O/T with apologies.

William Daley’s JP Morgan Stock: Obama’s Next Chief Of Staff Has Millions Invested

LINK.

All for me and none for thee! He helped create this toxic climate and now wants to hide behind some screen. No, I say they remain accessible to the public they represent and start acting like true statesmen.

Instead of playing games and trying to outfox the other sides legislation, this example of what is best for America should be a clear sign to all of us. It has nothing to do with us, it is all about them and the fear of what they have created.

Fatster, my 2c, no apologies necessary. A damn good “heads up”, off topic or not. :o)

And, thank you, Preznint Obama for hiring one more corporate fox to help you run the “centrist” hen house. We’ll look for the feathers coming out of his mouth when he speaks to the press.

Peter King is a spoiler – like all the other repugniks. that these cranks and ner’do wells have so much influence in our society reflects very badly on America. These people should be relegated by voters to handing out pamphlets on the street corner. not holding my breath.

King is coming from the same school of thought that led to the TSA – the appearance of security rather than actual security.

Is every Congressperson who holds a “grip-and-grin” going to have a 1,000 foot perimeter? How do you enforce that? Create “choke points” for entry? Is that going to be an unfunded mandate on local LEO’s? What about when a politician drops by a business?

I’m not against high capacity magazine bans or any other good gun control ideas,but the 1000 ft from a school law seems kind of nonsensical as well. it wont prevent school shootings, but creates the appearance that a legislator is “doing something”, and more importantly, it criminalizes yet one more behavior to give cops on a fishing expedition a handy federal felony charge.

Bloomberg must be gettin’ ready to run for prez. Supporting this stupid measure on an issue he’s been serious about in the past is a sure tip off.

My point is, that his suggestions are for his protection only and none of it will prevent the same thing from happening again.

“I’m covering MY ass; screw you, Jack!”

I wouldn’t put it past the DNC to run him in 2016. He’s got all the relationships they’re looking for.

I’ve been wondering– who is a bigger butt hole, Peter King or Steve King?

One obvious thing that no one’s talking about:

Make it a felony to carry a firearm to a political gathering, if it’s for neighborhood dogcatcher.

It wouldn’t have stopped Loughner but it will be a step in the right direction to curb some of this OK Corral mentality.

But, but, but…”an armed society is a polite society.”

;)

Why? Are politicians’ lives more valuable than my daughter’s life or your mother’s life? Why should there be special rules for politicians? I think it should be illegal to carry, period. Unless you’re law enforcement.

Good luck. The NRA will never allow that to happen.

I listened to a NPR Fresh Air piece last week which told of how the NRA et al did their best to make sure U.S. weapons used by Mexican drug criminals could not be traced back:

“In the past four years, more than 30,000 people have been killed by gunfire in Mexico. But the guns don’t originate in Mexico. The one gun store in the country, located in Mexico City, is operated by the Mexican military and under very tight security.

Instead, the thousands of guns used by Mexican drug cartels trickle in through the United States. Since 2006, more than 60,000 of the weapons used in Mexican crimes have been traced back to the U.S…

…The gun lobby — the National Rifle Assocation and gun manufacturers — went to Congress and asked them to [make gun tracing] off-limits,” Grimaldi says. “It basically shut down any news stories that had been published in the past exposing where the guns were coming from — showing which stores tended to be the ones that criminals went to buy their guns. It [also] took the focus off of those stores that were engaged either knowingly or unwittingly in gun trafficking to criminals.”

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/05/132652351/tracking-gun-dealers-linked-to-mexican-violence

You say that like a “high-capacity” magazine ban is sensible.

It’s just a completely arbitrary mark to set the ban at. 10 is too many, but 9 + 1 chambered is okay. Or maybe 14 is okay, but 15 is too many. You come up with a number if rounds that counts as “high-capacity” that isn’t completely arbitrary, and provide evidence that banning them will produce the desired result, and I’ll get on board with the sensibility of such a measure.

As it stands it’s just a bunch of people with little or no experience with firearms just making shit up.

I love the image of King walking at a parade — if his nutty legislation passed, nobody in the crowd at the event could pack heat.

Heh.

It is nonsensical.

Poison pill.

So ridiculous no one will vote for it, but maybe, he hopes, it’ll ovverwhelm/defeat something like Carolyn Maloney’s rational proposal (not sure what it is, but by definition it’ll be rational, where by definition anything King proposes/says is not).

Well ya don’t need detailed knowledge or experience in ballistics to apply common sense.

