A day after opining that "it is legitimate to hold Republicans...responsible" for the anger that has produced violent threats against politicians, the New York Times on Tuesday sounded a call for gun control.
"The ludicrously thin membrane that now passes for gun control in this country almost certainly made the Tucson tragedy worse," said the newspaper editorial. "Members of Congress are legitimately concerned about their own safety now, but they should be no less worried about the effect of their inaction on the safety of all Americans."
The editorial urges lawmakers to "stand up to the National Rifle Association and its allies," which "have made the country a far more dangerous place."
More
"The ludicrously thin membrane that now passes for gun control in this country almost certainly made the Tucson tragedy worse," said the newspaper editorial. "Members of Congress are legitimately concerned about their own safety now, but they should be no less worried about the effect of their inaction on the safety of all Americans."
The editorial urges lawmakers to "stand up to the National Rifle Association and its allies," which "have made the country a far more dangerous place."
More
Gun control is about disarming patriotic Americans, crooks and nuts will always be able to get guns.
ReplyDeleteProposal is: no guns within 1000 ft of any federal official. What is wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteHow about it's legitimate to hold POLITICIANS responsible for the anger that so many Americans feel? Losing your 401(k) and having to work at 70yrs old while Congress lives like kings with their own special health care and retirement system? Bailing out bankers who helped steal that money (who will get record bonuses) with billions in taxpayer money while taxpayers get foreclosure notices? Raising Medicare rates, excluding services, and now talk about SSI being cut (because Congress takes SSI income and replaces it with paper IOU'S), taxes going up on everything because Congress CAN'T STOP SPENDING??? Right wing talk show hosts don't make Americans angry any more than left wing hosts make us happy. POLITICIANS and their lying, cheating, thieving, self-important and arrogant ways make us angry.
ReplyDelete5:16...whats wrong with THAT??? About a dozen different things....
ReplyDelete5:16 because 1000 yards is to far away to get a good shot.
ReplyDeleteNo one is taking your guns away numbnuts, but there is absolutely no reason to have a 30 round clip for your Glock.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe second amendmend should also enable you to own nuclear warheads?
Alex it's not a clip idiot, it's called a MAGAZINE. And there is a far cry from having an extended magazine and having a nuke. You don't need a reason to have a high capacity magazine. The second amendment never indicated that God given rights could be limited by man made laws.
ReplyDeleteWhats the difference between 30 rounds and one Alex? Trouble with NUMBNUTS like you is you don't understand that what our gov't calls gun control does absolutely nothing to control guns! The issue is that another law prohibiting guns has never and will never stop a criminal. The criminal could care less about a law in the first place. The death penalty on the other hand could make a huge difference in fighting crimes like this. But I guess you are a wet pants who is opposed to that as well. Leave gun laws where they are and START enforcing them to the letter and intent of the law and much of the issues are solved.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is the government trying to disarm it's citizens. The 2nd amendment was made so if the government became to powerful and corrupt the people would be able to take it back. If your not concerned about a huge over reaching government there's something wrong with you.
ReplyDelete5:16
ReplyDeleteWhat if that federal official is on or near my property?
6:09 You just can't stop yourself can you?
ReplyDelete8:23 why don't you go to CNN or your favorite Fox news sites and look at pictures of Arizona victims. Maybe if he didn't have the extended clip, just maybe, the 9 y/o girl would stil be alive or a 76 y/o would have to die shielding his wife from a barrage of bullets, or just maybe, a recently engaged young man would still be alive.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, yeah I am opposed to death penalty. 1. I think that a person should not be put to death if there is a remote chance if he's not guilty. 2. I think that death penaly is too easy of a punishment for people like the Arizona shooter.
8:13 really, a far cry? Can your brilliant legal mind please enlighten me on the 2nd amendment. Where do you stop? If 30 rounds is O.K., so is an M60. If M60 is OK, so maybe an AT4, or an anti-aircraft gun, or a missile launch system.
8:31
ReplyDeleteThe ignorance shown by your way of thinking is mind blowing!!! No doubt that you have no idea of the struggles and losses that were endured to create and establish this country??? Do you believe you would be sitting here today, with the freedom of typing and saying what you want, going and doing as you please and enjoying all the freedoms that you have if the English had been successful in disarming the American Colonist in the 1700's????????? THIS COUNTRY EXISTS TODAY BECAUSE OF THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE GENERAL POPULATION BEING ABLE TO POSSESS GUNS!!!! If you have any proof to the contrary… please post for us all to see!!!
Regards,
Doug Williams
Atta boy, Mr. Williams. Tell it like it is! You're right on the money! Straight up!
ReplyDelete