If you have good photoshop skills and you can replace
that fuzz badge with one reading "Federal Official", then knock yourself out.
Send it to me (e-mail address is in the right column at the bottom),
I'll post it, with full credit.
that fuzz badge with one reading "Federal Official", then knock yourself out.
Send it to me (e-mail address is in the right column at the bottom),
I'll post it, with full credit.
At least that's probably would be required by Rep. Peter "The IRA Was Not a Terrorist Group" King's proposed bill. A bill which, of course, Mayor Mike and his cabal of gun-banners loves.
Let's face it, this proposed law would be about as stupid as they get, which says volumes about the lack of intelligence of Rep. King. If someone is bringing a gun to a public event to shoot someone, does anyone seriously think that they will be deterred by a law making it illegal to have the weapon? It already is illegal almost everywhere to shoot congressmen and judges.
So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Mr. IRA was speaking at a hall next to an interstate. Every vehicle driving by with a gun in the trunk, hunters, target shooters, people who had no idea that the Former Supporter of Terrorism was speaking there would be subject to being locked up in a federal prison. This bill is a stupid idea, even for Pete King.
(By the way, that noted fan of Irish terrorists is also wrong about his statement that it is illegal to have a gun within 1,000' of a school. That was thrown out by the Supremes over 15 years ago.)
Theoretically, his proposed law could have the curious effect of essentially reinstating the DC handgun ban that was tossed last year, since you can't throw a rock inside the beltway without hitting a Federal official (which, I suppose, is what we'd be reduced to doing if his bill were successful).
ReplyDeleteI hope the beanie hats are the kind with propellers.
I suppose blowing up a hotel full of British members of Parliament & their families & associates, including Margaret Thatcher, doesn't count as terrorism to Mr. King.
ReplyDeleteConsidering what a bunch of clowns most Republicans are these days, beanies could only give them greater dignity.
I think you must be a creator to create these type of blogs,and i am particularly want to say that you are awesome.the explanation
ReplyDeleteof the posting make me to think for while anyway thanks for
making me to think.well written my favorite blog.classic collections.I loved your blog so i have added your blog to my dazzling blog list at http://auditions-for-all.blogspot.com/
So would you put my blog too, on you...
Yes, since federal officials are like shit and every where if they include their homes in that most of the densely populated US would be off limits.
ReplyDeleteit's interesting that th police are not "obligated to protect" individuals but they will be busy insuring that individuals can't protect themselves or tied up protecting the special ones.
Eck!
There's no reaction like an overreaction. I know you're a responsible gun owner and I respect and value your opinion on this subject. I don't own guns and they hold no appeal for me, but I am not an advocate for taking away guns either. But I would advocate for tighter restrictions on assault, automatic and semi-automatic weapons. When can this nation have a reasonable conversation about this?
ReplyDeleteLove the beanie hat idea, it is obviously the only way that this stupid law could ever be enforced, as if! I knew the anti-gun nuts would jump all over this event, and with some justification. While I love Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewert, they are pretty much against any private gun ownership, which I cannot accept. I don't live in an urban area back east and I hunt and shoot, which I'm sure they have their own negative opinions of, but we are from vastly different backgrounds and have very different experiences that form our views I'm sure. I will respectfully argue against banning private gun ownership and I own many guns, I have no machine guns or extended capacity clips and could see a reason to regulate and even restrict ownership of same. I do not automatically discount all the anti-gun arguments, and I think that we could start a dialogue at least regarding some tightening of gun access, but it is a slippery slope. Do we institute training for all citizens who want to own guns? Do we require all to serve in the military to recieve said training, like the Swiss? Just as it is better for a thousand guilty to go free rather than one innocent go to prison (Part of our innocent until proven guilty justice system-in theory at least) I feel it is better to suffer tragedies like this rather than give up our rights to protect ourselves from criminal attack by individuals or government officials. That is the reason behind the second amendment as I interpret it...but I could be wrong. Still, it is a discussion worth having, without fear or name calling, even if we are only able to agree to respectfully disgree for now.
ReplyDeleteYep, like I metioned over at Tam's.
ReplyDeleteIt will be a place to avoid for personal safety reasons for the rest of us.
For it to be effective on a serious level they would have to announce it in advance like TFRs. If I were a ruling elite I'd not want that information widely disseminated all the time as I travel as I may be a target as constant advertising my position is full of stupid. But hey if they want to be a better target its their choice.
I think the latter is a good example of unintended consequences.
Eck!
The reality is that such a law would be selectively enforced only when the gun was visible to law enforcement protecting the federal official or when a crime was committed against the federal official and a gun was found on the person. Clearly nobody is going to be stopping traffic on the freeway and searching people for weapons.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's another law that criminalizes behavior way beyond what it's targeting. So what. I daresay that 99% of us on this blog are guilty of at least some misdemeanor. For you Californians, ever had a traffic accident and *not* filed the required state report within 30 days, because you didn't have the information, because the information is on the police report that the police are not obligated to get to you until *90* days pass? Congratulations, you're guilty of a misdemeanor! Nevermind that your insurance company *also* reports the accident to the state as soon as they have your information, that doesn't count for that 30 day thing. You are a criminal. And that's just one example of how we're all criminals under the law...
- Badtux the Criminal Penguin
I am too lazy to search for it, but Comrade EBM had a post a while back about people committing an average of 3 felonies a day. This kind of overbroad overreaction doesn't help. True, it (probably) won't lead to Fed'l Official Security Admin. checkpoints; but it's just another way that the feds can nail someone if they really want to (also see EBM's post about the dangerous 2.5" pocketknife).
ReplyDelete