Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who lost her husband to gun violence before coming to Congress, and who has since become one of the leading pro-gun control politicians in the country, plans to introduce legislation in response to the shooting in Tuscon, Arizona that claimed the life of 6 and left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in a medically induced coma.
“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.
The indication is that the legislation will concern the 31-round magazine that Jared Loughner was able to use, a magazine whose manufacture would have been banned under the federal assault weapons ban.
There’s little indication that House Republicans would be willing to even discuss gun legislation, even after this tragic event. Most of the Republicans in the media over the past 48 hours fell back on the standard NRA-produced talking points in discussing the incident. And the President himself has shown little appetite for any gun-related legislation. The only thing that has passed since he came into office, under two years with large Congressional majorities, was a provision in the credit card reform bill allowing for concealed carry into national parks.
And yet, the fact that the high-capacity clips were banned under the old rules, which expired in 2004, could be a powerful motivator. Even a relative gun control skeptic like Mark Kleiman understands that there’s no legitimate use for a 31-round extended magazine. “That’s what you use to hunt people,” Rep. Mike Quigley told Politico.
You also have the permissive state laws in Arizona allowing concealed carry, which are coming under the microscope. And the state’s use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and their relatively narrow allowance of criminal and mental health records, has been called inadequate by gun control groups.
Jared Loughner would probably not have shown up on such a background check. And yet his classmates and teachers at Pima County Community College recognized him as a threat.
Ben McGahee, a third-year instructor at Pima Community College, taught Loughner in an elementary algebra class last summer. McGahee said that while Loughner never threatened him directly, he was concerned by his behavior.
“I always felt, you know, somewhat paranoid,” McGahee said. “When I turned my back to write on the board, I would always turn back quickly–to see if he had a gun.”
McGahee said he had to make several complaints before administrators finally removed Loughner.
“They just said, ‘Well, he hasn’t taken any action to hurt anyone. He hasn’t provoked anybody. He hasn’t brought any weapons to class,’” McGahee recalled. “‘We’ll just wait until he takes that next step.’”
Looked at from one perspective, the main problem here was that Loughner never got the mental health treatment he clearly needed. The United States fares badly among industrialized nations on this issue, and while the health care law includes mental health parity and expanded resources for the mentally ill, the track record in the states is quite uneven. Arizona does a particularly poor job. So that must be addressed. It’s not enough to wave away another mass shooting by saying “He was a nutjob.” Nutjobs need the help, for their own safety and that of society.
But from another perspective, the idea that someone who could not get into the military and could not get back into college without passing a mental health check could buy a gun in about a minute shows some serious deficiencies in the whole “well-regulated militia” part of the Second Amendment. There’s room for a lot of improvement in this area.
Finally, here’s a perfectly normal story pulled at random about a shooting at a Baltimore nightclub the same day as the Giffords shooting. Patrons at the club got into a huge fight, police came out, shooting ensued, and two died, including a police officer. This happens every single day in America, at rates that dwarf the rest of the developed world. We have to ask ourselves if we can protect all citizen’s rights, including the right to life, a bit better.




94 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Sheriff Dupnik said the best mental health facility in Pima County was the county jail. How bad is that?
My being from Arizona, for these past two days, I have intentionally refrained from speaking or writing of this tragedy in Tucson. And albeit, my opinion is pretty much irrelevant to this tragedy.
Therefore, I will briefly mention that years ago, I wrote much on the Mythology of the Cowboy, in which the non-existient Cowboy, set out to “settle the differenc” of any agrument via the use of violence and the gun.
And as of this morning, I feel on “safe ground” that the gun-wielder was not “crazy” as many are suggeting, but he was somewhat “incoherent” in his less than fully-formed political views.
Jaango
They can ban the large capacity clips (magazine that holds the bullets) and that would be a good thing. A small thing, but a good thing. There would still be thousands of Glocks and thousands of clips with millions of rounds of ammo.
I work next door to a gun shop. It is frightening to see the amount of traffic they get day in and day out. Often, their parking lot is jam packed on any regular business day.
This incident will inspire gun nuts to flock to gun stores to buy more guns, more clips and more ammo.
Republicans and Conservadems have made a huge mess on behalf of the NRA with Deregulation of Guns.
What a sorry bunch of panderers are our Reprensentatives in Congress.
a lot of what happens in the USA is the result of corporate govt.
