Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think they should name it, The feel good act, for stupid and ignorant people who would like to make illegal guns, illegal.. :crazy:

1000' rule.. nearly a quarter mile, so if you drive by a federal courthouse with a gun in your vehicle, you could be imprisoned regardless of whether you legally own the gun and are carrying it legally.. Now, if a person has a gun, and decides he is going to shoot a federal official, does anybody here really have a low enough IQ to think he would stop and say, "Damn, this is now illegal, I guess I will just go home and play XBOX"? Who could this possibly punish? I mean, the guy in Arizona is facing the death penalty, without this legislation. What else are they gonna do? Imprison his body for an extra 40 years after they kill him? This kind of law does nothing but put normal people in harms way regarding the government.

A popular GOP congressman announced today that he will soon introduce gun control legislation that will make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who has generally been supportive of gun control measures, announced the new legislation alongside strong anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Not surprisingly, the legislation, which will be introduced in the upcoming weeks, got Bloomberg’s stamp of approval.

King’s office issued a statement about the bill, which reads in part:

Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.

Bloomberg, the head of the group Mayors Against Illegal guns, applauded the measure, saying at a joint news conference the “system that’s supposed to protect us from dangerous and deranged people has failed.”

At that same news conference, King defended the bill, saying “The fact is they do represent the people who elect them, and it‘s essential if we’re going to continue to have contact that the public who is at these meetings are ensured of their own safety.”

According to him, the measure does not conflict with conservative views on gun laws.

“From a conservative perspective, we have to have a stable society, we have to keep crime down,” King said. “You cannot do that if the police cannot be assured that illegal guns are not on the street.”

“To have a stable society and a safe society, we have to remove illegal guns,” he continued.

But the main issue might be, if a gun is already “illegal” why would we need more legislation to outlaw it? For example, in many states, laws already prevent people from carrying a concealed weapon. And the other question is how would this legislation prevent a crazed gunman — who already has no respect for laws against murder — from doing exactly what Loughner did?

Despite the rhetoric of the news conference, all indications are that King’s legislation is not just aimed at illegal guns (that would be redundant). It seems to apply more to “legal” gun owners — those who have permits to carry a concealed weapon.

Reports indicate that at least one such person was at the Tucson Safeway that day. Joe Zamudio is one of the men who helped subdue Tucson gunman Jared Loughner. Zamudio admitted he was carrying a concealed weapon at the time, and said he was seconds away from using it. Under King’s legislation, however, Zamudio’s gun would have been illegal.

Still, Bloomberg thinks the legislation does not infringe one’s right to keep and bear arms.

“That does not take away the First amendment, it protects it,” he said. “That does not take away the Second amendment, I think it protects it”

King is the same congressman who vowed to hold hearings on radical Islam, and currently chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he expects the president’s support on the bill, which would specifically make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress, or judges of the Federal Judiciary.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gop-rep-will-introduce-gun-control-legislation/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
and this is what the new right has to offer? :rolling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
I don't understand, maybe someone can explain it to me. This is the quote from the article, how does making it illegal give law enforcement a better chance to intercept?

"Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I don't understand, maybe someone can explain it to me. This is the quote from the article, how does making it illegal give law enforcement a better chance to intercept?

"Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger."
That's what all us "anti-government" types keep trying to point out.. the government don't do anything efficient, effective or sensible. It's a bloated behemoth that moves from crisis to crisis to try and keep itself relevant. The idiots prove it in the article, when they say they want to make illegal guns, illegal.

This idea won't help law enforcement 1 bit. It's simply an assault on the 2nd amendment and they have paired it with an assault on the 1st. Without the 2nd, the 1st is irrelevant.
 

·
DC PIT CREW BOSS
Joined
·
39,563 Posts
1000' ---- 333 yards. Not very far. Any good deer rifle can hold a 6" group at that range. What we really need is criminal control not gun control.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,241 Posts
I hope the law requires all federal officials to wear a shirt or an orange hat. Otherwise I have no clue if the guy in line next to me is a judge or whatever.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
I hope the law requires all federal officials to wear a shirt or an orange hat. Otherwise I have no clue if the guy in line next to me is a judge or whatever.
:laughing:


:rolling::rolling:


:agree:
 

·
I support glass stairways
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
1000' ---- 333 yards. Not very far. Any good deer rifle can hold a 6" group at that range. What we really need is criminal control not gun control.
A 6" group is horrible, it's the difference between a kill shot and a miss...

Besides, most people who can shoot ACCURATELY at that range, aren't criminals...:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
This **** goes on every day. But... let one of the them get shot and it's outrageous and warrants new securities. I wonder if this new regulation limiting Freedom and Liberty of law abiding citizens... would have made any impact on the shooting of the people at the supermarket. They may as well make a new law stating "no more public meetings between elected representatives and constituents".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
I hope the law requires all federal officials to wear a shirt or an orange hat. Otherwise I have no clue if the guy in line next to me is a judge or whatever.

How about a vest with 4 concentric circular stripes and a dot in the center with alternatine paterns of red and white? It could be very efective identification:thumbsup:
 

·
I support glass stairways
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
How about a vest with 4 concentric circular stripes and a dot in the center with alternatine paterns of red and white? It could be very efective identification:thumbsup:
They also must wear either an "R" or a "D"...:rolling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
1000' ---- 333 yards. Not very far. Any good deer rifle can hold a 6" group at that range. What we really need is criminal control not gun control.
:agree:

Although it was a "few" years ago I proved that a bone stock M16 would do that kind of accuracy with peep sight.