So is there a provision that bullets fall to the ground after they’ve traveled 1000 feet?

What a joke.

A politician’s life shouldn’t be counted as more important, but I sure as hell don’t agree with your desire to expand the police-state where only law enforcement is allowed to have firearms.

Moreover, forcing me under force of law to relinquish my firearms in the completely misguided and completely idiotic notion that it’s going to ebb violent crime at all is ridiculous.

The “gun control” issue is one that always makes it clear that rank authoritarianism isn’t bound by a left-right spectrum. Seems civil liberties advocates are in short supply on both sides.

The absurdity of the 1,000 foot perimeter is laughable. In many environments, at 1,000 feet you couldn’t even tell if a politicians was around. We’re talking around corners, blocks in between, God knows what.

Hell, even line-of-sight is a problem. Go to a drag strip. The Top Fuel and Funny Cars now only race to 1,000 feet for safety considerations. Stand opposite the 1,000 foot market, look back at the starting line, and tell me you can identify another there other than by the design of their team uniform. At 1,000 feet a lot of people couldn’t identify their own relatives.

No, you certainly don’t. However, sense on this subject seems to be anything except “common” around here. As is evidenced by the support of all manner of completely arbitrary and/or pointless bans.

On this topic there will simply continue to be an endless loop amalgam of “perfectionism fallacy” (criminals and the mentally ill won’t obey) and “line drawing fallacy” (number of rounds, distance from Peter King, etc).

Honestly…it is crazy that smoking a joint is criminalized, but it is perfectly legal to carry a gun into a public place. Your “right” to play with guns is outweighed by my right not to get shot at the grocery store.

Do you have any suggestions on gun control?

Can we agree that 33 rounds is too many to be in a semi-automatic handgun before one has to reload?

I mean, if someone’s breaking into your house (the most common justification for owning a firearm) do you really need that many more shots than in a standard semi-auto (or even a .38 Special revolver) to take them down?

legislation to 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

This appears flawed under the equal protection, 2nd, and 14th amendments. Would it not have to apply to all people, not just a selection of people, and if so then falls foul of the 2nd amendment?

Whereas banning high capacity magazines infringes on none of these constitution barriers.

Thus this proposed legislation is designed to distract and fail.

Another version of extend and pretend?

Would this 1000 foot ban, affect snipers? Or would Mr. King feel safer that way? Seems ludicrous that these asshats think their lives are far more important than a little girls.

And a shotgun is much more effective than a handgun at close range, and when loaded with bird shot, not as lethal.

Handguns are ineffective in most situations.

Shotgun with one loading.

You have a right not to get shot at a grocery store. Discharging a firearm in a public place is a felony in a lot of places.

Moreover, the complete failure of the law to keep you from smoking a joint in the last 40-years should be a huge dick waving red flag that your banning firearms, or their accessories, will be about as fruitful.

You come up with a regulation that isn’t totally arbitrary, and you’ll have a point.

Oh I agree. My grandfather kept a 12-gauge loaded with snake shot out at the house we lived at. Said he’d never kill anyone, but he sure would blow their kneecaps off if they tried to break in.

Dad keeps a .357 in the closet. Never had to use it, thank the heavens. But we live in a more suburban area than we did back when I was a kid.

I don’t know. Is it? Why 33? Is 32 any better?

Like I said, completely arbitrary.

It would be hilarious if not so tragic, that they are even considering some of this stuff. America: Where it’s illegal to smoke in public, but you can walk around with yer western holstered handgun in case the bad guys attack. How ludicrous.

Tax-funded firearm safety required for carry and end the War on Drugs. That’ll actually help.

Discharging a firearm in a public place is a felony in a lot of places.

Considering the lack of success of laws like that, perhaps we should try a different approach. In the interests of keeping people free from arbitrary slaughter in public places, maybe we should try restricting access to guns. Reasonable.

What kind of logic is that? It’s not only politicians who get shot at political rallies. The idea is to make any civilian showing a firearm at a political gathering instantly considered to be a threat.

And, if you think it’s okay to pack at a political rally, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Okay, then how about “no magazine that expands the ammunition capacity of the gun it is equipped to”?

We can play sophist games all day, but we have to start somewhere.

Oh, and regulating guns has worked well in other countries.

It’s like a speed limit. Any you choose is arbitrary, and no one drives at it, but at a lower speed limit, aggregate driving speeds are lower.

So presumably, with fewer bullets/load, fewer casualties.

Yep to both.

Training requirements have been one thing that haven’t been mentioned very much here.