USA politicians always ignore rational, logical thoughts and ideas, because they don’t help their corporate bosses.
we have govt for corporations by the corporations.
if the USA had govt. by the people for the people, the USA would have sane gun laws. The gun the guy used on Sat. is only used to hunt people.
That’ll go over lead a lead balloon. Republicans are already saying this proves the need for everybody with a temperature of around 98.6℉ to carry a gun at all times.
social elites and bureaucrats control the rest of the world.
authorities control the masses.
people are sheep.
Well, it barely reaches “pathetic”, SD … and, once again, the Reagan “legacy” raises its ugly, arrogant, and conscience-free head … grinning its perpetual death-mask to the god of free enterprise and the unfettered “goodness” of greed.
Word has it that Obama is studying up on the Gipper’s style, to bolster his “comeback”. What do you imagine are the odds that Mr. Bipartisanship will exclaim that, “both sides must tone down their rhetoric … for we are all, excepting my B-plus self, of course … responsible …?
Nothing like the roaring silence of a pusillanmous fabulist to stiffen the backbones of those who OUGHT to have the sense of realizing that Congress, itself, bears much responsibility for what has happened, however much BOTH parties deny it.
Them chickens is comin’ back to the “homeland” (the German orginal is “die Heimat-land”) to roost.
More power to sheriff Dupnik … that he may be heard throughout the land.
DW
The phrase “well regulated militia” should not have been a problem in the 2nd Amendment. The role of a well regulated militia is to provide a means for goverment to quell violence directed against the community and its citizens. But in the conservative Supreme Court’s view, that phrase was also meant to legitimize private citizens carrying weapons to be used against government itself, including its elected representatives, whenever they believe the government was not functioning in their interest. It’s an astonishing activist interpretation that turns the whole Amendment’s purpose on its head, and does so after the 1st Amendment says everything you can imagine to legalize the ability of citizens to change government via free speech, free press, the right to petition for redress of grievances and to peaceably assemble. There is no language that suggests, “oh, and if you’re not satisfied with the outcome of the elections or a Congressional vote, you can use the 2nd Amendment to shoot your Congressman.
The Supreme Court essentially told people like this nut that they’re patriots and constitutionally protected to physically threaten and assault government officials with loaded firearms. The insanity is at the top.
Good for Congresswoman McCarthy. Though I doubt her efforts will have any effect on gun laws, it will show the American people just what little regard their representatives have for their own safety and what great regard they have for the NRA and the firearms manufacturers they represent. I still wonder why the words “well-regulated militia” have no effect on gun laws. And didn’t Rand Paul to a great job parroting all the NRA talking points? — “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Jeez.
I know FDL doesn’t control the ads, but the “Concealed Carry Report, Know Your Rights” ad maybe should be temporarily pulled.
I’ve been curious about something that I haven’t seen mentioned. Apparently, Jared didn’t buy his Glock until November 30th. Assuming he didn’t have prior experience, that gave him a little over a month to learn how to work with the gun. I’m wondering where and when he learned and practised. Has anyone seen anything about this?
This is a guy who the Army wouldn’t take despite ongoing troop needs overseas.
This is a guy who was kicked out of his college for being dangerously unstable.
Yet he was able to get a gun?
Nope, I haven’t seen anything about that. Maybe in the future we’ll start to learn details and if he was around firearms when he was a child. It’s pretty self explanatory though and you don’t have to be a sharp shooter to hit somebody at point blank range. As it is, his hit to miss ratio seems to be pretty high.
He may have had other guns?
No, but the late date of the purchase, makes an excellent case for restricted gun sales.
Maybe he went to a local firing range or perhaps he drove out to the boonies and fired it in the woods.
Not difficult to use a Glock. Slide the upper portion back to chamber the first round and squeeze the trigger. Each successive round is fired with another pull of the trigger as fast as one can pull it.
Is McCarthy’s district one of those in Sarah’s cross hairs?
Thanks Alan. Do you have the link for that.
This is one of the biggest fails of the whole media circus surrounding the events. The Guardian took his claim to be a “recruit” at MEPS and without even discovering what the acronym means they decided he must be an Afghan war vet. For the record, one isn’t a “recruit” until you get past MEPS and actually get through processing at basic training. Once you get past holding and are given your first issue, then you are a recruit but you’re still a very distant cry from an Afghan war vet.
No, I just pulled up the map where it’s tucked away on my desktop and she’s not on it.
