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/...ot-perimeter-around-house-to-gun-legislation/

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, I agree with him in principle. By the time the actual bill rolls out, it might have little resemblance to the original proposal.

Cavalryman said:

Nevertheless, I agree with him in principle. By the time the actual bill rolls out, it might have little resemblance to the original proposal.

Click to expand...

I disagree with him that any restriction against the honest citizen is good for everyone.

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.

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. :banghead:

since9 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Because gun control has never been about guns; it's always been about control.

KBCraig said:

Because gun control has never been about guns; it's always been about control.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.:exclaim:

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

OldCurlyWolf said:

I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.:exclaim:

Click to expand...

I believe eye was implying, but forgot to include, the /sarcasm switch.

OldCurlyWolf said:

I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.:exclaim:

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!

OldCurlyWolf said:

I have to disagree. I can not think of anything which would make it palatable.:exclaim:

Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. Hence they eyeroll.

eye95 said:

I was being sarcastic. Hence they eyeroll.

Click to expand...

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.

:cuss:

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.

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.

c45man said:

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. .

Click to expand...

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.

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.

rotorhead said:

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.

Click to expand...

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? :lol:

Are the frightened politicians willing to tie weather balloons to themselves so we know where they are?