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

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.

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.

We'll see.

Click to expand...

And not just gun laws......

“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.

celticredneck said:

“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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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...

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.

MKEgal said:

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.

Click to expand...

As they should be! But if this 1000' legislation goes into effect, would the staffers then be banned from exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? What about someone like me, who can neither drive nor walk out of my apartment complex without passing within 1000' of my Congressman's office, and who routinely go for walks around my neighborhood while OCing?

Sickening, isn't it? They prevent citizens from protecting themselves, or carrying into gov't buildings, then go ahead & exclude themselves from the law.

Click to expand...

That is sickening. No one is above the law.

No one.

celticredneck said:

“

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This should not only be the norm, it should be the law. It appears that virtually all bills are a restriction upon one's rights or a cost to the tax payer. They should be read in their entirety before a vote is cast each and every time.

If they are too big to read in a couple of days, then we don't need it.

A lot of people in this country are only interested in protecting the rights they understand and exercise themselves. So if my neighbor, bless her heart, is a hoplophobe who can't stand the sight of a gun she doesn't care to support that part of the constitution.

I, on the other hand, support EVERYONE'S inalienable rights regardless if the loss of any one of them would directly impact me.

Friends and family sometimes ask me why I take such a stalwart stance on civil liberties. It's simply because we have had so so many liberties taken from us already I'll be damned if I'll remain quiet while they take the rest away.

From the article said:

King’s bill, promoted in response to the Tucson shootings, wouldn’t have prevented them at all, which even King acknowledges.

Click to expand...

Just read that again.

The drafter of this bill acknowledges that it has nothing to do with, and would have no effect upon, what he says it was made for....

I don't think I've seen a more blatant admission of shameless deception than that. King flat out admits it's all a scam to strip you of your Rights with no discernible benefit. Just a power grab.