PDA

View Full Version : Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill




JacobG18
01-09-2011, 07:58 PM
One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday.

McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.

“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.

Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.

Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.

McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.

McCarthy’s bill will look to protect ordinary people, she said, but did not offer further details.

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” she said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1AarczGSu

Brooklyn Red Leg
01-09-2011, 08:00 PM
One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday.

Goddamn vultures. :mad:

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 08:03 PM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress

Ah - hah, there's the meat!!

The ruling class has been salivating to get something like this passed for years now.

You damn well better assume a respectful tone, mundane.

Vessol
01-09-2011, 08:04 PM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress

Uh, this is a lot more fucking dangerous in my opinion.

Anything that can be SEEN as a threat? Including symbols!?

Edit: I guess me and Anti-Fed have a mind one and a like. That's what stood out for me. After every shooting there is calls for gun control..but this is new..

Dr.3D
01-09-2011, 08:07 PM
And if someone runs over a bunch of people with a car or a truck, I suppose they will come up with a bill to keep people from driving motor vehicles too. When are they going to learn, they can make up as many laws as they want, but it isn't going to keep a criminal from doing as he pleases.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 08:14 PM
Uh, this is a lot more fucking dangerous in my opinion.

Anything that can be SEEN as a threat? Including symbols!?

Edit: I guess me and Anti-Fed have a mind one and a like. That's what stood out for me. After every shooting there is calls for gun control..but this is new..

Damn right.

They've hinted around the idea before but never had the guts to actually put such bill forward.

Now that the control grid is place, it's not hard to see how such a bill could be enforced, nor is it hard to imagine the inevitable "mission creep" that would, in decade or two, have us all touching our forelocks with a mumbled "Bye your leave, Mi-lord" as we pass on the streets.

The enforcers have already claimed the right that you cannot film them.

Every time something like this happens, whether the result of a deliberate lashing out, like Joe Stack, or the result of a psychotic, as it appears is the case here, the system cracks down even harder.

Which I say, is a good thing. It will hurt in the short term, no doubt, but there is no way out of this mess without some hurt.

Make the tyrants act like tyrants, says I.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-09-2011, 08:15 PM
Hey AF, you should get into touch with NHLA and get them to pre-empt this, because god knows the one thing that the ruling class care about more than anything is their own hides. Any idea on if they are going to enact Vermont style CCW and nullify 1934, 1968, 1986 gun laws?

t0rnado
01-09-2011, 08:18 PM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress

In a Republican controlled Congress, I don't believe that the gun control bill will pass, but this bill most likely will. First it's threats, now it's perceived threats. Making strings of words illegal does nothing. Jared Lee Loughner had schizophrenia and hated Giffords before Palin, Beck, or the Tea Parties came along.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 08:18 PM
Hey AF, you should get into touch with NHLA and get them to pre-empt this, because god knows the one thing that the ruling class care about more than anything is their own hides. Any idea on if they are going to enact Vermont style CCW and nullify 1934, 1968, 1986 gun laws?

I'm out of town right now, but that's not a bad idea for when I get back.

I know "permit free" CCW is on the agenda, that got passed out of the House back in 07 IIRC, but never made it out of the Senate.

That and repeal of the salt water fishing license are two things on the top of my list.

ctiger2
01-09-2011, 08:20 PM
If everyone would've been carrying at this event this NUT wouldn't have even attempted this nonsense. We need more guns not less. Drugs are illegal and anyone who wants them can get them. Guns are no different.

Brian4Liberty
01-09-2011, 08:26 PM
"Never waste a crisis."

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 08:32 PM
"Never waste a crisis."

*sigh*

Ain't that the truth...

Philhelm
01-09-2011, 08:34 PM
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.

I'm more concerned about this, especially since this is what would get the most public support. Then watch as the term "mental instability" gets manipulated in order to disarm a large number of citizens who have committed no crime or are not even a threat. Have you been diagnosed with, say, OCD? Well, no gun for you, nutjob! It would be even better with mandatory psychological profiles conducted in public high schools for all children once they reach a certain age. I'm sure they could find something "wrong" with everyone.

Humanae Libertas
01-09-2011, 08:36 PM
Hahaha, I called it too...