However, she’s no doubt now on a lot of charming people’s maps.
Just for the record, the Medical Director of the hospital was interviewed briefly by Chuck Todd this morning and said that she is not in a medically-induced coma (even though they had said that) — that she is under sedation and anesthetics and still responding well. That is a good thing.
No doubt.
It’s part of the AP feed in all the major paper stories.
Thanks. Is that similar to a machine gun?
On Edit: Never mind, I just remembered that with a machine gun, you just keep holding the trigger.
And then to “carry” it, concealed, WITHOUT a permit to an event … doing which is completely “legal” in AZ … for the intended purpose of using it to KILL other human beings.
Presumably, even SCOTUS, now, would not have any problems with most, or even ALL of that sentence?
Once again, the rule of law has been “superceded” by the “rights” of those who have the power to destroy and the willingness to use it. With Loughner, it is a gun, with the President, it is drones.
It may be that there is some “equality” apparent to SCOTUS in this “range” of application … but it is lost, utterly, upon me.
DW
C’mon! Get real! A Democratic president with Democratic majorities in both houses of congress could not even get rid of the hated Bush tax cuts for the rich but he’ll restrict guns, by gawd! Yep, it’ll be different on this issue and we’ll see a fierce advocate this time around!
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, way to politicize this tragedy. I see you are not wasting any time to make political hay out of this tragedy. I am sure Rham would be quite proud. Never let a good crisis go to waste. You people disgust me.
Not really. A fully automatic weapon has more moving parts, sometimes the magazine is more complicated to load, as a general rule they aren’t slide operated but the principle is the same. Gas or recoil operates the receiver, ejecting the last cartridge and inserting the new round. In a fully automatic, all one has to do is hold down the trigger. A semi automatic like the Glock requires pulling the trigger for each round fired.
Now now now. Just collect up your guns & go to the range for for target practice.
Yep. One of the scariest things about this is that Loughner broke no laws at all until the second he opened fire.Guns shouldn’t be allowed to be carried in public except to a licensed shooting range or in the event of zombie apocalypse.
If McCarthy sticks to the magazine capacity limit, and lays off the broader anti-firearms rhetoric, she just might get it passed. The old ban on high capacity magazines could easily have been renewed if not attached to the rest of the junk law in the expired ban.
Wingnut heads exploding in 5…4…3…
At least she knows how to negotiate: Start big and settle for less, unlike Obama’s method which is start small and get smaller and then declare victory when Republicans get everything they want.
Thanks, see my edit @23.
Years ago, I was in an environment where everyone was carrying machine guns and they scared me so I decided to learn to shoot them and went out for target practice. It did allay my fear and I turned out to be a good shot. The first thing I learned that allayed my fear of them was that if the magazine isn’t in, there’s a maximum possibility of one bullet to be shot.
The first thing the person teaching me said was that when he gave me instructions, I should not turn in his directions inadvertently. Smart man. He definitely lived through teaching me.
Of course, you’re aware that Carolyn McCarthy’s husband was killed and son seriously injured when Colin Feguson opened fire on the Long Island railroad a few years ago.
It might be that this is an issue with which she has some specific experience.
IIRC she was the lead sponsor on the previous assault weapons ban and the original bill that banned the high capacity magazines that are said to have been used by Loughner (the bill that was allowed to lapse earlier when the Rs were previously in control of the Congress)
Testing…..testing….1…2…3….testing. Is there still a 60 second delay/ Peace
It’s always a good idea to get training. Right after I got out the service, I had a kid of about 15 or 16 stick a revolver in my face at a mall and try to jack my car. I laughed at him and told him that one of these days he was going to run into somebody less forgiving than I and probably won’t live to regret it.
No, I’m not especially brave but I could see right into the double action revolver he had in my face. The hammer was down and there wasn’t a single round in any of the four chamber I could see, meaning he’d have to click at least four times and possibly six before he got to a possible round in one of the two I couldn’t see. If I hadn’t had some basic knowledge, I might have given up my car that day. As it was, I took the gun away from him and gave it to the police.
You’re too late… they’ve already exploded quite predictably. It’s all the left-wing’s fault, ya see… and this good Congress Rep is reprehensible, of course, for stating the obvious. And so on…
You’re all reactionary nuts no better than the idiotic behavior that followed in the wake in 9/11. Stop letting emotion get the better of you, the only people this protects are politicians and the rich. How many people prior to this have been gun downed before and we just go through the motions of labeling them a “gun nut” or “mentally unsound” individual and then that’s it, the event falls into history?