I don’t know much about guns, but how about an annual test for license renewal?

I said “carry” not “have”. I’m not suggesting anyone force you to relinquish your firearms. I own firearms. Wouldn’t want to give up that right either. But I don’t need to carry my firearm to the grocery store or Starbucks.

Holy shit! I never suggested that. Please reread my comment. I’m saying why limit the legislation to political gatherings? With a police force in every community, citizens don’t really need to carry guns anymore. I’m suggesting that a better solution to bans at political rallies, exclusively, would be a ban on everyday citizens carrying guns in public.

Heh. Fuck snipers. I could make a 1000 foot shot, standing, with iron sights, with an AR15. The 1000 foot rule is a bullshit move.

At the risk of being declensionist, ever watch old footage (back before the ’68 gun law, Reaganomics, the current state of permanent war, etc.) of presidential motorcades, stumping congressmen and the like—think Teddy Roosevelt on the back of a caboose on a whistle stop tour? Have you noticed the lack of distance and protection between the politicians and the citizenry then? Did folks go nutty after Lincoln’s, Garfield’s or McKinley’s deaths? Now we have tinted windows on limos and “security” detachments on an unprecedented level. How did this happen and why is it OK?

““Don’t let them see us, don’t tell them what we are doing!”
Are these the words of the all powerful boards
and syndicates of the earth?” –W. S. Burroughs

Actually, it has in some depending on what you think of the country. Canada has very strict gun laws. The only murders with handguns there, are with illegal handguns that usually come from, you guessed it, the US.

England is a great example. Not even the police carry guns, for the most part. A lot lower incidence of shooting deaths.

From the article:

“It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.”

Don’t think so. A Michigan Concealed Pistol license (CPL) allows for pick-ups and drop-offs in the school lot while carrying.

I’m sorry Kris but the police will not protect you, it is not their job. Many in the police look at all citizens as potential perps and behave accordingly.

It is our duty to protect ourselves with or without weapons. When high profile violence happens in the US we see this kind of kneejerk reaction.

I don’t know the answer or if there is an answer to this problem but passing laws or banning weapons will not make you safer. We are a violent country that solves it’s problems around the world with violence so why should we expect it to be different here at home.

Near where this incident happened in AZ US pilots sit in trailers and fly drones that kill innocent women and children in Pakistan, maybe we should protest and demand an end to that violence.

maybe we should protest and demand an end to that violence.

I do.

I’m sorry Kris but the police will not protect you, it is not their job.

I disagree. The police are not always corrupt and not always trigger happy. Few have given a bad name to many.

I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t have guns. Why do people keep implying that I am? I’m simply suggesting that we would all be safer if people didn’t CARRY those guns in PUBLIC.

Would bringing your gun on a BART train in the SF Bay Area have stopped the Oscar Grant shooting last year? Of course not. Carrying guns doesn’t keep the police in check.

What make you think people aren’t?

We can focus on more than one issue at a time. Monomania isn’t useful political action.

I don’t know. Is it? Why 33? Is 32 any better?

I am confused why the debate has become about the size of the clip.
Seems like a lot of energy is being wasted on a peripheral problem.

Does anyone really think it would have been any less of a tragedy if he had fire “only” 17 rounds into the crowd?

I made the point on an earlier thread that with minimal handgun training I can fire a similar amount of ammunition out of a Glock 17 using standard magazines in about 8 seconds. And be accurate up to 50 feet. The magazine size isn’t the problem.

The fact that he was able to obtain a firearm with his mental condition (whatever that turns out to be, the only evidence of instability we have is this shooting, of course, and the community college kicking him out for mental instability) or the fact that he was able to carry this gun into a grocery store parking lot are the real problems here.

I agree,
but it seems that whole argument is being sidetracked by the magazine size issue.

My “point” is self-contained, particularly since you would likely find any regulatory proposal “arbitrary.” Unless, that is — ball in your court — you have some to proffer.

AZ lawmakers on both sides won’t touch gun control, even to demand that the state “catch up” on the woefully incomplete background check system. With Jan Brewer in office and the whole state gun-happy, any politician who even whispers gun control will watch their career melt faster than a snowball in Phoenix. They’re still moving forward in allowing college faculty to carry, for cryin’ out loud.

President Obama has no appetite for reinstituting the Brady Bill, and the Republicans in the House would stonewall it without a second thought even if he was motivated. And the SCOTUS is likely to find some way to apply its Heller decision to the states, further weakening what gun control measures there are.