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 08:37 PM
I'm more concerned about this, especially since this is what would get the most public support. Then watch as the term "mental instability" gets manipulated in order to disarm a large number of citizens who have committed no crime or are not even a threat. Have you been diagnosed with, say, OCD? Well, no gun for you, nutjob! It would be even better with mandatory psychological profiles conducted in public high schools for all children once they reach a certain age. I'm sure they could find something "wrong" with everyone.

This is already happening.

NICS checks coming back denied because of treatment of some sort mental "illness".

Philhelm
01-09-2011, 08:40 PM
This is already happening.

NICS checks coming back denied because of treatment of some sort mental "illness".

Do you know if these people were forced to go to a mental health facility, or are these people who may have talked to a psychologist and were diagnosed with something? I'm just curious how far along it is at this point.

Pauls' Revere
01-09-2011, 08:43 PM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1AarczGSu[/QUOTE]

The ruling class is established...(sigh)...We should be living under the crown.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 08:44 PM
Do you know if these people were forced to go to a mental health facility, or are these people who may have talked to a psychologist and were diagnosed with something? I'm just curious how far along it is at this point.

Let me see if I can dig up some source articles on this.

It's my understanding that these were vets that used VA services for treatment of mental conditions.

ETA - yeah, I was right, here is a link to John Lott's site, links to the multiple stories at the page:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/09/veterans-having-their-guns-taken-away.html

9/05/2010
Veterans having their guns taken away

Last month, at my VA med visit ,they asked me exactly the same questions [posed to a friend] and I asked them why they never asked them before and their answer was that it is a new policy that they must ask all vets!

From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer:
I had a Doctor’s appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:
1. Did I feel stressed?
2. Did I feel threatened?
3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered ‘yes’ to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.


The first two questions seem like absurd reasons for losing a permit. Even the third seems problematic. There is a big difference between feeling like harming someone and actually thinking about doing it.

Now it appears as if local media around the country are reporting on examples of other reasons that veterans are having their guns taken away.


Sgt. Wayne Irelan re-enlisted in the Army National Guard after September 11th.

He was severely injured in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart. But now his second amendment rights have been taken away.

"I really feel betrayed," Sgt. Irelan told 5NEWS.

A year ago the Irelan's began receiving a small stipend from Veterans Affairs because Lana had to take over the family's finances.

"How many husbands do you know in America that pay the bills? There's not very many," Lana Irelan told 5NEWS.

The V.A. declared Wayne Irelan incompetent and now his right to own a gun is gone.

"It's wrong. Laws need to be changed. They need to look at individuals and not stereotype them as some sort of mad man," Sgt. Irelan said.

Irelan has post traumatic stress disorder from the Iraq war, but his wife says he has never been violent. Lana Irelan told 5NEWS his diagnosis is not a legitimate reason for his gun rights to be taken away.

"I was there when they gave him his purple heart for fighting for that right to bear arms, and they are stripping it away," Lana said, her eyes tearing up.

The couple didn't know Wayne's gun rights had been terminated until they went to get a gun out of pawn. Days later Wayne got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his concealed carry permit had been revoked. The ATF has told the Irelans that they could go to jail if a firearm is found in their home. . . .

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 09:16 PM
All animals are equal, although some are more equal than others.


A top House Democrat said the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) should change how members of Congress are screened at airports.

“I really believe that that is the place where we feel the most ill at ease, is going through airports,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who serves as assistant minority leader in the House, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Clyburn called for the Transportation Security Administration, which administers airport security checkpoints, to interact “a little better” with the Capitol Hill Police.

“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else,” he said. “Well, the fact of the matter is, we are held to a higher standard in so many other areas, and I think we need to take a hard look at exactly how the TSA interact with members of Congress.”
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/09/congressman-says-tucson-shootings-mean-he-shouldnt-have-to-wait-in-line-at-the-airport/

Rothbardian Girl
01-09-2011, 09:54 PM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress

What the fuck?

Is this man for real?

cindy25
01-09-2011, 10:06 PM
and to think they just read the constitution. in one ear, out the other.

Andrew-Austin
01-09-2011, 10:09 PM
People get shot all the time, sometimes by cops, who gives a fuck if one more person is shot. She isn't special just because she is a politician. I haven't been following this story (due to how uninteresting it is) but from all the big threads on it, there must be a lot of political hysteria about this.


and to think they just read the constitution. in one ear, out the other.

Its been pretty clear the large majority of the government doesn't give a shit about the supposed checks on their power. Nothing new there.

