Rep. Peter King is proposing a bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials.

King is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee

http://www.foxnews.com/poli...t=Google+Feedfetcher

Here is a question to ask about this leftist nutcase. He is a huge pot smoker. Is marijuana part of the blame of causing this dude to become derange and psychotic?

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Here is a question to ask about this leftist nutcase. He is a huge pot smoker. Is marijuana part of the blame of causing this dude to become derange and psychotic?

Yeah, go ask that "leftist" nutcase.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeah, go ask that "leftist" nutcase.

I'm sure somebody will. It would be interesting if his attorney uses it as an excuse for an insanity defense. One hopes he pleas guilty, waives all appeals and sees the strapped down table as soon as he can.

these people just don't get it do they. What the hell good is a law that makes it illegal to carry a gun near a high profile person? Are they really going to argue this somehow makes it safer for that person? Was it not already illegal to kill them? Thats the same logic. Thats like saying "were going to make it illegal to commit murder". Well, it is illegal to commit murder, this guy did it anyway. You think the shooter cares there is a law that makes carrying a gun near a high profile target illegal? He is already planing on mass murder which is a higher crime.

the logic here is absurd. The only person that is effected by such a law is the one law abiding person that will respect it. The same person that would be there to defend that "high profile target" from any threat.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I'm sure somebody will. It would be interesting if his attorney uses it as an excuse for an insanity defense. One hopes he pleas guilty, waives all appeals and sees the strapped down table as soon as he can.

I must have misunderstood I thought your comment regarding the "leftist nutcase" was in regard to the politician proposing the bill.

But it seems you are talking about the shooter himself and must know his political leanings somehow. Interesting.

quote Originally posted by newf: I must have misunderstood I thought your comment regarding the "leftist nutcase" was in regard to the politician proposing the bill. But it seems you are talking about the shooter himself and must know his political leanings somehow. Interesting.

the guy did list the communist manifesto as one of his favorite books.writings. Thats definitely not "right wing".

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 01-12-2011).]

More stupid liberal drivel. Just because it's illegal to have a gun near a congressman, doesn't mean it will stop it. This will only prevent law abiding people from having guns. Murderers and insane people are not concerned with obeying the law. Murder is illegal, but people are still murdered. I heard a CCP, private citizen is the one that stopped this mad man. (I'm not sure if it's true, because it is not being reported as such) If that is true, how many more people would have died due to a stupid law like this?

Jim

[This message has been edited by jimbolaya (edited 01-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Rep. Peter King is proposing a bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials. King is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee

This is rediculous. Does anybody think that this law, had it been in place before the shooting, would have prevented the shooting from happening? If you do then you need to get your head examined

I can see the psycho now, approaching the official he wants to shoot....oh damn, I'm going to have to abort this mission, just remembered the 'no gun within 1000 feet' law. Wouldn't want to be charged with that on top of my murder charge, guess I'll have to think of something else.

Common sense approach: the guy was a whack job, case closed.

Peter King = braindead

With the left, and mainly the sheriff, blaming everybody on the right for this murder and not the shooter, they are giving his lawyer all the ammo she needs.
America will be put on trial for the senseless killing, and not the killer himself.

McCarthy is talking about passing a law banning high capacity magazines. Aren't they illegal already?
http://openchannel.msnbc.ms...acity-ammo-magazines

quote the manufacture of the kind of high-capacity magazines the suspect had with him at the Tucson shopping mall was barred under a federal assault weapons ban that was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Criminals don't care what the law is.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Rep. Peter King is proposing a bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials. King is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee

I dont know if this reflects his intelligence or the people he is pandering to? I mean all politics and parties and crap aside. Who out there actually thinks this would have made a damn bit of diffrence?

Guy didnt walk up to the rally openly carring a rifle, shake hands with the security guards then open fire, Im pretty sure he probably concealed the weapon, penetrated the security, and attacked. Its illegal to carry a gun in a bank (I think!?! at least against the banks rules) but you dont see too many people robbing banks with a knife these days because of it.

Guess they feel the need to do SOMETHING, but as said many times above, this will not prevent the next incident.

Hafta change the way wackjobs are handled. Some 'normal' people go off the deep end in short span of time, but most of these wackjobs are like firetrucks- all lights on, sirens and horns blazin'. They are known in their community. But what exactly can you do? Can't just start messin' with people's freedoms because they are a bit 'wacky'...and how do you even handle the "known" wacky people, those on meds who might go off their meds and then get extra-wacky?