What makes this event so unique or special? Yes, let’s shred the Constitution a bit more, perhaps that will make you feel better as the powerful bleed our country dry.
Focus on what’s important. This is a tragedy, but no more or less important than any other that has been frequented on your neighbor, not some overprivileged politician and entourage who live half a country or more away.
Calling all Rambo’s. Let’s all train up and become black belts. “War is Over….if you want it.” Peace
You’re kidding right? Somebody fully learn the issue before coming here and (pardon the pun) shooting his/her mouth off? Perish the thought.
You make a good point, yet it’s too bad that all citizens should *have to* go out and get such training. I keep avoiding doing so, myself, but it may be to my benefit to so one of these days.
In a culture of unceasingly violent rhetoric and very easy access to weapons, one should be prepared, it would seem… alas.
Yep. I’m expecting Rush to tell us how this is a liberal plot directed at him, to shut him up.
Yep. A sad statement on our society indeed.
It’s always a tactic of the Right to blame the victim. They know that it’s the culture of violence that they demand that causes equal and opposite violent reaction. But they all pretend to be as pure as the driven snow. Peace
Gun crime statistics by US state
It may be a doomed effort, but it is an appropriate response to the events in Tucson (and elsewhere). On the other hand, I see another story this morning about criminalizing the crosshairs and such, which sounds like a losing proposition right out of the gate (first amendment issue).
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/dem-congressman-introduce-bill-banning-bullseye-crosshair-symbols/
People should definitely be taking responsibility for their graphics and rhetoric, but legislative efforts should focus on policies which might make a difference & which won’t be instantly struck down by the first court challenge.
A smaller magazine bill could be a good thing. In Loughner’s case, if the larger capacity clips were not so legal and so readily available, he would have had 9 bullets to fire instead of having emptied 30 rounds into more victims.
Loughner had purchased the gun (and presumably the high capacity clips) in November.
Found a link to your 14
He sure was a good shot for a nutcase. practically every round found a mark.
MSM is trying to get the good sheriff to walk back his remarks and the rest of the NOOZ is saying the left is just as guilty as the right.
So…let the show begin
PS: FBI director Mueller was blaming the internet. so this dovetails nicely with their plans to end net neutrality, which, I’d guess will be the only thing which will come out of this.
PSS: Obama has been conspicuous by his absence.
David Dayen has another fresher post already in progress: Exploring the Mind and Behavior of Jared Loughner
There was a recent medical study which indicated that a conservatives brain and a liberal brain work differently. Conservatives are seen as being fearful by nature (gene). Liberals are more forgiving and willing to move forward into the unknown. Our conservative friends require our support and guidence as they try to overcome their fear of bing forced to live in the world. They need our understanding, not our capitulation in devolving with them into the muck and mire in which they chose to dwell. Peace
Yes, I’ve tried that and very nearly been physically attacked several times.
Nice thought, tho
I’ve been saying for decades that conservatism is a symptom of insecurity.
Ah, the War on Guns. I’m sure that will be a raging and unmitigated success. We should model it after our War on Drugs!
The firearms issue us without a doubt the most incoherent position we “leftists” hang onto. But hey, nothing like a tragedy to exploit for pursuing reactionary policies that don’t even come within a 100-yards of addressing the problem.
Make firearms safety a pre-req for concealed carry, an give people opportunities and a social safety net.
(sigh) I’m afraid this isn’t going to be popular here and now, but I have to agree with the commenter (I can’t now find their exact words) who wrote yesterday that legislation to ban particular types of weapons is no more a rational response to the shooting of Rep. Giffords than TSA gate grope and the Patriot Act were a rational response to 9/11. (Making mental health services available, and screening would-be gun owners for mental instability, is more to the point.)
Necessity is always the tyrant’s plea. There is no way to make the world completely safe, period. Even trying it plays into the hands of those who want us defenseless against tyranny, and thus makes the world more dangerous, not less. While the Second Amendment was indeed supposed to refer to organized militias and not to lone assassins (deranged or not), it was unambiguously intended to make armed resistance to tyranny possible, using weapons designed for combat and not just for hunting.
