NY Times: More Gun Control! John Boehner: “No”

Why, yes, the NY Times editorial board is still beating the anti-gun drum, in an attempt to make sure a good tragedy does not go to waste. After discussing Rep Peter King’s silly notion of not allowing guns within 1,000 feet of politicians, something which criminals and wacko’s would surely ignore, because they are criminals and wacko’s, we are treated to

Representative James Clyburn, a Democrat of South Carolina, said that lawmakers should no longer be treated like everyone else at airport security checkpoints, though that inconvenience seems to have nothing to do with the shooting. Representative Robert Brady, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, has proposed making it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening violence against all federal officials, an idea dangerously full of potential First Amendment violations. Representative Dan Burton, a Republican of Indiana, even wants to enclose the public gallery above the House chamber in Plexiglas. These ideas are unlikely to make lawmakers or the public any safer. But if members are concerned that some of the 283 million guns now in the hands of American civilians might one day be turned on them — and they should be — there are many things they can do.

They can follow the advice given on Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, along with 10 other mayors, and begin restoring the nation’s gun control laws to sanity — for the protection of everyone. The most obvious first steps are to ban the extended-round magazines used in the Arizona shooting and tighten a nearly useless system of background checks.

Except, this wasn’t a failure of the system for background checks, this was a failure of people performing the checks. The Pima County Sheriff’s Office, which would have been the ones giving the permit, knew quite a bit about Loughner, and could have denied him the permit. At which point he could have gone to the rally with a knife, or a bomb. Or a hammer. Screwdriver. Machete. And other implements of destruction. Sure, he couldn’t have killed as many people (except with the bomb, plans for which can easily be found on the Internet), yet, he would have been able to get to his primary target. And as I wrote previously, banning extended-round magazines just means that someone carries more than one, which can be changed in a few seconds.

And John Boehner responds to all the hyper-partisan first blush reaction

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation offered by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in response to the weekend shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Arizona.

Meaning it will not see the House floor. Cooler heads may prevail.

Responding to any bad thing that happens with restrictive legislation is what politicians do, affecting the whole due to the actions of a few, or one, instead of realizing that in the real world, bad things can, and will, happen. Such is life on planet Earth.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “NY Times: More Gun Control! John Boehner: “No””

  1. Don says:

    If you worthless Prima-Donnas feel so threatened by the public that Employs you I have a suggestion QUIT! No-one asked you to go into politics and steal our money!

  2. John Ryan says:

    it was while he was changing clips that he was tackled and stopped.

  3. One of the problems with those extended clips is that they are a pain in the behind to remove. With a normal clip, you can swap it out in a few seconds. I’ve done the same thing with my .22, and can swap in two seconds and be firing again.

    But, still, it is not the fault of the gun, but, of the person using the gun. Though, I will agree that certain ammunition needs to be illegal, such as teflon coated, explosive, and some others.

  4. someothername says:

    Democrat Dictionary:
    Loophole [loop-hohl]
    1) freedom

    Usage: Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light
    bulbs by exploiting a loophole in new legislation.
    Legislators want to eliminate that “loophole”

    Loopholes can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.

    NOT every wacko uses this or that gun or magazine or knife.
    Every single one of these crazies trying to kill others wears shoes
    They help them get from place to place to hurt MORE people, and sometimes are used in escapes. Ban shoes.
    (The TSA and airports will be safer too)

    How bout them “assault rifles?”
    Oops, I mean “home defense rifles”
    January 10, 2011 at 9:14p.m Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office Deputies were dispatched to 3405 Farmosa, NW of Mission,Tx in Hidalgo County in reference to shots fired, home invasion by 4 to 5 male suspects. he owner shot at the intruders with his AK -47 hitting one of the suspects in the chest.

    AK-47? isn’t that one the Brady Campaign says has “no defensive use?
    Maybe it was an AR-15, wait no, it seems like only yesterday Dr. Suzanna Hupp, testifying before Congress reminded us of a man on his rooftop during riots defenfding his home and life with an AR-15 … maybe it was something else.

    How about them bazillion capacity ammo clips?
    Are you aware there’s no Hollywood one-stop-shot “smart bullet” with a guidance control system available to homeowners? Do you recall the Florida incident where police shot a criminal over 30 times yet he refused to fall down and quit shooting back?

    Are you an elderly disabled handicapped man who has been held hostage twice, once by two armed men, another time by 5 armed men? No? Then I’m a better judge of that than you are, dontcha think?

    How many hurricanes, evacuations and aftermaths or other natural disasters have you been through to know what I “need”? Not as many as I have? Then I’m a better judge of that than you are, dontcha think?

    Re: you deciding what I “need” and “may have.”
    How many of those OPTIONS in your car do you NEED.
    You do want us to decide what YOU “need” too right?
    Got any ice cream in your freezer?
    Please justify why you “need” it, I’m drafting a bill.

Bad Behavior has blocked 12693 access attempts in the last 7 days.