Here Comes the Gun and Speech Legislation

[DiveCon]

"Discoveries at Loughner's home in southern Arizona, where he lived with his parents in a middle-class neighborhood have provided few answers to what motivated him." - Military: Ariz. shooting suspect failed drug test - Yahoo! News

Throw the parent's asses in jail too. If you let someone living under your roof own a gun with that level of mental issues, you should go to jail.

Um.. no. He was an adult and is responsible for his own actions. This is not a road we want to start going down.

By all accounts, this kid was batshit crazy. His parents heard his rants on a daily basis and knew that he was armed.

For their own safety and the safety of others, they should have done something about it. They can't legally prevent him from getting a gun. But they can prevent him from having a gun in their house

you have seen proof they knew?
i havent, thats why i ask

 

[The Rabbi]

McCarthy can be excused. I can't imagine she has ever recovered from the death of her husband, or the injury of her son....I know I wouldn't. It is no surprise she is sensitized to gun violence and seeks to end it.

McCarthy is an idiot of the first order. She introduces this legislation every single session of Congress. It promptly goes nowhere. It is a waste of everyone's time. She doesn't even know what she's talking about but wants it banned anyway.
She is hardly the only person to have family gunned down by a maniac. Two women (one I am personally acquainted with) had that experience and became staunch supporters of the right to keep and bear arms for private citizens.

McCarthy knows what she is talking about. She has a dog in this fight and understands the impact of gun violence. Her opinions are as relevant as any NRA funded politicians

Yeah, right.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U32GOlL5Ro4[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

McCarthy is an idiot of the first order. She introduces this legislation every single session of Congress. It promptly goes nowhere. It is a waste of everyone's time. She doesn't even know what she's talking about but wants it banned anyway.
She is hardly the only person to have family gunned down by a maniac. Two women (one I am personally acquainted with) had that experience and became staunch supporters of the right to keep and bear arms for private citizens.

McCarthy knows what she is talking about. She has a dog in this fight and understands the impact of gun violence. Her opinions are as relevant as any NRA funded politicians

Yeah, right.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U32GOlL5Ro4[/ame]

McCarthy made her position on gun control perfectly clear and was elected to represent her constituents. Her views are as valid as any other member of Congress. Her personal knowledge of the impact of gun violence puts her in a better position than an NRA flunkey armed with NRA talking points

 

[Jarhead]

McCarthy made her position on gun control perfectly clear and was elected to represent her constituents. Her views are as valid as any other member of Congress. Her personal knowledge of the impact of gun violence puts her in a better position than an NRA flunkey armed with NRA talking points

Actually...her personal knowledge of the impact of gun violence puts her in a more likely position to allow emotion to trump logic as it pertains to gun control.

She may have sadly lost her husband at the hands of a loon, but it gave her no more knowledge than anyone else as it pertains to the consequences of gun violence.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually...her personal knowledge of the impact of gun violence puts her in a more likely position to allow emotion to trump logic as it pertains to gun control.

She may have sadly lost her husband at the hands of a loon, but it gave her no more knowledge than anyone else as it pertains to the consequences of gun violence.

That is for the constituents who elected her to decide. Her position has always been perfectly clear

To me...she has more of a dog in the fight than someone on the NRA payroll

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is for the constituents who elected her to decide. Her position has always been perfectly clear

Which only means that she had her mind made up before this incident.
Given that, her experience adds nothing to her position as she held her position w/ or w/o the experience.

 

[rightwinger]

That is for the constituents who elected her to decide. Her position has always been perfectly clear

Which only means that she had her mind made up before this incident.
Given that, her experience adds nothing to her position as she held her position w/ or w/o the experience.

She was elected after the incident

If her constituents did not want her to impede the open carrying of guns on the LIRR they would not elect her.

She has every right to push her agenda....whether the NRA approves or not

 

[KissMy]

Note how many lives & injuries would have been saved had the crowd been packing concealed weapons. They would have taken him out before he shot 20 people.