It is also true, as I wrote yesterday, that:
But even if we do not advocate revolution at present, it is not in our best interest to create a situation where would-be oligarchs think revolution would be impossible. Peaceful, legal progressive change under FDR depended essentially on conservative fear of revolution.
We also – once the immediate shock from the shootings is over – risk alienating potential allies whose help we need. As I wrote before the shootings:
I see no reason today to retract one word of that.
Great insight. Probably why they arm themselves to the teeth and wage wars of subjugation all over the globe? Peace
Speak for yourself, I’m very much pro ownership rights, though I do firmly believe in reasonable restrictions like psych evals and mandatory training. Wanna buy a gun? Spend the money to sit on a psychiatrist’s couch for at least three hours. Then spend the money for at least ten hours of training. Only an idiot would give a loaded weapon to somebody like Loughner and he didn’t break one single law until he actually opened fire.
Oh yeah, and I don’t own a firearm. Never saw the need for one.
So you’re a gun toten’ liberal are you? Better to be safe than sorry, no? Thou shalt not kill. Peace
Yet ardently avoid serving in those wars themselves. Many young people in the service think of themselves as conservative because that’s what their officers tell them they are but they are too young and unsophisticated as a rule to know anything outside that world. Most of the people I served with were very liberal, despite their voting record.
Since the larger clips would be grandfathered there is no guarantee that he would not have had access to them.
Personally, I think it’s reactionary to blame this on a particular type of gun rather than mental instability. A smaller clip may have meant less death but it still would have meant senseless death.
I’d love to see more aggressive background checks done because this seems to be the umpteen millionth time we’ve heard that the person who went off on a rampage showed indications of mental issues prior to his being able to purchase a weapon.
I’m opposed to a law that restricts gun ownership to those that are responsible gun owners and pose no harm to communities based on the actions of insane people who could very well harm others even with laws in place.
The psychiatric community has screening exams. I don’t see why there shouldn’t be some sort of exam followed with an evaluation if the exam flags you.
I would definitely support legislation of this type.
A psych eval? You’ve got that much faith in psychiatrists? As some one who’s seen several for ADHD since childhood, let met tell you your trust in their abilities isn’t warranted.
Almost all gun violence, when not drug related, appears to be economic stability related. Your not going to catch a “psycho” if he bought his guns before he lost his job and his house. Perhaps gun owners should be forced to have weekly check-ups on their own dime as well, or maybe before they can collect an unemployment check?
Hooray! War on Guns, especially the really scary looking ones with the black plastic and pistol grips.
At the very least, out of this can we get a law making it a federal crime to bring a firearm to a political gathering?
I want to hear the gun nuts explain how that would interfere with their second amendment rights.
I’m always leary of these types of studies. Without a clear definition of what constitutes liberal and conservative they seem hokey.
Ironically enough, I see conservatives as the bolder of the two mindsets. My evidence would be conservative leaderships ability to enact their policy positions even at the risk of our republic and groups like the tea party that are willing to lose rather than hedge on their ideologic opinion. Would that we did have liberal leaders that were bold enough to fight for their philosophy rather than whimper that doing so might leave them open to namecalling or loss.
I have to agree with that. Psychologists are in no position to get up on their high horse. Still, even common sense would indicate that certain people are sufficiently deranged that they should not have the privileges of a “well regulated militia”. Psychology does not have to be an exact science to justify using it to restrict access to guns. I do believe, however, that the restriction should only be for the grossly deranged. Not every psych diagnosis should justify a ban on gun ownership. Any psych-based ban that affect more than 1% of the population has definitely gone too far.
Documentation for this claim?
Great response wiserat.If a persons gonna kill he’s gonna kill. A car,broom handle,knife ,sword its all the same. Just let the gov’t and the police have the weapons…….I DON”T THINK SO!!
Dude! I’m an autistic transsexual who grew up in a military household in southeast Texas and have somehow managed to function in a world that is very hostile to me, mostly on my own. Let’s not make assumptions about how I feel about shrinks.
“i’ve been saying for decades that conservatism is a symptom of insecurity.”
And you were right, every time you said it.
Fear of change; fear of progress; the bible-zombies afraid of their own sexuality, and of others’…
Just fear of the idea that humans matter more than religious or political philosphies.
Your experience in service was very different from my own. Peace
That shows them as having a death wish. Because they (conservatives) are always on the wrong side of history any short-term gains that they might make will eventually be voided. Peace
You might want to rethink the conclusion in your last sentence. It’s pretty broad. Peace
Your use of the term “reactionary” is spot on cwaltz, i would add opportunstic, paternalistic and stupid. I am weary of “reactionary Liberals” dancing on the graves of murder victims to further their simplistic remedies for violence.
