Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 11, 2011.
Facepalm. Yeah, this law would have stopped the killing in Tucson.
Is the US Military filled with government officials? Cause that would be a quick way to get us out of our current wars....
Nice to see a politician trying to get a law passed to protect other politicians. Feel free to keep killing regular folks, but an attack on one politician is an attack on all politicians. How about keeping guns away from 7 year old girls?
I have a better idea. All politicians should work out of schools since you already can't bring guns or drugs within 1,000 feet.
Its already illegal to shoot a government official and that didn't prevent it
Not sure someone with the intention of killing will announce they have a weapon inside the "circle of safety"
I doubt gunman are holed up in their hideouts saying, "damn, guess we will have to use a sniper rifle from outside the 1,000 feet to make it legal".
I love the irony of 2nd amendment supporters only backing gun control when they perceive themselves to be at risk.
This legislation will never be passed.
This is quite possibly the stupidest proposed law I've seen in a while.
So does that mean Secrete Service agents have to maintain a 1/4 mile of distance away from the President?
More proof and evidence that big-government statists exist in all political parties. If we don't think beyond the Elephants and Donkeys we'll never progress as a nation. Real conservatives in NY should never vote for this man again.
I know, I know, off-topic.....
Generally curious, not trying to be a wise-ass, but has there been any law passed in the last decade with the intent to protect people that you haven't opposed due to your "get gov't out of our lives" type philosophy?
Great, so it's perfectly OK to kill people in a shopping centre, just not when a politician's around.
This man needs to lose his job next election.
First and foremost, I oppose the passage of all unconstitutional laws (pretty much anything justified with a liberal reading of the commerce and general welfare clauses). Now, whether or not I support amendments to the constitution to make those programs constitutional is another thing all together. Not supporting a bill on constitutional grounds is different than not supporting a bill on moral or philosophical grounds. For instance, I support term limits for congressmen. However, if a bill was introduced tomorrow which would make this a reality through some non-originalist reading of the constitution which suggested that an amendment was not necessary, I would not support the bill on constitutional grounds... no matter how much I wanted it personally to be our reality.
Beyond the constitution, I tend to have positions which suggest that people are better off with less government than more. That the free market can do a better job of providing cheaper/safer/better goods/services than the government can and that generally (see my signature) moral busybodies looking for more and more the government can do for us inevitably do more damage than good. In short, no, there aren't many programs I would vote for. For a more clear perspective on how I would generally vote on specific bills, simply look up the voting record of Dr. Ron Paul.
Yeah, he's definitely part of the problem. 18 years in Congress. Time to go get a real job.
Does that mean that government officials in turn can't go within 1000 feet of a military base?
Or a police station?
Or go hunting (except maybe by themselves)?
Or go to near a mall or store that carries guns?
What if you own a gun and keep it in your house. Do you have to fix 'warning, gun present - no politicians' signs 1000 feet away?
What if the politician's own spouse has a gun? Do they have to move out of the family home whenever their loved one returns from Washington?
I bet Harry Whittington is going to vote for this law.
So this means government agents have to mark themselves too...that will surely make them less likely to be victimized.
And if someone does get close to them with a gun they will have to sprint 1,000 feet away to call the cops and somehow explain to them what happened from that thousand foot mark.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to claim ownership of the interpretation of the Constitution. That is solely the province of the US Supreme Court. The idea of originalism is nothing more than an effort to try to push conservative agendas that have been conclusively ruled to be unconstitutional or to reverse laws you disagree with. You want a different reading so you can get illegal laws passed or to undo laws that the majority wanted.
Sorry, but you're wrong now, you were wrong before, and you will be wrong tomorrow on this issue.
Liberal interpretations of the constitution? It's not liberal or conservative, it's merely constitutional or not. The judges who interpreted the constitution consisted of some of the best conservative and liberal judges this country has ever produced.