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: the logic here is absurd. The only person that is effected by such a law is the one law abiding person that will respect it. The same person that would be there to defend that "high profile target" from any threat.

There IS NO logic, Nick. They banned handguns in Chicago, and the crime rate went UP. When the DC ban was lifted, the crime rate went DOWN. But that doesn't fit their agenda. It's never about logic, it's about pandering to your voters who BELIEVE stuff, and don't care about facts.

Liberals have grabbed the microphone to get themselves back in the limelight after suffering the November Thump. They're now clambering for renewal of the 'Fairness Doctrine' for controlling "hate speech".

We should consider the following:

Fairness Doctrine - 1949
President John Kennedy assassinated - 1963
Martin Luther King assassinated - 1968
Robert Kennedy - 1968
President Gerald Ford - attempted assassination - 1975
President Ronald Reagan - attempted assassination - 1981

Reagan vetoes proposed legislation placing it into law - 2000

NONE of these were the result of 'hate speech' or the acts of conservatives stirred into a rage by 'right-wing-radical' talk show hosts. They were the acts of loonies.

As to the re-newed attempt at controlling fire arms and ammunition, how many bullets were in the gun that killed President Lincoln?

They're not trying to control crime; they're trying to control freedom.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 01-12-2011).]

How exactly is this bill going to prevent this from happening again? Last time I checked, it is illegal to murder someone and he still did.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: How exactly is this bill going to prevent this from happening again? Last time I checked, it is illegal to murder someone and he still did.

exactly
just more after the fact legislation. does nothing.

I thought there were already laws n the book making it illegal to shoot/kill people. Just what is needed another law/regulation just so some politician can say they did something, no matter how ineffective that law may be. Just have all people walk around naked, no concealed weapons could be had.

Is that the same guy that wanted to pass a bill ordering horses to be potty trained? Must be since it have just about the same impact. I heard some idiot wants require background checks for gun buyers in Az. so that mental cases and ex-cons cant get them, like that will help curb the killings, they'll just turn to throwing knives or worst yet, rocks. Good thing we have the NRA to prevent such nonsense huh? Backgound checks, what next!

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: I thought there were already laws n the book making it illegal to shoot/kill people. Just what is needed another law/regulation just so some politician can say they did something, no matter how ineffective that law may be. Just have all people walk around naked, no concealed weapons could be had.

yes, and same is true for "drinking & driving" - everything bad that can happen is already illegal......but - doesnt stop them from trying to cash in....

http://peteking.house.gov/email.shtml
Regrettably, I am unable to reply to any email from constituents outside of the 3rd District of New York.

Washington Office 339 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225-7896 Fax: 202-226-2279
Massapequa Park 1003 Park Boulevard Massapequa Park, NY 11762 Phone: 516-541-4225 Fax: 516-541-6602
Suffolk County 631-541-4225

quote Originally posted by Gokart Mozart: http://peteking.house.gov/email.shtml Regrettably Fortunately, I am unable unwilling to reply to any email from constituents outside of the 3rd District of New York. Washington Office 339 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225-7896 Fax: 202-226-2279 Massapequa Park 1003 Park Boulevard Massapequa Park, NY 11762 Phone: 516-541-4225 Fax: 516-541-6602 Suffolk County 631-541-4225

Fixed it for ya Congressman King.

Jim

[This message has been edited by jimbolaya (edited 01-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: There IS NO logic, Nick. They banned handguns in Chicago, and the crime rate went UP. When the DC ban was lifted, the crime rate went DOWN. But that doesn't fit their agenda. It's never about logic, it's about pandering to your voters who BELIEVE stuff, and don't care about facts.

Liberals don't have any sense of logic, that's why they are mentally ill like the shooter. In their distorted little reality of lollipops and rainbows, they don't realize that if you ban firearms, their mentally ill brothers will then just find the next weapon, whether it be a knife, machete, or rock to bludgeon their victims with. In liberal la la land of Canada, we already have VERY strict firearm rules. In our small city, we have the highest murder rate in the country. So whats next after the liberals have fought tooth and nail to take away our guns to protect ourselves from these murderous thugs? Well, the murder rate is still rising so we better ban the next thing - knives! This is currently what they are trying to do, and the big frigging point these dipshits are missing are that maybe if the liberal judges and justice system would prosecute the asshats doing these crimes and give them some good hard time behind bars, maybe the crime rate might drop. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread - these bans are totally ineffective. These people are criminals, they DO NOT follow the laws and certainly would not retire the firearms and knives should such a ban be put in place. The only people who would be affected are the innocent law abiding citizens. Quit blaming the weapons, society, and everything else under the sun and moon for the murders, and instead deal out some tough love for the persons responsible instead. Far too often those in charge of our sentencing with their infinite liberal sensitivty and "logic" paint the murderer's as the victims of a cruel society, citing some traumatizing incident from their childhood, the color of their skin, or in the case of the AZ shooter, a campaign to incite violence from a governor the other side of the continent. They never consider that the individual is just a sick, twisted individual, and should therefore be removed from society to prevent further harm from others. No, it's easier for these liberal asshats to just blame the guns and the politicians.

