PDA

View Full Version : True Colours #3



Qtec
01-13-2011, 06:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP leaders quash Republicanís effort to ban guns within 1,000 feet of lawmakers </div></div>

Once again they choose their masters over the people who elected them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The top two Republicans in the House of Representatives rejected gun control legislation soon after it was announced by a senior GOP congressman, effectively dooming its hopes for consideration.

The bill, unveiled by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on Tuesday, would have banned people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of elected officials in Congress. It had the support of New York City mayor and outspoken gun-control advocate Michael Bloomberg.

His announcement came days after the tragic shootings of twenty people in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) badly injured.

A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) told The Hill later in the day that the new House speaker will oppose the legislation.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) initially demurred, as his office declined to comment. </div></div>

Cantor is such a snake.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But when the New York Daily News later inquired, his spokesman Brad Dayspring said <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Cantor won't support it. "The proposal wouldn't have prevented this tragedy, or other mentally unstable individuals or criminals from committing horrific acts," Dayspring explained.</span>

For gun-control legislation to be put forth in Congress is in itself rare as of recent years, but it's particularly remarkable coming from a Republican, whose party has positioned itself squarely on the side of the gun-rights issue.

King, who is chairman of the homeland security committee, presented his bill as a means to improve public safety for elected leaders.

Members of Congress, he said, "do represent the people who elect them, and itís essential, if weíre going to continue to have contact, that the public who are at these meetings are ensured of their own safety."

And King isn't the only one considering gun-control measures in the wake of the Arizona murders. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) are planning legislation that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips, like the one used by the Arizona shooter, which he purchased legally.

US law currently forbids guns within 1,000 feet of schools. </div></div>

Bought and paid for by the NRA, ie the weapons industry.

Q

Sev
01-13-2011, 07:52 AM
The ban is stupid.
It sure would have stopped Jared.
Yah.

Also what about shop owners that keep firearms in their stores and a politician happens to show up? Or how about citizens driving by with no knowledge a politician is in the area?

Knee jerk reaction.

eg8r
01-13-2011, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP leaders quash Republicanís effort to ban guns within 1,000 feet of lawmakers </div></div>If this ban was in place last weekend, how do you think it would have helped Giffords?

eg8r

Sev
01-13-2011, 09:08 AM
Also what about patrons at local restaurants that happen to be carrying when some politician pops in??

How about if a politician or judge is in a different state on vacation????

Gayle in MD
01-13-2011, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP leaders quash Republicanís effort to ban guns within 1,000 feet of lawmakers </div></div>

Once again they choose their masters over the people who elected them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The top two Republicans in the House of Representatives rejected gun control legislation soon after it was announced by a senior GOP congressman, effectively dooming its hopes for consideration.

The bill, unveiled by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on Tuesday, would have banned people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of elected officials in Congress. It had the support of New York City mayor and outspoken gun-control advocate Michael Bloomberg.

His announcement came days after the tragic shootings of twenty people in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) badly injured.

A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) told The Hill later in the day that the new House speaker will oppose the legislation.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) initially demurred, as his office declined to comment. </div></div>

Cantor is such a snake.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But when the New York Daily News later inquired, his spokesman Brad Dayspring said <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Cantor won't support it. "The proposal wouldn't have prevented this tragedy, or other mentally unstable individuals or criminals from committing horrific acts," Dayspring explained.</span>

For gun-control legislation to be put forth in Congress is in itself rare as of recent years, but it's particularly remarkable coming from a Republican, whose party has positioned itself squarely on the side of the gun-rights issue.

King, who is chairman of the homeland security committee, presented his bill as a means to improve public safety for elected leaders.

Members of Congress, he said, "do represent the people who elect them, and itís essential, if weíre going to continue to have contact, that the public who are at these meetings are ensured of their own safety."

And King isn't the only one considering gun-control measures in the wake of the Arizona murders. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) are planning legislation that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips, like the one used by the Arizona shooter, which he purchased legally.

US law currently forbids guns within 1,000 feet of schools. </div></div>

Bought and paid for by the NRA, ie the weapons industry.

Q </div></div>

There is no question that not as many would have died, had the shooter not had what amounts to a damn machine gun.

Are people from the right really so paranoid, that they have to have weapons that can kill thirty one people in seconds?

If Bush hadn't let the limits expire, some of those who died, and were wounded, would be alive, today, and would not be in the hospital.

It is outrageous, that Boehner, once again, breaking with his campaign promises, immediately smashed these efforts to limit the kinds of assault weapons amunition that can be bought at GUN SHOWS, with NO limits, identity checks, background checks, by anyone, on the spot, regardless of their mental health, or posible police record.

PURE INSANITY!

Each of us as Americans, should reject what we know is bad for us, and bad for our country. Our Representatives from the right, failed to conduct themselves in a way which met with their duty to conduct themselves in a way which is consistant with rational public discourse, consistant with our traditions, hopes and expectations of being the best country in the world.

The right, as usual, twists the debate to the absurd. The issue of the dangerous rhetoric from the radical right, has nothing whatever to do with determining what inspired this particular shooter. The debate now, is about how far from what is honorable, what adresses our safety, and reason, thaat we have allowed rdical RW statements, and actions, by disturbed people from the radical right, like Beck, Like Coulter, Like Bachmann, Palin, Limbaugh, Wilson, Boehner, McConnell, Gingrich, Rove, Cheney, Bush, Virginia Fox, O'Reilly, to advance the rhetoric of hate, exclusion, and lies, and allow the vicously threatening, audiences and Tea Party supporters, radical people to show up at political events, with WMD's strapped to their bodies, holding racist, threatening signs, even at the very graves where our own have given the last full measure of devotion.

How is it good for a country, to sacrifice all honor, in the interest of Constitutional amendments, which were assured at a time when this country was in it's infancy, and no such weaponry even existed, or sacrifice all honor, in the interest of "Free Speech, which in it's actualy practice, has become the same kind of hateful rhetoric, that isn't rhetoric any longer, but mimics the propaganda which loed to the human atrocities of the past.

That isn't Free Speech, at all.

That is shameful speech, Without Conscience.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We know that silence equals consent when atrocities are committed
against innocent men, women and children. We know that indifference
equals complicity when bigotry, hatred and intolerance are allowed to
take root. And we know that education and hope are the most effective
ways to combat ignorance and despair." ~ Gabrielle Giffords


</div></div>

Sev
01-13-2011, 09:42 AM
You dont even know the difference between machine pistol and a semiautomatic one. Much less apparently a machine gun.

Your argument is full of holes. Those magazines were readily available at all times.

Your ignorance of the subject matter is showing again.

eg8r
01-13-2011, 10:24 AM
Well I am asking him about the Giffords specifically since they are trying to piggyback off that trajedy. My guess is they will not respond because I already know the answer.

eg8r

Sev
01-13-2011, 12:09 PM
OH they will spring board off of this in any manner they can.