We may be OT here but you don’t seem to know much about the Militarization of the police in the US. My point about protecting yourself has nothing to do with carring guns to protect yourself from the police, that will get you killed.

You state that we would be safer if people didn’t carry guns in public, please show us some proof to back that statement. You and others may feel safer but feeling and being are not the same.

I think it’d be fine. Since “legislators” (or, rather, “non-legislators”) aren’t a protected class, the law just has to pass rational review, which should be easy enough. Would it pass 2nd amendment muster? Seems hard to imagine it wouldn’t, since many gun control measures restrict carrying based on location (schools, courthouses, etc)

Wow now i’m a Monomaniac, The point that you didn’t seem to grasp is that we don’t have the same outrage when US violence affects innocent civilians in other countries that we express when it happens here.

There was a federal law making it a federal crime to carry w/in 1000 feet of a school, but it was (famously) ruled unconstitutional in US v Lopez.

I personally have the training to disarm someone. Whether or not they carry a gun is of little consequence to me. I open carry occassionally just because I can.

You state that we would be safer if people didn’t carry guns in public, please show us some proof to back that statement. You and others may feel safer but feeling and being are not the same.

I didn’t state anything. I’m suggesting. There’s a difference. I’m submitting an idea to the group. If there are less guns out in the public realm, there would be less shootings, right? Just a simple math problem. Reduce the whole, reduce the ratio proportionately?

Illegal open/concealed carry wouldn’t have stopped this nutjob. I do feel that it would reduce gun violence in this country to a certain extent.

My initial comment was in response to the idea that people not be allowed to carry at political events. I was pointing out the idiocy of this in saying a politician’s life is worth no more or no less than any other person’s, so why limit it to political events? If we are going to take away the right to carry around certain people, why not take away the right to carry around all people? It’s a ludicrous suggestion, whether it be aimed at politicians or anyone else.

Call it local bias – the closer something is to where we live, the more affected we are by it.

Also, we’re not very likely to be blown to bits by a missile fired by a Predator drone. But it’s more likely that we’ll be shot at by someone while going about our daily business. That’s a perception bias.

Corruption or being trigger happy has nothing to do with it. There is a large body of law to support the position that police have No obligation to provide protection to individuals. Start with Castle Rock V. Gonzales.

Added: I didn’t vet this site but it looks like it may be a place to start
<a href="http://mdean.tripod.com/immunity.html

Sorry Kris but your logic confuses me. You state that if there were less guns carried in public there would be less shootings but for that statement to be true then all people who carry guns in public are dangerous. Using that logic and math you are just as likely to shoot someone since you carry in public.

I believe that most people who have and carry guns are at least minimally responsible and sane and only a very small percentage are dangerous. This leads me to the conclusion that passing more restrictive laws, on top of the hundreds we already have, will have no affect on violence.

I would call it Amerikan Exceptionalism, our deaths are tragic, the deaths of the Others are Collateral Damage.

We got a taste of what it is like to be on the recieving end of mass violence on 9/11. Our response was to start two wars and rain down Hellfire on millions of civilians and call it spreading democracy.

Typical of the fucking monsters, “we must be protected so that the criminally insane only kill the ‘little people’”.

That’s dicey reasoning. If cops were failing to enforce a protection order, a citizen could sue and have a court compel its enforcement. So, yeah, cops are obligated to protect its citizenry and enforce the law. The question in Castle Rock was different: whether people have a property interest in cops’ enforcement such that failure to enforce the law constitutes a deprivation of that property interest.

Let me try again, because my first response to this was not appropriate.

What’s your solution then? And not a simple tagline like “Get out now.” Give me a concrete plan, because otherwise you’re wringing your hands just as much as you claim I am.

It may be “Dicey” reasoning. It’s not mine. But it is in the body of law. Castle Rock is one case but there are many others. Choose your resource and do the research. I think you’ll find the bottom line is that there is no Right to police protection.

You mean like the success of restricting access to drugs?

The mind boggles.

You may be correct about the “Serve And Protect” motto but in reality there aren’t enough police to protect the populace even if they wanted to. In many parts of this country the police are little more than an occuping army.

In the last 30yrs the police forces have become the second career for military personnel. The government money has gone into tactical training and equipment to fight the drug war and gang wars. Community policing and oversight have become impediments to getting the job done and garnering more federal money to fight the war.

If cops were failing to enforce a protection order, a citizen could sue and have a court compel its enforcement.