History unfortunately is full of examples of people doing what will be bad for the community out of religious zeal. Over and over we see examples of people who go to war because their religious leaders, (who always manage to stay home), have said that “god” wishes it.
I hope you’re also high-up on psych evals to vote as well. Because braindead policies have done more harm than any group of nutty gunmen have.
“Almost all gun violence, when not drug related, appears to be economic stability related.”
Link please.
I haven’t read any evidence that people like Cho at VT were motivated by finance. Mental imbalance seems to be a huge factor in these mass shootings.
Frankly I’d have no problem with a process that allows an appeal or a second opinion for a psychiatric eval but I definitely feel society benefits from keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Mental fitness seems like a logical prereqiusite to gun ownership.
Obviously you think I’m anti gun ownership. I am not. As I stated I am very much pro ownership rights, just not unrestricted ownership rights. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And nobody suggested psych evals in order to vote. I don’t put words in your mouth and I’d like to enjoy the same courtesy. Thanks.
You clearly do not own a firearm.
Both sides are reactionary. I mean stuff like “death panels”? C’mon. Frankly I weary of conservatives AND liberals that are more interested in manipulation and scoring points for their ideology than actually coming up with solutions for the problems people in our country face.
I’m not opposed to common sense legislation on guns. I just don’t feel it’s fair to penalize responsible law abiding gun owners because there are mentally unstable people who have gained access to weapons. I have a spouse who is a gun enthusiast and he pointed out a myriad of loopholes in the assault weapons ban that would have just resulted in penalizing the law abiding while it still allowed those less interested in following the law access to “modifying” their weaponry.
Given the emphasis on civil liberties at FDL, and the fact that Cheney tried to overturn posse comiatutus, this is a really tough issue for this community.
Appreciate the many excellent detailed comments in the thread.
Forcing hand gun owners to buy insurance has always made sense to me. The underwriter will find a way to make a psych eval.
Credit card companies score credit applications with incredible accuracy relative to risk management. I would be very interested to know Loughner’s credit score.
Tying a hand gun (any firearm not intended for hunting) purchase to a credit rating is problematic, but the technologies exist to make assessments.
I feel confident that Loughner has a psych history and that it will help everyone but the wingnuts advocate for better mental health care. That in turn ties into the rest of the safety net.
There will be no controlling the guns in this country. I do not believe in removing all guns but only those that are not designed for anything besides killing PEOPLE. One does not go hunting with a semi-automatic and expect anything of one’s kill to be left enough intact to eat.
We should all be writing to stop the allowing of ANY kind of weapon in the national parks or any public place. And by all means make it a federal crime that people like Sara Palin can advocate violence and get away with it by saying the crosshairs on districts were merely surveyors markers.
If someone tells me people should have the right to bear arms, okay, but I have the right not to have them around when I am in a public place. It may not say that in the constitution, but it is MY right as a person in this country.
It doesn’t support them as being fearful of change though which was my larger point.
I’ll not argue that some horrible things have been implemented in the name of conservatism. Policy of preemption and unitary executive are 2 examples of conservative values gone awry. Of course, our side has not done much to reverse the damage. So much for bold.
Fellow is insane. Talk radio motivated an insane person and this is something Beck and Fox should have anticipated. But Obama used “if they bring a knife I will bring a gun” macho man talk in his speeches. It is the right calling for “2nd Amendment solutions” that is different from the left’s macho man talk – but to the average voter I suspect Obama’s macho man talk will mean it is a problem of BOTH the left and right – and once more Obama will have made the left weak.
Gun control will bloom into a bill to ban the type of weapon used, followed no pressure from Obama to pass anything, followed by NRA/GOP freedom talk and donations that kill the bill. Nothing will change – because everyone talks mean – and it is just insanity.
Oh yes – I forgot – Obama’s poll numbers will go up 2 points after his next “tone it down and get bi-partisan” speech.
The policy of preemption was a gift from our Israeli friends. It was never legally acceptable under international law until the Israelis used the concept in the 1967 Six-Day War. Bush thought that it was just a dandy way to start a war and Afghanistan and Iraq happened. Thank you to all of my Zionist friends. Peace
Meh, service members are motivated by self interest and for a long time it was conservatives who supported funding increases. In my time in I found there was a broad mix of ideology and it was not near the bastion of conservatism often suggested by our media.