Brett85
01-09-2011, 10:14 PM
I highly doubt if either of these bills will have any chance of passing with a Republican controlled Congress.

Vessol
01-09-2011, 10:33 PM
Gun control, no chance to pass.

The 2nd law, making "threats" illegal. I wouldn't be surprised.

Brett85
01-09-2011, 10:39 PM
Gun control, no chance to pass.

The 2nd law, making "threats" illegal. I wouldn't be surprised.

"He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress."

The word "symbols" makes it sound like they're specifically targeting Sarah Palin with this bill. I don't think that the Republicans will go along with a politically motivated bill like this. I would hope that some of the civil libertarian Democrats like Kucinich would be opposed to this bill as well.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 10:41 PM
Gun control, no chance to pass.

The 2nd law, making "threats" illegal. I wouldn't be surprised.

And, like the all the other labyrinthine and Byzantine books of "laws" out there, that will just be another that results in "de facto" gun control.

"Oh, you did not display the proper respectful attitude toward that federal official" = felony.

Felony = no guns for you.

Look for more moves to make misdemeanors and just arrests or charges and not convictions as reason to take your rights away.

james1906
01-09-2011, 10:41 PM
I was waiting for the deluge of bills to shit upon the 1st and 2nd Amendments. How fitting the Congresscritters are named McCarthy and Brady.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 10:45 PM
Maybe you need a friend not into politics... http://saveadogrescue.com/ http://www.petfinder.com/pet-search?shelter_id=TX1472

Got one...

Times like this I miss my big goofy pal...

http://www.fluffyfeet.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/novofundlandec.jpg

mczerone
01-09-2011, 10:49 PM
McCarthy’s bill will look to protect ordinary people, she said, but did not offer further details.

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” she said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1AarczGSu

(1) To protect ordinary people: abolish gun laws. Don't make it difficult for ordinary people to get high-powered weapons that could be used as a deterrent or a defensive weapon against people who would use weapons offensively. And the police have no duty to protect innocent mundanes either, so there can be no argument that allowing them to have these weapons will be protective in any way.

(2) Hmm, what is a "symbol[] that could be seen as threatening"? My first thought was the Anarchy-A, which doesn't have anything to do with violence, but has been culturally accepted as being associated with bomb-throwing riot starters. In any event, without a likelihood of imminent harm, even the SCOTUS will find this speech restriction to be unconstitutional, hopefully.

Philhelm
01-09-2011, 10:54 PM
And, like the all the other labyrinthine and Byzantine books of "laws" out there, that will just be another that results in "de facto" gun control.

"Oh, you did not display the proper respectful attitude toward that federal official" = felony.

Felony = no guns for you.

Look for more moves to make misdemeanors and just arrests or charges and not convictions as reason to take your rights away.

I don't believe this particular assault on the First Amendment will pass at this time. I make this judgment based on the mostly incremental nature of our government. However, you're correct in principle. I don't see the Second Amendment being abolished, but I do see it being circumvented, so as to have a more or less de facto violation of Second Amendment rights (rights, I should add, that aren't granted by government!).

Philhelm
01-09-2011, 10:58 PM
(1) To protect ordinary people: abolish gun laws. Don't make it difficult for ordinary people to get high-powered weapons that could be used as a deterrent or a defensive weapon against people who would use weapons offensively. And the police have no duty to protect innocent mundanes either, so there can be no argument that allowing them to have these weapons will be protective in any way.

(2) Hmm, what is a "symbol[] that could be seen as threatening"? My first thought was the Anarchy-A, which doesn't have anything to do with violence, but has been culturally accepted as being associated with bomb-throwing riot starters. In any event, without a likelihood of imminent harm, even the SCOTUS will find this speech restriction to be unconstitutional, hopefully.

As far as your second point, the Gadsden Flag might be one of those symbols. The DHS certainly hates it. Other than that, my first thought was Palin's "gun targets" that were placed on the U.S. map at districts in which certain representatives should be removed (which included Giffords). That would certainly tie in with the media hype and the accusations of vitriole, as well as Palin, the Tea Party, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. being blamed for Gifford's assassination.

Anti Federalist
01-09-2011, 11:01 PM
I don't believe this particular assault on the First Amendment will pass at this time. I make this judgment based on the mostly incremental nature of our government. However, you're correct in principle. I don't see the Second Amendment being abolished, but I do see it being circumvented, so as to have a more or less de facto violation of Second Amendment rights (rights, I should add, that aren't granted by government!).