Yeah, right, sure. Tell that to the lady out in the San Gabriel Valley a few years ago who had an order of protection against her ex-husband. They heard he was coming to her birthday party at her parent’s house. Called the Sheriff. They said, “Call back when he shows up”. So the family did, to 911, as he blazed away killing the woman and her sister (and, I believe, wounding one or two other family members).

Police don’t prevent crime; they solve crimes and arrest people who have already committed them. The only time cops prevent a crime is when they arrest someone for a past crime before he or she can commit their next crime.

The mind shouldn’t boggle.

There is no legitimate reason to ban a joint, so no one really obeys the law. On the other hand, guns kill people.

I’m too broken down to do what we did in the ’60s so i guess i am a “Hand Wringing Monomaniac” It’s really up to the younger generation to stand up and continue the struggle against the Userous Capitalism that drives the Imperial War Machine.

The difference now compared to then is that no one fears the Left anymore. Fear of the Youth Movement and Socialism did cause even Nixon to moderate his positions.

I don’t see a real movement yet but if it comes us old Radicals will join in even if we are confined to a Hoveround.

On a closer reading, you may well be right. Good points.

The point is that the ban doesn’t work.

You have no problem getting pot, despite the fact that it’s prohibited and often comes with draconian penalties. The exact same outcome would occur for banning firearms. People who wanted to get them would, and people who wanted to use them would.

The ban is incredibly stupid and counterproductive. As would be any similar ban on firearms.

You must live in L.A. or San fruitcisco, out here in the real world we don’t have policement around the corner or next block. Response time for EMERGENCY police calls can take 30 minutes. Maybe the criminals on television turn and run after kicking on the door but those that intend to do harm or feed their habit aren’t as shy.

So if you want to wait for the police to show up and take the report of your demise that is your choice. Personally I’d rather have a means of DEFENDING myself and my family – then the police can take the report!

==modnote: references to San Francisco as San fruitisco are unacceptable on this blog, please respect others or comment elsewhere.===

I haven’t noticed anyone in the U.S. PUSHING the firearms across the border into Canada.

So I guess your point is, and history has shown, that regardless of how punitive, restrictive and ill founded strict gun laws are people that want firearms will find a way, either legally or otherwise, to obtain them.

People don’t seem to understand a firearm is a TOOL. By itself it is a piece of metal or composite. It can be used for sport and enjoyment or it can be used by deranged individuals to do damage and harm – much like a hammer, a car or a rock! Should we put a 1000 foot restriction on them?

The firearm only extends the distance and effectiveness of the users actions. For the last several years when the “progressives” were on their anti SUV binge the NEWS would report that a person was killed when an SUV hit them, the SUV jumped the curb, etc. Like the SUV acted alone totally independent of the driver. What a crock!

This is the same histeria and knee jerk politics with officials (75 year old Fart Sheriffs and politicans like Peter King) trying to make headlines with missplaced blame and “feel good” proposals that will not work and cannot be enforced.

Do ANY of you REALLY BELEIVE that the 1000 foot proposal would have stopped Loughner? I thought we already had laws against murder and attempted murder. Did those laws stop him? Enforce the laws we have don’t try to appear to be doing something by proposing MORE unneeded laws!!

That’s my 2 cents worth…..

You are right on the money. What they needed was ONE of the other ~99.87% of the law abiding Glock owners there properly trained with a CHL to dispatch this curr. Not the ideal way to handle it but in the apparent absence of the police I am certain the families of the injured and deceased would have been grateful.

Furthermore, if any of the people in that group could go back in time and obtain a CHL and proper training I bet they would give anything to have a do over of that terrible day with their own legal hi-cap Glock in the waistband or purse to change the outcome of that terrible day.

Prayers for them all…

Oh yeah, here is what the nutcases do when the state has removed all guns.

Google it it is real.

Frenzied attack in Tokyo by knife-wielding man kills 7, injures 10
Last Updated: Sunday, June 8, 2008 | 1:22 AM ET Comments87Recommend53The Associated Press
Rescue workers get ready with their equipment after arriving Sunday in Tokyo’s Akihabara district where a man with a knife ran over several people with a truck, then began stabbing them. (Itsuo Inouye/Associated Press)
A man who police said “was tired of life” drove into a crowd of pedestrians Sunday and then went on a stabbing rampage in Tokyo’s premier electronics and video game district, killing seven people and wounding 10, authorities said.

The deadly lunchtime assault happened in Akihabara district after the attacker drove a rented two-tonne truck into a crowd, running over three people, public broadcaster NHK quoted an unidentified witness as saying.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/07/japan-stabbing.html#ixzz1B0nuoqnU