Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
The Diana Rheem Show on NPR this mrning had a number of Mental Heath experts in a discussion and your anecdotal evidence backs up what they said. It is very difficult to get mental heath commitment for anyone who doesn’t want it, and difficult beyond that to get long-term commitment even if called for.
Click to expand...
That is the case with someone that is “apparently” only a threat to themselves. It’s much easier to commit a person that’s threaten to kill others as this young man did. But the sheriff didn’t consider him a threat.
 
Ender said:
As much as people oppose gun restrictions, it is actually Brady’s bill that is the more dangerous one. Assuming the report is correct that it would ban* “language or symbols that could be seen as threatening”*, if this one got through you could kiss your first amendment rights to free speech goodbye. Nor should anyone take comfort in the fact that it is unconstitutional, inasmuch as nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is and I certainly don’t trust the court to necessarily uphold our rights. I am greatly comforted, however, in that this bill will be considered by the 112th Congress rather than the 111th.

Ender
Click to expand...
Consider the vile speech threats against President Bush!

The words we use really do matter. There’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. That’s the critical point in assigning indirect blame for Tucson. We can never know exactly what hate speech produces, but why risk its interaction with underlying mental illness?" - Bill Clinton

Yeah, Bill.

zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

wikio.com/video/sick-tired—hillary-clinton-1417209
 
So, the left creates a problem and then states that the answer to the problem is to turn the country further left.

Doesn’t make much sense to me.
 
SamH said:
That is the case with someone that is “apparently” only a threat to themselves. It’s much easier to commit a person that’s threaten to kill others as this young man did. But the sheriff didn’t consider him a threat.
Click to expand...
It’s Strange that Loughner had a Pretty Extensive “History” with the Sheriff’s Department but with all of the “Warning Signs” the Sheriff chose to ignore them.

Now He is basically trying to “deflect responsibility” for his actions by blaming all of this (on dubious evidence) on the Right-Wing. 🤷
 
I saw today that Rep. Peter King is also looking at gun restrictions.

michellemalkin.com/2011/01/11/idiocracy-gop-rep-peter-kings-2nd-amendment-sabotaging-chicken-little-bill/

Overall though, living near Chicago and seeing what occurred after gun laws were passed - more crime happened - I’m not sure this is a good idea. John Stossel had an article not long ago about Chicago’s failed gun restrictions.

Why Chicagoans Need Guns

stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/23/why-chicagoans-need-guns/?action=late-new
 
Got this over at FreeRepublic: Kennisaw Georgia… mandatory gun ownership… hardly any crime.

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia’s ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn’t. The fact is I can’t remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city’s crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn’t force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don’t have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired
 
Ender said:
As much as people oppose gun restrictions, it is actually Brady’s bill that is the more dangerous one. Assuming the report is correct that it would ban* “language or symbols that could be seen as threatening”*, if this one got through you could kiss your first amendment rights to free speech goodbye. Nor should anyone take comfort in the fact that it is unconstitutional, inasmuch as nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is and I certainly don’t trust the court to necessarily uphold our rights. I am greatly comforted, however, in that this bill will be considered by the 112th Congress rather than the 111th.
Click to expand...
It is already a Federal crime to threaten the President either written or verbally. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would uphold an extension of that to Congressmen/women and Senators. Having said that; I think this particular bill would be at risk of being struck down, due to the subjective terminology, and deemed unconstitutionally vague unless it is altered to say, “language or symbols which are threatening” or some such phrase.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
It’s Strange that Loughner had a Pretty Extensive “History” with the Sheriff’s Department but with all of the “Warning Signs” the Sheriff chose to ignore them.

Now He is basically trying to “deflect responsibility” for his actions by blaming all of this (on dubious evidence) on the Right-Wing. 🤷
Click to expand...
The Sheriff’s Department didn’t choose to ignore him; there was nothing they could do. He was arrested twice but both charges were dismissed by the judge in exchange for participation in a diversion program. With 0 convictions the Sherrif’s Department and legal system in Arizona could not commit him to a mental health facility without his consent.
 
Roselle said:
I saw today that Rep. Peter King is also looking at gun restrictions.
Click to expand...
Yep and I’m listening to NRA radio right now and the biggest gun grabber in the United States NYC Mayor Bloomberg stood beside him and vomiting a bunch of lies—as the gun control wacko’s usually do.

nranews.com/#/nranews
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
It is already a Federal crime to threaten the President either written or verbally. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would uphold an extension of that to Congressmen/women and Senators. Having said that; I think this particular bill would be at risk of being struck down, due to the subjective terminology, and deemed unconstitutionally vague unless it is altered to say, “language or symbols which are threatening” or some such phrase.
Click to expand...
So would you consider the “Palin map” to be considered "language or symbols which are threatening?
 
shockerfan said:
So would you consider the “Palin map” to be considered "language or symbols which are threatening?
Click to expand...
In context with her instruction to “reload” and look at the “bullseyes” on that map? Yes.
 
shockerfan said:
So how about Obama’s “bring a gun to a knife fight” comment?
Click to expand...
There is no threat directed at anyone in Congress in that statement. A clear difference from Palin’s targeting of specific members of Congress and instructing people to “reload.”
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
There is no threat directed at anyone in Congress in that statement. A clear difference from Palin’s targeting of specific members of Congress and instructing people to “reload.”
Click to expand...
So you truly believe Palin wanted someone to shoot a member of congress?
 
shockerfan said:
So you truly believe Palin wanted someone to shoot a member of congress?
Click to expand...
Do I think that she intended for this to happen? No, but I do think that she should be held accountable for the violent innuendo and aknowledge that such talk has real world consequences. Maybe she thought it was witty or funny and I doubt she considered that some individuals in our society would take that as a license to kill but the nation got what she insinuated and what other Tea Party candidates directly called for; an attempted assassination of a Democratic member of Congress. The kind of language and imagery she, and others, used should not be allowed. The revival of the assault weapons ban is just one of many preventative measures this country needs to take.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Do I think that she intended for this to happen? No, but I do think that she should be held accountable for the violent innuendo and aknowledge that such talk has real world consequences. Maybe she thought it was witty or funny and I doubt she considered that some individuals in our society would take that as a license to kill but the nation got what she insinuated and what other Tea Party candidates directly called for; an attempted assassination of a Democratic member of Congress. The kind of language and imagery she, and others, used should not be allowed.
Click to expand...
So who gets to decide what language or imagery is allowed? It is really sad that just about all of the left wing pundits / politicians who are politicizing this tragedy only seem to bring up examples of right wing rhetoric and are very silent about the well document left wing rhetoric. We live in a free country, this is not but an attempt to silence political dissent.

I don’t trust our government to decide after the fact what kind of speech is dangerous. Also, since there is no proof that this shooting was motivated by any rhetoric, it looks like those on the left are trying to silence their opposition. Very sad and pathetic.
 
What’s the reason for the double standard?

People on the left are allowed to say and do anything, regardless of how heinous or vile:

zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Whereas, even the most innocuous things by people on the right are condemned.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
** but the nation got what she insinuated and what other Tea Party candidates directly called for; an attempted assassination of a Democratic member of Congress. **
Click to expand...
I can’t believe you just said that. Honestly, having to remain within the rules of the forum, I’m speechless. I’d probably get arrested if someone said that to my face.
The kind of language and imagery she, and others, used should not be allowed. The revival of the assault weapons ban is just one of many preventative measures this country needs to take.
Click to expand...
Yet flag burnings and beating/threatening/scaring union employees/children is ok?

I didn’t think anything from the liberal side would ever surprise me…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top