It’s truly amusing when there are certain positions that Bush and/or Cheney took that pretty much mirrored the Left side positions. Remember the whole amnesty debate, when Bush’s position was essentially the same as the Democrats? It took liberals a good day or say to figure out a way to bash him for taking the exact same position they held. Then you have Dick Cheney and his position on gay marriage, which he thinks is a State issue, and should not be regulated at the federal level. And then there is this
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a staunch gun advocate, says tighter weapons regulations might be “appropriate” to prevent another tragedy like the Arizona mass shootings that left six people dead and a congresswoman seriously wounded.
Cheney, an avid hunter, said he is “willing to listen to ideas” on how to better control the purchase and use of firearms.
“Whether or not there’s some measure there in terms of limiting the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with a semiautomatic weapon — we’ve had that in place before. Maybe it’s appropriate to re-establish that kind of thing, but I think you do have to be careful obviously,” Cheney told NBC’s Jamie Gangel, national correspondent for “TODAY.”
Oh, my. Let’s watch the actual quote
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Of course, the Democrat Underground is finding ways to still hate him, and the quote du jour
14. JeepnsteinGee, that’s a surprise. He can afford anything he wants, or his benefactors will provide it. Somehow he doesn’t trust ordinary citizens with firearms they handle every day. That speaks volumes about the heart of this issue.
The judges give that spin an 8.7, 9.0, and 8.8.
I guess the big question would be, would restricting extended round handgun magazines, essentially, those that extend below the handgrip, make any difference?
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
[…] […]
Ed Schultz says that he blames the shooter for the first 10 rounds of shooting, and then blames the right wing and their pro-gun people-killing stance for the next 21 rounds.
His idiocy ignores the fact that Loughner had 15 round clips. Meaning, these are not much more larger than the 10 round clips that the “BAN” mandated. And, he HAD inserted another loaded clip after his first empty. If he reloaded once, he could have done it several times.
The miracle happened because his gun jammed and helped give people time to jump on top of him.
For some reason, REASON just isn’t in the Liberal’s DNA.
A lot more CONSERVATIVE heads exploded when Cheney made THAT statement. But nice try on the spin anyway
Loughner was tackled when after 31 shots he had to reload. If he had less shots less peole would have been killed/injured.
If he had less shots less peole would have been killed/injured.
And if Arizona allowed people to carry handguns, there would have been a lot less people killed.
If Sheriff “I Blame the Right’s Hateful Rhetoric” Dupnick had a department full of officers that followed the law, this wouldn’t have happened.
Instead, people think that more laws will solve issues like this. Nothing in history says that is true, but it doesn’t mean that people won’t stop believing it.
Well…lets see, if you mandate clips for semi-auto pistols at 10 rounds, that just means you carry more clips. It takes just a half a second to “reload” another clip and you’re ready to go again. So hmmm…2 15 rd clips or 3 10 rd clips. Perhaps we should require that all guns be single shot?
Mike
I think Mike is on to something there. We could outlaw ALL firearms except the one-shot belt-buckle gun. That way, its not unconstitutional because people can still buy their “firearm” and be “armed”.
And, the bad guys will only have a one-shot gun to steal. The world will be a much safer place to live. We might even be able to bring back Unicorns. And, and, and they could run for PResident and really save our galaxy.
Lets get a list of ways the this shooting could have been avoided:
1. A better way of handling crazy people. The liberals did away with a very good system in the 60’s.
2. Asking our representatives to adhere to our contract with them. That contract is the Constitution and they have shreaded that document over the last several decades.
3. Make our representatives and elected officials less important by establishing term limits and reminding everyone that they are the same as us. Nothing special. Also, eliminating their pensions, this is one topic that has been avoided in discussions on entitlements. There pensions make up 20% of our future payments.
4. Reduce the size of all governement, thus markedly reducing the power and stardom of the politicians.
5. Allow everyone to carry weapons, as was the original intent of the Constitution. In the 50’s you were warned not to go near someone car or house as they might shoot first.
6. Establish laws for violent offenders that are harsh, not simply spending some time in jail. At the same time, quit arresting people and harrasing them for desiring drugs, for whatever purpose they might have. After all, it is none of our business what other people do.
7. Reduce the tension in the atmosphere caused by a tyranical government. Yes, we live in under a tyranny. This causes an underlying tension that bucks the authority that the government has taken on. A stroll around the internet is enough to show many people who don’t appreciate the overbearing aspect of the people that try to manage every aspect of our lives.
8. Reduce the tension in the atmosphere by improving the economy. That means getting the government out of business and allowing them to do their jobs without restrictions. Even Obama seems to understand some of this now. Although his efforts to change the situation are nothing more than trying to establish more control.