You want to reduce crime? Ban liberalism.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 01-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Liberals have grabbed the microphone to get themselves back in the limelight after suffering the November Thump. They're now clambering for renewal of the 'Fairness Doctrine' for controlling "hate speech". We should consider the following: Fairness Doctrine - 1949 President John Kennedy assassinated - 1963 Martin Luther King assassinated - 1968 Robert Kennedy - 1968 President Gerald Ford - attempted assassination - 1975 President Ronald Reagan - attempted assassination - 1981 Reagan vetoes proposed legislation placing it into law - 2000 NONE of these were the result of 'hate speech' or the acts of conservatives stirred into a rage by 'right-wing-radical' talk show hosts. They were the acts of loonies. As to the re-newed attempt at controlling fire arms and ammunition, how many bullets were in the gun that killed President Lincoln? They're not trying to control crime; they're trying to control freedom.

I watched Charlie Rose last night, and there was a rather liberal speaking guest (David Remnick) on there that did indeed bring up the JFK assasination as being precluded by a lot of bad rhetoric. Also as guest, David Brooks--the same David Brooks that once called Sarah Palin "a fatal cancer to the Republican Party". Not sure where Remnick got the JFK stuff from, as he is obviously much younger than me and I don't remember any of that sort of talk back in the early 60s, but a lot of water under the bridge since then for me. He was the 1st of 3 guests to speak, but quieted down his own brand of rhetoric after the other 2 (Jim Fallows and Brooks) downplayed Remnick's adamant suggestion that political speak was at the root of the Tuscon shooting..

I understand the logic here completely. The congressman is scared. He wants more control over the people who might do something like this to HIM.

In order to keep HIM safe, you need to keep guns away. Make it illegal to have them near HIM. How to enforce that, when only loonies will be a threat? Simple, allow searches, like the TSA does now, of all persons entering the "High profile person" area.

All in the name of "keeping you safe" And him. Mainly him.

What's next? Expand the list of "high profile persons", then expand the areas to where they MIGHT be. Pretty soon, YOU won't be able to carry your liscensed, legal gun anywhere. Because a "High Profile Person" might be there some time.

You guys don't see this? I don't even OWN a gun, and its obvious to me.

I disagree Zeb. It goes much further than that. Most of what you need to know is in the mention of his committee.

quote King is the chairman of the Homeland Security Control Committee

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Liberals don't have any sense of logic, that's why they are mentally ill like the shooter. In their distorted little reality of lollipops and rainbows, they don't realize that if you ban firearms, their mentally ill brothers will then just find the next weapon, whether it be a knife, machete, or rock to bludgeon their victims with. .

You sir are very off base IMO.

They wont need to find a next weapon, just because something is illegal to own doesnt mean its hard to comeby, Im fairly certain that someone with any premeditation would have no trouble coming up with a gun in a gun 'free' society with very little effort.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Rep. Peter King is proposing a bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials. King is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee http: //www.foxnews.com/poli...t=Google+Feedfetcher

Isn't this the same guy that proposed a bill to outlaw shoes for anyone within the area of important persons after someone threw a shoe at President Bush?

If you outlaw shoes, only outlaws will wear shoes.

I have a better idea, let's agree to hold the shooter responsible for his actions. I know it is more difficult than blaming society, right wing talk show hosts, whatever the current violent video game is, difficult childhoods, and substance abuse. Since THOSE things are bigger targets and would somehow better explain why so much tragedy had to happen.

To quote a friend of mine from Facebook - I have outrage fatique.

And I guess in the congressman's mind, he is of more importance than the 9 year old girl who died. I wonder what her parents think about that?