You're probably right.

What's stunning here is that they finally got the balls to put it on the table.

Unless I'm wrong, that's a first.

tangent4ronpaul
01-09-2011, 11:08 PM
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun

That's already the law - MORONS!


and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.

This is dangerous and undermines the true purpose of the second amendment. They have been trying to control ammo for years.


Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress

I guess that's one way to get rid of those annoying teabaggers that have the gall to quote the founders and fly gadsdon flags.

-t

Original_Intent
01-09-2011, 11:11 PM
As far as your second point, the Gadsden Flag might be one of those symbols. The DHS certainly hates it. Other than that, my first thought was Palin's "gun targets" that were placed on the U.S. map at districts in which certain representatives should be removed (which included Giffords). That would certainly tie in with the media hype and the accusations of vitriole, as well as Palin, the Tea Party, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. being blamed for Gifford's assassination.

Don't you have to die in order to be assassinated?

Philhelm
01-09-2011, 11:17 PM
You're probably right.

What's stunning here is that they finally got the balls to put it on the table.

Unless I'm wrong, that's a first.

You're right about that, it is pretty bold of them. I suspect that by federal servant, they will trump up the law enforcement angle and other such bullshit, despite the event and motive which may have been the causation of the proposed bill. On the other hand, perhaps I have miscalculated; after all, it is now okay to assassinate U.S. citizens. I suppose it's hard to gauge, since the U.S. government tends to be incremental in its tyranny overall, while at the same time being outright obscene about it every now and then. I still think it won't pass, but it's only a matter of time. Besides, the media still needs to prep the citizenry with the propoganda about vitriole, so now's not the time. My prediction is that it won't go anywhere for awhile, at least until the propoganda machine has done it's damage against the First Amendment.

t0rnado
01-09-2011, 11:17 PM
(1) To protect ordinary people: abolish gun laws. Don't make it difficult for ordinary people to get high-powered weapons that could be used as a deterrent or a defensive weapon against people who would use weapons offensively. And the police have no duty to protect innocent mundanes either, so there can be no argument that allowing them to have these weapons will be protective in any way.

(2) Hmm, what is a "symbol[] that could be seen as threatening"? My first thought was the Anarchy-A, which doesn't have anything to do with violence, but has been culturally accepted as being associated with bomb-throwing riot starters. In any event, without a likelihood of imminent harm, even the SCOTUS will find this speech restriction to be unconstitutional, hopefully.

If they ban the Anarchy is Order symbol, I'm still not changing my avatar.

Philhelm
01-09-2011, 11:18 PM
Don't you have to die in order to be assassinated?

Forgive me; assassination attempt. But yes, you're correct.

aGameOfThrones
01-10-2011, 01:57 AM
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress

Will this be consider threatening?


"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."~Declaration of Independence

http://www.galleryoftherepublic.com/images/amflags/gadsen_fr.jpg

devil21
01-10-2011, 02:04 AM
Ah - hah, there's the meat!!

The ruling class has been salivating to get something like this passed for years now.

You damn well better assume a respectful tone, mundane.

That's one of the points of the whole First Amendment. You don't have to like, respect, or even care about your government officials and you sure as hell don't have to make them feel "safe". You simply can't directly threaten or injure them lawfully. Another big chip out of the Bill of Rights if that crap passes.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-10-2011, 02:11 AM
That's one of the points of the whole First Amendment. You don't have to like, respect, or even care about your government officials and you sure as hell don't have to make them feel "safe". You simply can't directly threaten or injure them lawfully. Another big chip out of the Bill of Rights if that crap passes.

Alien and Sedition Acts coming back eh?

Bergie Bergeron
01-10-2011, 08:15 AM
How do we stop psychos from (legally) acquiring guns?

Travlyr
01-10-2011, 08:30 AM
Teaching honesty is the key. There is no way to keep weapons out of the hands of all psychos. Everyone needs to realize that they are ultimately responsible for protecting themselves. If a psycho points a gun at you or someone else, then the choice is either stop him or don't. It is easier to stop him if one is armed. The second amendment should be respected.

Pericles
01-10-2011, 12:12 PM
If everyone would've been carrying at this event this NUT wouldn't have even attempted this nonsense. We need more guns not less. Drugs are illegal and anyone who wants them can get them. Guns are no different.
This is the real issue. Two dozen armed citizens should have taken care of business before that nut got shot #3 out of the barrel.

Anti Federalist
01-10-2011, 01:40 PM
How do we stop psychos from (legally) acquiring guns?

You can't, any more than you could keep them from getting their hands on a car, or gasoline, or poisons or a machete, all of which can prove just as lethal.

The answer has already been given: more armed citizens.

coastie
01-10-2011, 02:47 PM
This is the real issue. Two dozen armed citizens should have taken care of business before that nut got shot #3 out of the barrel.

I read earlier on LRC that they two that stopped him were armed...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/74978.html



In the recent Arizona murders, the two men who apprehended the shooter were not unarmed. They were both on network news this morning, and one of them said,”I carry a firearm, so I wasn’t really afraid” (to tackle the shooter and hold him until the police finally showed up). He probably saved quite a few lives by doing this, and may not have had the nerve to do it had he not been carrying a firearm.

No source, really, and I haven't tried to look into it further. Any bets they wont show that particular interview very much?:rolleyes:

oyarde
01-10-2011, 04:28 PM
This is the real issue. Two dozen armed citizens should have taken care of business before that nut got shot #3 out of the barrel.

Absolutely .

tangent4ronpaul
01-10-2011, 04:51 PM
In the recent Arizona murders, the two men who apprehended the shooter were not unarmed. They were both on network news this morning, and one of them said,”I carry a firearm, so I wasn’t really afraid” (to tackle the shooter and hold him until the police finally showed up). He probably saved quite a few lives by doing this, and may not have had the nerve to do it had he not been carrying a firearm.

WTF ????

When the shooter was emptying his first mag would have been the time to drop him, before he shot 20 people. There was a break in firing as he changed to his second mag, where the spring malfunctioned and presumably got caught on something - I'm guessing he put too many rounds in it. He dropped that mag and was trying to insert a third, which a woman grabbed (the mag) out of his hand. Then and only then did these 2 "brave" guys tackle the nut case. One of them being armed was irrelevant because he didn't use it when it was needed.

The hero in this story is the woman that grabbed the mag out his hand.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
01-10-2011, 05:02 PM
A rather chilling though....

Congress was in session today. Maybe working in their offices, maybe in committee, maybe on the floor.

Guess how many minutes on the house floor was broadcast on c-span (remember, Congress controls the camera's)?

Exactly ZERO minutes!

So did something happen in secret in the House today?

-t

osan
01-10-2011, 05:17 PM
Don't you have to die in order to be assassinated?

Apparently not anymore.

Heimdallr
01-10-2011, 05:38 PM
And the Left still sleeps...

oyarde
01-10-2011, 05:54 PM
A rather chilling though....

Congress was in session today. Maybe working in their offices, maybe in committee, maybe on the floor.

Guess how many minutes on the house floor was broadcast on c-span (remember, Congress controls the camera's)?

Exactly ZERO minutes!

So did something happen in secret in the House today?

-t

I thought they cancelled the floor remainder of week ?

tangent4ronpaul
01-10-2011, 06:03 PM
I thought they cancelled the floor remainder of week ?

No, they canceled what was supposed to happen and are focusing issues related to the shooting. Their own protection, more gun control laws, stepping on the 1st amendment, stuff like that.

-t

oyarde
01-10-2011, 06:18 PM
No, they canceled what was supposed to happen and are focusing issues related to the shooting. Their own protection, more gun control laws, stepping on the 1st amendment, stuff like that.

-t crap

tangent4ronpaul
01-10-2011, 06:20 PM
One of the things in her bill - she wants to ban all magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds.

:(

-t

oyarde
01-10-2011, 06:25 PM
One of the things in her bill - she wants to ban all magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds.

:(

-t

That will not pass the house .

tangent4ronpaul
01-10-2011, 06:51 PM
Don't know if it's in the bill or not or what it has to do with this incident, but I've also seen several references to banning machine guns today. For those of you that don't speak liberal, let me translate: "scary looking black, semi-automatic rifles".

-t

oyarde
01-10-2011, 06:57 PM
Don't know if it's in the bill or not or what it has to do with this incident, but I've also seen several references to banning machine guns today. For those of you that don't speak liberal, let me translate: "scary looking black, semi-automatic rifles".

-t

Any rifle that shoots more than a bolt action six round clip . Shall not be infringed..