When I was in college I wrote a paper that described how, if all the guns and ammo vanished, I could have a single shot weapon operational in 24 hours. Knowledge is power! OK, do away with all the evil guns and there is the big bang option. With a nut job it doesn't matter and the end justifies the means.

My point is....all the "anti-" laws won't do a thing until we get a handle on the Head Cases out there. That will never happen 'cause a new Head Case pops up every day that has never been to a Doc.

As to the R or D marking; some days I wonder if there is much difference anymore? They all operate on a knee-jerk reaction.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Silverhawk;1845593My point is....all the "anti-" laws won't do a thing until we get a handle on the Head Cases out there. [U said:
That[/U] will never happen 'cause a new Head Case pops up every day that has never been to a Doc.

As to the R or D marking; some days I wonder if there is much difference anymore? They all operate on a knee-jerk reaction.
:agree:

:cheers:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
I think they should name it, The feel good act, for stupid and ignorant people who would like to make illegal guns, illegal.. :crazy:

1000' rule.. nearly a quarter mile, so if you drive by a federal courthouse with a gun in your vehicle, you could be imprisoned regardless of whether you legally own the gun and are carrying it legally.. Now, if a person has a gun, and decides he is going to shoot a federal official, does anybody here really have a low enough IQ to think he would stop and say, "Damn, this is now illegal, I guess I will just go home and play XBOX"? Who could this possibly punish? I mean, the guy in Arizona is facing the death penalty, without this legislation. What else are they gonna do? Imprison his body for an extra 40 years after they kill him? This kind of law does nothing but put normal people in harms way regarding the government.

A popular GOP congressman announced today that he will soon introduce gun control legislation that will make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who has generally been supportive of gun control measures, announced the new legislation alongside strong anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Not surprisingly, the legislation, which will be introduced in the upcoming weeks, got Bloomberg’s stamp of approval.

King’s office issued a statement about the bill, which reads in part:

Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.

Bloomberg, the head of the group Mayors Against Illegal guns, applauded the measure, saying at a joint news conference the “system that’s supposed to protect us from dangerous and deranged people has failed.”

At that same news conference, King defended the bill, saying “The fact is they do represent the people who elect them, and it‘s essential if we’re going to continue to have contact that the public who is at these meetings are ensured of their own safety.”

According to him, the measure does not conflict with conservative views on gun laws.

“From a conservative perspective, we have to have a stable society, we have to keep crime down,” King said. “You cannot do that if the police cannot be assured that illegal guns are not on the street.”

“To have a stable society and a safe society, we have to remove illegal guns,” he continued.

But the main issue might be, if a gun is already “illegal” why would we need more legislation to outlaw it? For example, in many states, laws already prevent people from carrying a concealed weapon. And the other question is how would this legislation prevent a crazed gunman — who already has no respect for laws against murder — from doing exactly what Loughner did?

Despite the rhetoric of the news conference, all indications are that King’s legislation is not just aimed at illegal guns (that would be redundant). It seems to apply more to “legal” gun owners — those who have permits to carry a concealed weapon.

Reports indicate that at least one such person was at the Tucson Safeway that day. Joe Zamudio is one of the men who helped subdue Tucson gunman Jared Loughner. Zamudio admitted he was carrying a concealed weapon at the time, and said he was seconds away from using it. Under King’s legislation, however, Zamudio’s gun would have been illegal.

Still, Bloomberg thinks the legislation does not infringe one’s right to keep and bear arms.

“That does not take away the First amendment, it protects it,” he said. “That does not take away the Second amendment, I think it protects it”

King is the same congressman who vowed to hold hearings on radical Islam, and currently chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he expects the president’s support on the bill, which would specifically make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress, or judges of the Federal Judiciary.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gop-rep-will-introduce-gun-control-legislation/
gunz are overratted....

look at the fat guy that junkman posted up that missed everybody from 2 feet away......:laughing:
 

·
I support glass stairways
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
:agree:

Although it was a "few" years ago I proved that a bone stock M16 would do that kind of accuracy with peep sight.

When I was in college I wrote a paper that described how, if all the guns and ammo vanished, I could have a single shot weapon operational in 24 hours. Knowledge is power! OK, do away with all the evil guns and there is the big bang option. With a nut job it doesn't matter and the end justifies the means.

My point is....all the "anti-" laws won't do a thing until we get a handle on the Head Cases out there. That will never happen 'cause a new Head Case pops up every day that has never been to a Doc.

As to the R or D marking; some days I wonder if there is much difference anymore? They all operate on a knee-jerk reaction.
Well, if you were in the Army, it would be pretty easy to write such a paper as one of your technical manuals that you probably had, gave explicit instructions on how to re-use a spent primer and build a single shot weapon out of pipe, string, a piece of wood, and a few other parts that one would find lying about in any home...

But shooting like that from a peep sight leads me to believe that you were a Marine...

I was joking about the "R" and "D" markings since the other guy was joking about them wearing targets...:smack
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top