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Rep. Peter King is proposing a bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials. King is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee http: //www.foxnews.com/poli...t=Google+Feedfetcher

So is that only at public appearances? How about running into "certain high-profile" government officials at the grocery store? If you drive past their office building on your way to work, you're certainly within 1000' of them.

What a stupid, stupid idea for a law. If they want to prevent government officials from being shot, why not make it a crime to shoot a government official? See? Problem solved.

So let me understand this proposed new law. If your 1,001 feet away-it's okay, right? Or better yet, the shooter could be perched on the roof top with a high powered rifle 1,001 feet away. What if a "high profile" person walks into a grocery store or driving down the street in a motorcade (with in the 1,000 feet) do you pat down all within the area to make an arrest? What about the Macy's Day parade, Saint Patrick day parade, and New year's day celebrations-do you search ever body within the 1,000 feet?

Can't save everyone, can't stop everyone and you certainly can't punish everyone for the actions of few.

It would just be a car, poison, bomb, home made gun, arrow, laser, kidnapping their children.

Crazy people are crazy you can't exactly prepare and or crazy proof the entire world. It's sad but the danger comes with the job.

Hehe, Peter King. I remember him ranting about Michael Jackson too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZXar9bhTyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1DNit6J4CM

I wonder if he'll get the vote needed to pass it?

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 01-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: these people just don't get it do they. What the hell good is a law that makes it illegal to carry a gun near a high profile person? Are they really going to argue this somehow makes it safer for that person? Was it not already illegal to kill them? Thats the same logic. Thats like saying "were going to make it illegal to commit murder". Well, it is illegal to commit murder, this guy did it anyway. You think the shooter cares there is a law that makes carrying a gun near a high profile target illegal? He is already planing on mass murder which is a higher crime. the logic here is absurd. The only person that is effected by such a law is the one law abiding person that will respect it. The same person that would be there to defend that "high profile target" from any threat.

Well said.

We have multiple people of various backgrounds, ages, employment, and educational levels on a car forum that can instantly and easily see how ineffective and impractical this proposed bill is.

And yet we have a member of congress who cannot.

Of course, we don't feel his great responsibility to "DO SOMETHING"...even if the something being done is ineffective and impractical.


As citizens, we deserve WAY BETTER than this infantile level of "thought" (and yes, I use that term VERY loosely).

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: We have multiple people of various backgrounds, ages, employment, and educational levels on a car forum that can instantly and easily see how ineffective and impractical this proposed bill is. And yet we have a member of congress who cannot. Of course, we don't feel his great responsibility to "DO SOMETHING"...even if the something being done is ineffective and impractical. As citizens, we deserve WAY BETTER than this infantile level of "thought" (and yes, I use that term VERY loosely).

How dare you insinuate that a member of Congress thinks!!

Brad

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: We have multiple people of various backgrounds, ages, employment, and educational levels on a car forum that can instantly and easily see how ineffective and impractical this proposed bill is. And yet we have a member of congress who cannot. Of course, we don't feel his great responsibility to "DO SOMETHING"...even if the something being done is ineffective and impractical. As citizens, we deserve WAY BETTER than this infantile level of "thought" (and yes, I use that term VERY loosely).

That's why we must be informed when we go to the ballot box. We must vote these guys out. We got most of them this past November. It's now time to reload and get the rest. Yes, I said it, and you know I'm talking about the ballot box.

Jim

quote Originally posted by jimbolaya: That's why we must be informed when we go to the ballot box. We must vote these guys out. We got most of them this past November. It's now time to reload and get the rest. Yes, I said it, and you know I'm talking about the ballot box. Jim

In all fairness the proposed bill is to " prevent shootings like the one in Arizona". If it's like the one in Texas, or D.C., or any of the countless other shootings that happen every day then carry on.

Brad

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: You sir are very off base IMO. They wont need to find a next weapon, just because something is illegal to own doesnt mean its hard to comeby, Im fairly certain that someone with any premeditation would have no trouble coming up with a gun in a gun 'free' society with very little effort.

Is that not what I was saying above?

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: In all fairness the proposed bill is to " prevent shootings like the one in Arizona". If it's like the one in Texas, or D.C., or any of the countless other shootings that happen every day then carry on. Brad

In all fairness the proposed bill won't stop crap. that's why we need to vote idiots like him out of office. Maybe I'm not following you correctly.

Jim

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Here is a question to ask about this leftist nutcase. He is a huge pot smoker. Is marijuana part of the blame of causing this dude to become derange and psychotic?

Don't forget he read books too.

Sad state this country is in.