GOP leaders quash Republican’s effort to ban guns within 1,000 feet of lawmakers

[babsbunny]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/gop-leaders-strikes-gun-control-legislation/

By Sahil Kapur
Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 -- 4:21 pm

The top two Republicans in the House of Representatives rejected gun control legislation soon after it was announced by a senior GOP congressman, effectively dooming its hopes for consideration.

The bill, unveiled by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on Tuesday, would have banned people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of elected officials in Congress. It had the support of New York City mayor and outspoken gun-control advocate Michael Bloomberg.

[DrDan]

1. so his legislation would have banned guns for elected members of congress,

but not the President or Vice President?

[cynatnite]

2. So, they do want guns in close vincinity of elected officials. n/t

[Travis_0004]

17. Are you implying that this law would have stopped any killings

Somebody who is determined to kill will be breaking multiple laws, what good is one more law going to do. I see nothing wrong with having metal detectors at a meeting, and not allowing people to come in with firearms, but I don't think you can make it a crime just having a gun within 1000 feet of a congressman. You could be just going about your day and run into them at the grocery store, etc.

Also, despite people not wanting to believe otherwise, the events could have been different if a law abiding citizen had a gun. Either way, a law abiding citizen is not going to just start shooting, and somebody bent on killing won't follow the law.

So I ask you, what will this fix?

[cynatnite]

22. Loughner shot Giffords at point blank range...it would have made a difference. n/t

[Travis_0004]

23. How

Wasn't his gun concealed until he pulled it out and started shooting?

Are you implying that he would have obeyed this law and not brought a gun?

[cynatnite]

24. You've never heard of metal detectors?

He shot her at POINT BLANK range. A metal detector alone would have stopped him. It would have made sure a law like this is followed.

We put airbags in car to protect drivers and passangers. Why can't we take an extra step to protect the public from gun violence?

Some people must either love their guns too much or they're too afraid to live without them. That is very disturbing to me.

[Last_Stand]

27. She was in a parking lot outside a grocery store...

The extra step to protect the public from gun violence would be for our leaders to honestly work on problems in society that cause gun violence instead of buckling to corporate interests.

[cynatnite]

28. One small extra step would have saved a lot of lives...

I do agree that working on the cause is better, but our society won't let go of it's obscene need for guns any time soon.

[Last_Stand]

29. I might not have understood that comment...

I think the true cause of gun violence is poverty, drug addiction, lack of mental health care, etc.

It may not be very realistic to think those issues will improve any time soon, but I bet you'd get more support from the general public to improve them than you will trying to convince people to give up their guns.

[Hubert Flottz]

3. They didn't want to piss off their donors at the NRA.

It's the "ownership" thing. The republicans in DC are owned by the people with the big checkbooks.

[valerief]

5. NRA stands for No Regulations in America. nt

[tridim]

11. They aren't going to stop until everyone is dead.

Fuck you NRA.

We need a replacement for the NRA that is responsible and not so politically motivated.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. There is one. But nobody bothers to join it.

The membership is so tiny, and they are so ineffectual that I don't even remember the name of the organization.

[valerief]

4. Of courrrrrrrrrse! How can Dem pols get killed if they have that ban in place? nt

[TygrBright]

6. Good. It's a damn' stupid way to frame a law.

There are 435 of them. Do you know every one of them by sight? Do you know how far away "1000 ft." is? You could be arrested for being on the next block, blissfully unaware that a Congresscritter is having lunch in a restaurant 200 yards away.

The enforcement issues would give any law enforcement agency in any jurisdiction where a Congresscritter lives, spends time, does business, or passes through, an insanely expensive headache.

I agree that we need more sensible interpretation and regulation based on the second amendment, but more badly-conceived, poorly-written, automatic-dead-letter laws are not the answer.

exasperatedly,
Bright

[gratuitous]

8. Of course it's damn stupid - we're talking about Peter King after all

Doesn't mean we can't do some pointing and laughing.

[yellowcanine]

7. Unworkable and too little anyway. Guns are too easy to hide.

Once a deranged person has a gun they are not going to concern themselves about such a law.
Figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of deranged people. Then you might have something.

[Kingofalldems]

9. NRA again

They are all over the place--including DU.

[Pancho Sanza]

13. You are absolutely right.

And more every day. All over the place - - including DU.

[atreides1]

10. Was King Serious?

Or was he just doing this as a PR stunt?

[tridim]

12. I think he doesn't want his colleagues to get shot by teabaggers.

That's not a PR stunt.

[Kingofalldems]

14. I'm sure the gun fetishists did not like this one

[Toucano]

15. Good! Why should they be protected while the rest of us are left to the wolves?

Let them take their chances in the world they've done more to create than you or I have.

[Drale]

16. The problem I see with such a bill

would be first its Congressmen and Senators, next more people will want a similar bill.

[tridim]

18. I want a similar bill for myself, because I don't want to get shot.

You got a problem with that?

[Pancho Sanza]

20. You should probably stay 1000 feet from cops because statistically, you are

as likely to be shot by one of them as by a legally carrying civilian. No guarantees though about the criminal who didn't bother with a permit.

[Ezlivin]

19. Why not ban LOBBYISTS within 1,000 feet of lawmakers?

That'd accomplish more for this country than almost any other piece of legislation.

[Pancho Sanza]

21. I can get on board with THAT

:thumbsup:

[Last_Stand]

25. +1

[AspenRose]

26. They're not going to ban them because they want to bring them to Congress!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028337-503544.html

Just shoot up the liberals while they're debating on the floor! Yee-haw! :puke: