's definition of "Mentally deranged" is one who believes in The Constitution.
Anyone want them writing any more laws???

[Dannytheman]

Let me be the first to say that I want 'mentally deranged individual(s)' 'running around' with loaded guns.

I say that because your use, and our understanding, of the term "mentally deranged" is largely meaningless. Disarmament begins upon the government's use and understanding of the term "mentally deranged". Not that I understand where Loughner was ultimately going with his YouTube videos (I imagine there's a context somewhere that we haven't been given), worry about the having the government "control your grammar structure" is surprisingly resounding: Other than what we've learned from 1984, consider Josh Sugarmann's quest to give a new face to assault weapons, and the government's subsequent adoption of the new-style terminology, for example. So, while you or we might term a 'mentally deranged individual' as 'the guy who went on an unexplained rampage and shot the congresswoman' or 'the guy who showed all these signs and it was inevitable that he was going to shoot the congresswoman', legislators, police, prosecutors, and judges are actually deciding that a 'mentally deranged individual' is someone who strongly believes in liberty protected by the constitutions, or who carries a firearm (and gets cited/arrested for disorderly conduct, as an example of where these snap judgments begin to pop up).

Prior to the shooting, how would you have differentiated and disarmed Loughner?

Line "E" and "F" as defined on the 4473 form would serve my purpose. I recognise these did not relate to this individual nut. But there is a defined position already.

Do you have any mental illness in your family? Have you ever visited a mentally unstable person in the ward? I have. And if you want people like that having open access to guns, as is your statement, I have nothing else to say to you.

[GunLawyer001]

In 1994, a mother named Susan Smith placed her two children into a 1990 Mazda Protegé, then rolled it into a lake, killing them.

Did anyone suggest banning Mazdas?

Car accidents injure 3,000,000 Americans every year, and kill 40,000 of them.

Does anyone seriously suggest banning cars for this reason?

No, car safety is all about training people to use cars safely.

Gun control should also be about training people to use guns responsibly, not taking them away from the subject people and making them a government monopoly.

The anti's sincerely believe that "cars have a legitimate purpose, guns are just for killing people". These folks need to pick up a book now and then. History is DEFINED by people killing people. How much history can you talk about that doesn't involve killing? What have we as a nation spent for the purpose of killing Al Qaida, Afghanis, Iraqis, Somalis, Vietnamese, Koreans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Spaniards, Cubans....

Saving your own life is not only a "legitimate purpose" for gun ownership, it's the single most important legitimate purpose that a human being can have.

Why is health care called a "basic human right" by these Lefties? Why is it your right to have the incomes of other people stolen by the government to purchase insurance to pay doctors to save your life in case you get sick, yet you have no right to purchase the weapon of your own choice using your own money so that you can save your own life in case you're attacked by one of the many, many criminals, dopers, illegal aliens and sociopaths that live among us?

The legitimate purpose of the government is to regulate the BEHAVIOR of bad people, not to restrict the rights of people who have done nothing wrong. And the Feds have an even narrower mandate, since they have no general police power. This McCarthy twit wants to "regulate commerce" by using the force of law to take away objects which you and I have never misused, in the absence of evidence that we plan to misuse them in the future. That's fascism, not governing.

[ARay]

In 1994, a mother named Susan Smith placed her two children into a 1990 Mazda Protegé, then rolled it into a lake, killing them.

Did anyone suggest banning Mazdas?

Car accidents injure 3,000,000 Americans every year, and kill 40,000 of them.

Does anyone seriously suggest banning cars for this reason?

No, car safety is all about training people to use cars safely.

Gun control should also be about training people to use guns responsibly, not taking them away from the subject people and making them a government monopoly.

The anti's sincerely believe that "cars have a legitimate purpose, guns are just for killing people". These folks need to pick up a book now and then. History is DEFINED by people killing people. How much history can you talk about that doesn't involve killing? What have we as a nation spent for the purpose of killing Al Qaida, Afghanis, Iraqis, Somalis, Vietnamese, Koreans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Spaniards, Cubans....

Saving your own life is not only a "legitimate purpose" for gun ownership, it's the single most important legitimate purpose that a human being can have.

Why is health care called a "basic human right" by these Lefties? Why is it your right to have the incomes of other people stolen by the government to purchase insurance to pay doctors to save your life in case you get sick, yet you have no right to purchase the weapon of your own choice using your own money so that you can save your own life in case you're attacked by one of the many, many criminals, dopers, illegal aliens and sociopaths that live among us?

The legitimate purpose of the government is to regulate the BEHAVIOR of bad people, not to restrict the rights of people who have done nothing wrong. And the Feds have an even narrower mandate, since they have no general police power. This McCarthy twit wants to "regulate commerce" by using the force of law to take away objects which you and I have never misused, in the absence of evidence that we plan to misuse them in the future. That's fascism, not governing.

That is the best rant I've ever heard. Can I use some of that in discussions elsewhere?

I'd rep you, but I don't post enough.