 

[rightwinger]

Note how many lives & injuries would have been saved had the crowd been packing concealed weapons. They would have taken him out before he shot 20 people.

Arizona has the most liberal handgun conceal laws in the country. What makes you think nobody in the crowd was packing?

 

[M14 Shooter]

She has every right to push her agenda....whether the NRA approves or not

Yawn.
Just so long as you recognize the fact that the NRA has every right tp push its agenda as well, and that her anecdotal experience does not make up for her lack of a sound argument.

 

[Jarhead]

That is for the constituents who elected her to decide. Her position has always been perfectly clear

To me...she has more of a dog in the fight than someone on the NRA payroll

Actually...she has less of a dog in the fight than someone on the NRA payroll...and that in itself should be your argument...not wehat you said.....

However, as her constituant, I can tell you that she was elected based on your sentiments...we were a huting area after that LIRR masacre.

And she is a very dedicated public servant for more reasons than gun contol.

But as it pertains to any legislation....I would want my legislator to make a non emotional decision...and lets be real....that she can not do as it pertains to gun control.

And she made an ass of herself on local tv this morning. She brought up the violence of the health care debate and that day outside with the "spitting". She said she feared for her life that day. She was asked what she saw that made her fear for her life. She said "spitting". She was asked if she actuially saw it happen. She said no...she heard about it. So she was again asked what she feared that day. She said people showed anger. She was asked if they seemed violent. She said she didnt see any that seemed thast way but she was warned of it. So she was again asked what she saw that gave her fear. She never answered.

 

[DiveCon]

Note how many lives & injuries would have been saved had the crowd been packing concealed weapons. They would have taken him out before he shot 20 people.

Arizona has the most liberal handgun conceal laws in the country. What makes you think nobody in the crowd was packing?

i had heard a report that someone was and had shot the guy once, but that could have been an erroneous report in the "fog" of the incident as i cant find anything now to back it up

 

[westwall]

We are a nation of morons.

A nation of paranoid people.

A nation tooooo ignorant to know that guns at public events, particularly at political events, is a bad idea.

But don't talk about my gun.

School children get slaughtered at school .. the solution, let's arm the teachers, janitors, and everybody else.

But don't talk about my gun.

Incredible.

Don't get it twisted, not advocating taking away anyone's gun .. I used to .. but I recognized the relationship between gun-lovers and civil rights haters. I figure it best to leave that decision to the individual if the governemnt has no say in it.

And it was the civil rights haters that took guns away from the blacks so that they couldn't defend themselves. Any person who decrys the infringment of gun rights is by definition pro civil rights. Armed people are citizens (look up Greek Law for that one). Disarmed people are targets. It's as simple as that.

 

[westwall]

actually the SC has ruled that there are more than one exception to that clause. You can't own nuclear arms for example or assault rifles at least in some states.

The SCotUS has never ruled any such thing.

Furthermore the entire right to bear arms is predicated on your position in a state militia.

Absolutely false.
See:
DC v Heller

The Constitution clearly states it's a collective right. Heller was an absolute abomination, a fine example of legislating from the bench and Judicial activism. And it puts the bed the notion conservative judicial restraint.

Only a person who willfully misunderstands the Bill Of Rights could make that statement. Or does -"the right of the PEOPLE"- mean something different on your planet? And then of course there's that little issue about governemnt allready having weapons and the means to purchase etc. so why on Earth would government need to gurantee it's right to have an armed force. Doesn't even come close to holding water.

