Excitable Nancy Pelosi Pushes Gun Control In Wake Of Newspaper Shooting

Perhaps Nancy could have told us exactly what measures would have stopped the murder at Capital Gazette?

Reacting to newspaper shooting, Pelosi decries lack of gun control as ‘stain on our country’

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi decried the lack of legislative action on gun control Thursday after multiple people were gunned down at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Maryland.

“Praying for everyone injured & the families of those lost in today’s shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland,” the California Democrat tweeted Thursday afternoon.

“Congress has a responsibility to take action to prevent the tragedy of gun violence. Every day it fails to do so is a stain on our country,” she wrote.

The bodies weren’t even cold when she tweeted this. Jarrod Ramos, the nutjob who committed the murders, used a shotgun legally purchased in Maryland. Is Nancy now recommending that shotguns be banned? Other than the Australian solution, ie, banning guns almost altogether, what part of the Democrats gun control push would have stopped Ramos? He passed a background check a year ago. He didn’t buy it at a gun show with a loophole. Maryland itself is pretty tough on 2nd Amendment Rights. The gun grabbing Giffords Law Center gives the state an A-. Only about half a dozens states get an A rating from the gun grabbers.

The only thing that might have possibly maybe stopped him, at least from using a gun, was a red flag law, which doesn’t go into effect till October in Maryland. But, even then, would a family member or law enforcement have filed a case?

So, please, Nancy, let us know what legislative priorities would have stopped this? Murder is illegal. Attempted murder is illegal. An assault weapons ban and universal background checks wouldn’t have stopped this.

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

8 Responses to “Excitable Nancy Pelosi Pushes Gun Control In Wake Of Newspaper Shooting”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Can we agree that the murderer shouldn’t have had access to firearms?

    • formwiz says:

      No, because he passed all the tests. He could have walked in there with an axe or a sword.

      You want to assume everybody is insane and shouldn’t have a scattergun?

      What about getting one illegally? You’d be surprised how many people who murder have an illegal gun.

    • Dana says:

      He wasn’t a murderer until after he committed murder. His record wasn’t spotless, but he had no felony convictions, nor misdemeanor convictions serious enough to have triggered the ban.

      One wonders if Jeffrey Jeffery thinks the movie Minority Report was a good law enforcement model.

      • Jeffery says:

        Tax evasion and witness tampering are felonies. Do you think it proper that one’s Second Amendment rights are infringed over non-violent crimes?

        How about one convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse? Is it proper that their 2nd Amendment rights are infringed?

        Do you disagree with many NuCons that the local government failed by not separating the Parkland HS murderer from his firearms before the shooting? Or do you think it was just another hoax by gun grabbers?

        One wonders if Donna Dana spends too much time watching movies and not enough time reading books.

        • Dana says:

          Felonies are felonies, and when you commit a felony, you should lose your rights.

          I do have a problem with the loss of civil rights over a misdemeanor conviction, even though the Supreme Court ruled that it could be done for misdemeanor domestic violence in Voisine v United States.

          I’m surprised that you brought up the Parkland shooter. Unless you have developed Alzheimer’s, you have to remember that the Parkland shooter would not have been able to buy his weapons, legally anyway, if law enforcement had done its f(ornicating) job and charged him with the crimes he had committed prior to the shooting. That’s the part that pissed off conservatives. But absent any convictions, he had a legal right to buy a firearm.

          Did you really think I wouldn’t remember that part of the case?

          • Jeffery says:

            What felony crimes did the Parkland murderer commit that were ignored by the government that should have resulted in his losing his precious 2nd Amendment rights or incarceration?

            Should every kid that gets into a fight be charged with a felony? Should every vague online threat be investigated by the FBI? If a teenager states that he will be the next school shooter would you infringe his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm? Should only those threats that result in a felony conviction result in loss of 2nd Amendment rights?

            Did you really think you wouldn’t be asked for evidence to support your claim?

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    That’s the best ya’ got?


Pirate's Cove