Paternalistic? Opportunistic? You mean like telling people who they can and can’t marry or telling someone when they can and can’t have access to reproductive means like birth control or D&Cs.
Your comment might have made sense if conservatives were less interested in controlling personal aspects of people’s lives. As it stands all it looks like is hypocrisy considering the conservative agenda.
you all can cry and scream about “gun control” all you want, the federal antigun laws from the Clinton years are prime examples of know nothing laws. For gods sake the laws went on cosmetic features rather than actual uses. Ohhh, its black so it must be bad. Oh,oh, it looks nasty so we better ban it. You all know nothing of which you speak. You all are deathly afraid of guns so you want to make laws banning them.
How did that work out?
What is it now, more than 40 states have concealed carry laws and the streets are not, as your retoric over the last few years would have it, running with blood.
So, a fairly deranged young man buys a glock-over 2 million sold-and uses an extended clip to shoot up a congresswoman. Most Glocks are double stacked and typically carry 15 rounds. So exactly how many more rounds did the extended clip carry?
Hysteria rules here today. I say again, a gun is a tool. Just like a knife. Which is also used to stab people.
I have a CCW, have carried a handgun for many years, as do many people that I know. Yet I have not gone crazy and started shooting people, nor have any other law abiding CCW holders.
Check the crime stats. In states with CCW laws, street crime has gone down.
Here in Texas we have a “Castle Doctrine” law. IOW, if you invade my house, I can kill you and I will not be arrested. Same with my neighbors house, if I see you break in. Same with my car. I do not have to run away. I can and will protect my property from thugs.
I can and will walk on my cities streets, without fear. If someone tries to mug me or to carjack me, I will kill them. I am not a “gun crazed killer” but I do go by my local gun shops-and why would someone be afraid of working next to a gun shop? Hysteria?
Perhaps, if you all actually spent some time and learned about guns and if you all were not so deathly afraid of them, I might be willing to listen to a reasoned arguement about some common sense gun laws.
But your FEAR is all that is coming thru. That and your desire that no one have access to handguns.
That FEAR is why you are losing all over the country. Hand guns are here-Glocks alone have sold over 2 million-and your silly attempt to get antigun laws back on the books is doomed to failure.
Yes, a congresswoman got shot, 6 people died and 10 were injured. Shit happens. People die. 50,000+ people die in car accidents every year. So you are not attempting to outlaw this deadly weapon because?
Only fearful people own guns. The rest of us are only afraid of the fearful people who own guns. Peace
Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, let’s regulate air travel even more than we do already. And, luckily, an elected official was able to escape drowning in a car crash at Chappaquidick but unfortunately no federal regulations were enacted to require life jackets in automobiles. The country has a long way to go if the total elimination of risk is to be achieved, no matter what abridgments of personal liberty are imposed.
Agreed Nathan-So frustrating when progressives go into “wimp mode” concerning firearms. If one is bent on killing,one will find a way.Barry and gang is doing a moment of silence concerning this tragedy. Wonder if the same crew has done one for the lives in Afpak or Iraq. Would we see the same circus if this were any normal “Joe Citizen” I think not.
No you didn’t advocate it, but you were advocating evals to mitigate possibly harmful decision making outcomes. If there’s anything more potentially harmful than the outcome of elections in this country.
That’s the other thing that drives me nuts about this. All the talk of ramping up police security around more and more politicians, it’s crazy.
Politicians aren’t special in any way other than their capacity for shameless self-promotion. Their being victim of violence should be no bigger an event than any other random person falling the same fate.
Yeah, and I have some friends in NY who note that the shooter chose a train going out to Long Island. Their take was, if he’d picked a subway in the Bronx, chances are half the passengers would have returned fire.
Yep.
That is one of the most moronic statements I’ve ever seen here. First of all, it depends on how you define and qualify fear. Are cops fearful, or wise, to carry firearms? Answer: both. The clerk behind the counter at the convenience store; fearful or smart to have a gun under the counter? Both. He knows the chances of being robbed, and quite possibly shot in the process, so he has protection.
Your argument is like saying someone buys car insurance or home fire insurance because they’re afraid of getting into an accident or having a fire start at home. Of course they’re fearful — because they know what the realities are.