Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation

    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. …

    King’s legislation got the cold shoulder from Boehner and other Republicans after it was announced.

    Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said the Speaker would not support King’s legislation.

    The office of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the majority leader is reserving judgment until the King bill is finalized.

    “Mr. Cantor believes it’s appropriate to adequately review and actually read legislation before forming an opinion about it,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring stated in an e-mail.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/1...n-legislation/
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yeah, Mr. Cantor is right. There is actual wording that could make a bill barring the carry of a firearm within 1000 feet of a congressman palatable.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yeah, Mr. Cantor is right. There is actual wording that could make a bill barring the carry of a firearm within 1000 feet of a congressman palatable.
    Nevertheless, I agree with him in principle. By the time the actual bill rolls out, it might have little resemblance to the original proposal.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavalryman View Post
    Nevertheless, I agree with him in principle. By the time the actual bill rolls out, it might have little resemblance to the original proposal.
    I disagree with him that any restriction against the honest citizen is good for everyone.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    From the article, "King’s bill, promoted in response to the Tucson shootings, wouldn’t have prevented them at all, which even King acknowledges."

    Exactly, so why in the world are they even proposing to create yet another gun-free zone which only serves to disarm law-abidinng citizens, putting us at even further risk?

    I must ask, are the people we elect to run our country really that stupid? Disgusting.
    Last edited by since9; 01-15-2011 at 06:49 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Central Wi
    Posts
    80
    This law would have been the one which would have prevented the shooting?

    "Oh oh, I want to murder a congressman but I'm not allowed to carry a gun within a thousand feet of one. Darn it, I guess I'll just have to forget the idea then."

    There must be something in the water in Washington which causes stupidity.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    From the article, "King’s bill, promoted in response to the Tucson shootings, wouldn’t have prevented them at all, which even King acknowledges."

    Exactly, so why in the world are they even proposing to create yet another gun-free zone which only serves to disarm law-abidinng citizens, putting us at even further risk?
    Because gun control has never been about guns; it's always been about control.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Because gun control has never been about guns; it's always been about control.
    True, but there's a deeper reason here, the why behind the control. The why involves two things: Fear of not being in control, and feeling better, that self-deluded illusion which those who tend towards over-controlling behavior tend to feel after having implemented these knuckleheaded measures.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yeah, Mr. Cantor is right. There is actual wording that could make a bill barring the carry of a firearm within 1000 feet of a congressman palatable.
    I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yeah, Mr. Cantor is right. There is actual wording that could make a bill barring the carry of a firearm within 1000 feet of a congressman palatable.
    If I had to guess, Rep. Cantor has a policy of not commenting on legislation he had not read because, in most cases, he can spare himself a lot of trouble by brushing off questions about an endless number of proposals he's probably solicited for comment due to his position as House Majority Leader.

    Of course, this issue is an exception to the rule that declining comment on a mere idea that has not been put in writing and introduced as a bill will spare the person solicited for comment more criticism than he would otherwise receive.

    If I held elected office, I might adopt a very similar policy (but do a somewhat better job ov recognizing an obvious case such as this).
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  11. #11
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.
    I believe eye was implying, but forgot to include, the /sarcasm switch.

  12. #12
    Regular Member frankd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.
    Couldn't agree more!
    frankd
    "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.
    I was being sarcastic. Hence they eyeroll.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I was being sarcastic. Hence they eyeroll.
    I didn't notice that part of the emoticon. Unless you upsize everything two sizes above normal, it just isn't easy to see the eyes.

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  15. #15
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    If anything, I hope people are now beginning to wake up, on a large scale, and realize that knee-jerk legislation only further harms individual rights.

    I may be wrong, and probably am, but it almost seems like many in the country are coming to realize that gun laws are seriously flawed and most were borne out of fear, not reality.

    We'll see.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137
    Certainly we all have to follow the developments in this issue. In reality though, none of this hysteria is going anywhere. People are losing their houses by the tens of thousands, we have an millions of people out of work and can't find jobs, and a terrible economy that has brought this all to fruition. No one is going to spend a great deal of time debating about any of the trivial elements that are being considered by the anti-gun zealots that are exploiting this tragedy in Arizona to its fullest. The average individual is worrying about keeping his job, if he has one. The number of rounds that a magazine may or may not hold is not a major consideration if you can't find a job and may lose your house. Even the senate controlled by the democrats will squirm in consideration of pending anti-gun ownership laws under the current conditions that we are going through in this country.