 

[The Rabbi]

McCarthy knows what she is talking about. She has a dog in this fight and understands the impact of gun violence. Her opinions are as relevant as any NRA funded politicians

Yeah, right.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U32GOlL5Ro4[/ame]

McCarthy made her position on gun control perfectly clear and was elected to represent her constituents. Her views are as valid as any other member of Congress. Her personal knowledge of the impact of gun violence puts her in a better position than an NRA flunkey armed with NRA talking points

Her views are not valid. They are ignorant and uninformed. She has no insight into gun violence and no real solutions to ending it. Banning barrel shrouds will not help in any way, but that doesn't stop her, even though she doesn't know what one is.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The constitution doesn't allow you to carry a gun everywhere you go. You can't carry one into a courthouse, schools, airports, and some other public events.

I'm all for gun ownership, including concealed permits. I don't approve of any new law limiting what guns people can own, sell, or purchase. I do however think there are a few exceptions of where people should have the right to bring a gun-and political rallies are one of them. If you weren't allowed to bring guns into the crowd (and security checked everyone)-nobody would have been shot.

Beefing up security at these events, and banning all weapons (not just guns) at them doesn't violate anybody's constitutional rights more as banning people from bringing a gun onto an airplane does.

 

[saveliberty]

The constitution doesn't allow you to carry a gun everywhere you go. You can't carry one into a courthouse, schools, airports, and some other public events.

I'm all for gun ownership, including concealed permits. I don't approve of any new law limiting what guns people can own, sell, or purchase. I do however think there are a few exceptions of where people should have the right to bring a gun-and political rallies are one of them. If you weren't allowed to bring guns into the crowd (and security checked everyone)-nobody would have been shot.

Beefing up security at these events, and banning all weapons (not just guns) at them doesn't violate anybody's constitutional rights more as banning people from bringing a gun onto an airplane does.

The Constitution has absolutely no limitation on where you can carry a gun.

 

[DiveCon]

The constitution doesn't allow you to carry a gun everywhere you go. You can't carry one into a courthouse, schools, airports, and some other public events.

I'm all for gun ownership, including concealed permits. I don't approve of any new law limiting what guns people can own, sell, or purchase. I do however think there are a few exceptions of where people should have the right to bring a gun-and political rallies are one of them. If you weren't allowed to bring guns into the crowd (and security checked everyone)-nobody would have been shot.

Beefing up security at these events, and banning all weapons (not just guns) at them doesn't violate anybody's constitutional rights more as banning people from bringing a gun onto an airplane does.

i agree with most of that
but since you dont have a constitutional right to fly on a commercial airline, your restriction are fine
so thats not a good analogy to use in this case

 

[DiveCon]

The constitution doesn't allow you to carry a gun everywhere you go. You can't carry one into a courthouse, schools, airports, and some other public events.

I'm all for gun ownership, including concealed permits. I don't approve of any new law limiting what guns people can own, sell, or purchase. I do however think there are a few exceptions of where people should have the right to bring a gun-and political rallies are one of them. If you weren't allowed to bring guns into the crowd (and security checked everyone)-nobody would have been shot.

Beefing up security at these events, and banning all weapons (not just guns) at them doesn't violate anybody's constitutional rights more as banning people from bringing a gun onto an airplane does.

The Constitution has absolutely no limitation on where you can carry a gun.

sure it does

if a business owner posts a sign "no guns" then you do NOT have a right to violate his rights by carrying a gun into his business

 

[saveliberty]

The constitution doesn't allow you to carry a gun everywhere you go. You can't carry one into a courthouse, schools, airports, and some other public events.

I'm all for gun ownership, including concealed permits. I don't approve of any new law limiting what guns people can own, sell, or purchase. I do however think there are a few exceptions of where people should have the right to bring a gun-and political rallies are one of them. If you weren't allowed to bring guns into the crowd (and security checked everyone)-nobody would have been shot.

Beefing up security at these events, and banning all weapons (not just guns) at them doesn't violate anybody's constitutional rights more as banning people from bringing a gun onto an airplane does.

The Constitution has absolutely no limitation on where you can carry a gun.

sure it does


if a business owner posts a sign "no guns" then you do NOT have a right to violate his rights by carrying a gun into his business

Please cite where in the Constitution it limits where I can carry.