  17. #17
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by c45man View Post
    People are losing their houses by the tens of thousands, we have an millions of people out of work and can't find jobs, and a terrible economy that has brought this all to fruition. No one is going to spend a great deal of time debating about any of the trivial elements that are being considered by the anti-gun zealots that are exploiting this tragedy in Arizona to its fullest. .
    Agreed, but there are always gun grabbers out there who truly think that this is an important issue right now. Econonmy be darned if they think they can outlaw firearms, they'll do it in a heartbeat, and they'll twist this AZ shooting six ways from sunday if they think they can get ANY new restrictions put on guns.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137
    Agreed cold dead hands. I don't doubt the degenerate anti-gun zealots and their determination. On the other hand, the voters, who have shown little patience with the congress, are going to have even less patience if the body of lawmakers don't do something to encourage businesses to expand their operations and give the American people some real hope in the direction this country will be going in. The voters will become even more aggravated if nothing is done on this front while our politicians spend time arguing over the virtues of limiting the round capacities of gun magazines. We all have come to the realization that voters will backlash, even if they have to wait two years to react.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    If anything, I hope people are now beginning to wake up, on a large scale, and realize that knee-jerk legislation only further harms individual rights.

    I may be wrong, and probably am, but it almost seems like many in the country are coming to realize that gun laws are seriously flawed and most were borne out of fear, not reality.
    I've been posting as much on social media sites as I have here, and would encourage others to do the same. Just little bits, but ones that make inarguable sense and pack a punch, like:

    "I carry because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away... What are your options until they arrive?"

    I also try to counter the "la-la-land" quotes, too. In response to a friend saying, "What's with all this talk about even more guns? Why can't we all just get along?"

    I said, "Because the criminals and crazies don't want to "get along." They want to rape, burglurize, terrorize, rob, harm, and kill you. That's why I carry. Being a victim sucks!"

    If all we did was post here on OCDO, we'd just be doing mutual, um, well, a not family-friendly term. By spreading the common sense elsewhere, we're changing minds. I've had several friends ask me, "Do you really carry a firearm? Is that even legal?" She lives in Virginia, so I shared the statutes, along with the Virginia portion of this site.

    It's all about educating others. Bringing them to this site is a good idea. Casting the tidbits of wisdom from here out there is a great idea.

    But you don't see me slowing down here, though, do you?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rich Keagy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    126
    Are the frightened politicians willing to tie weather balloons to themselves so we know where they are?

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    If they did, I'd defend them the same as I would defend any other bystanders from a criminal. I don't know if this was simply a copycat crime, but it looks like it. We hope and pray no more fuel is added to the fires of those who oppose the Second Amendment.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    If anything, I hope people are now beginning to wake up, on a large scale, and realize that knee-jerk legislation only further harms individual rights.

    I may be wrong, and probably am, but it almost seems like many in the country are coming to realize that gun laws are seriously flawed and most were borne out of fear, not reality.

    We'll see.
    And not just gun laws......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member celticredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Amelia County, virginia
    Posts
    169
    “Mr. Cantor believes it’s appropriate to adequately review and actually read legislation before forming an opinion about it,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring stated in an e-mail.


    Well, that's one thing with which I agree with Mr Cantor . I believe that every piece of legislation should be read in its entirety before voting on it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by celticredneck View Post
    “Mr. Cantor believes it’s appropriate to adequately review and actually read legislation before forming an opinion about it,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring stated in an e-mail.


    Well, that's one thing with which I agree with Mr Cantor . I believe that every piece of legislation should be read in its entirety before voting on it.
    Out loud. With everyone eligible to vote locked in from the first word until the last, no breaks, and if they leave they cannot vote.

  25. #25
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95
    There is actual wording that could make a bill barring the carry of a firearm within 1000 feet of a congressman palatable.
    Like maybe building a 100' high wall around DC, with all the anti-gun politicians inside (with the criminals who ignore laws)? Then we'd need another wall 1000' inside that one, to be sure that no citizen outside the walls would inadvertantly break the law.

    But you know, members of Congress & their staff members are allowed to transport (encased) firearms into their place of employment. So they'd be safe from the criminals, at least for a little while.

    Yeah, I read that little tidbit in one of the news articles talking about the AZ shooting & what Congresscritters were talking about doing to protect themselves. Sickening, isn't it? They prevent citizens from protecting themselves, or carrying into gov't buildings, then go ahead & exclude themselves from the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •