Congresswoman shot

[Orfeas]

Now we getting somewhere.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... Page2.html


US Congress readies new gun control bill in wake of Arizona massacre

One of the fiercest gun control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson, Ariz., Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition clip the gunman used.

McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.

“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) said he’s preparing to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.“

Gun control activists said it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.

Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of the ammunition allegedly used by the 22-year-old assailant.

McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.

McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed that the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he nor the congresswoman offered any further details.

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the National Rifle Association — excuse the pun — the ammunition to come at me, either.”


Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Another vocal supporter of gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy — perhaps discussion of a new assault weapons ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.

Loughner legally purchased his weapon — a Glock 19 with an extended magazine — from an Arizona store. The same kind of extended magazine was illegal under the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute” is a problem, said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”

After the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, in which a student with a history of psychological problems killed 33 and injured 25 others, lawmakers immediately started looking at gun control reforms at both the state and the federal level.

Then-Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine issued an executive order making it harder for people who have been committed to mental health treatment centers to buy a gun.

In 2008 President George W. Bush signed a law expanding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which registered gun dealers use, to include more comprehensive reporting of mental health records. Under the current law, it is illegal for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution” to purchase a firearm, according to the FBI’s website.

However, Loughner did not fall into either of those categories, according to Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

“I’ve seen no evidence that he falls into those categories. It’s the same thing as this guy at Virginia Tech,” said Horwitz. “We can do a much better job checking people’s mental health background.”

[lunarwing]

Create a problem.... have the "solution" ready for public consumption.....

You know the drill Orfeas.

[tizme4158]

[quote="Orfeas"] 79-year-old Phyllis Schneck [quote]

This was my brother-in-law's aunt. President Obama called his cousin to extend his condolences yesterday.

[Orfeas]

Create a problem.... have the "solution" ready for public consumption.....

You know the drill Orfeas.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/01/out ... ht-be.html

Free Speech, First Amendment Threatened By AZ Shooting

Outlaw that speech because it MIGHT be a threat...

It was only a matter of time before the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy was turned into a rationale for the government to take more of our freedoms. This is how our government always responds to tragedy--it's almost formulaic:

* Step 1 - wait for tragedy to occur, or actually create the tragedy.
* Step 2 - spread propaganda through the media, so everyone believes your story about the tragedy
* Step 3 - pass laws, or institute policies, that take away people's freedoms.
* Step 4 - justify the increased Tyranny by citing the propaganda in step 2.

This same process, has led to the creation of most traffic laws, to the Patriot Act, to "enhanced pat-downs," and countless other usurpations of freedom.


Shortly after Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by a psychopath, and the media started reporting about Sarah Palin's crosshair map (which, as far as we know had nothing at all to do with the shooting), I began wondering how long it would be before we started seeing attacks on our freedoms. In particular, I was expecting attacks on the second amendment because Jared Loughner used a gun; and I expected attacks on free speech (and proposals for more control of the Internet) because Jared Loughner spoke out against the government on YouTube and Facebook.

And, so it begins. There is already an article on The Hill titled "Dem Planning a Bill That Would Outlaw Threatening Law Makers." The article begins like this:

Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

Look at that language. The language (or symbols) doesn't have to be threatening or actually incite violence. It doesn't even have to be perceived that way. If it could be perceived that way--through the widest, loosest, and irrational interpretations imaginable--that is sufficient to charge someone with a federal crime. This kind of broad, widely subjective legislation would make it potentially illegal to disagree with the government about anything.

Here are several examples of fairly benign sentences that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official:

* Gee, someone has to do something about our government. They are out of control.
By "do something" does he mean "shoot people" or "revolt"???

* That politician is greatly harming America, and something should be done.
What does he mean by "something should be done"??? Sounds like a rebel yell to me.

* "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson
Did he say BLOOD??? Oh my god, he is calling for violence!!!

* "Concerted power has always been the enemy of liberty" - Ronald Reagan
Oh my god, he is saying that a big government is the ENEMY...this means we should attack them!!!

* "If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun" - Barack Obama
Obama just said to use guns against political opposition!!!! I heard it!!!!

That's right, virtually any political discussion or comment, especially if you express frustration or opposition, could be perceived as a call for violence. Laws like this are nothing more than an assault of free speech. Of course, they will forge ahead with this legislation--whether it's constitutional or not. They will probably name it after Gabrielle Giffords, and call it the "Giffords Act against Political Hate Speech" (or something like that). Then, if you oppose the legislation, they will question your compassion and say you must agree with Jared Loughner.

I would say that we must stand up against tyrannical laws created by exploiting tragedies, but that could be perceived as a call to arms. Rather, I will just implore you to read the Constitution, and employ some common sense.

[lunarwing]

I would say that we must stand up against tyrannical laws created by exploiting tragedies, but that could be perceived as a call to arms. Rather, I will just implore you to read the Constitution, and employ some common sense.

Unfortunately you are right Orfeas.... and it is also unfortunate that they are doing their best to make the Constitution irrelavent.

I wish the "soapbox" was more effective.

I have lost hope in the "ballot box"... especially the electronic ones.

That only leaves the "cartridge box"...

[PegasusAngel]

Talking about this on my forum and someone shared this, not sure how accurate it is:

''So - Sarah Palin posted a video statement on her Facebook page today in response to the criticism she was getting over her old webpage posted about here earlier- and seems to have put her foot in it again. Big time.
Link to article

"But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible,"

Blood Libel?

Here's the first paragraph from the wikipedia write up on blood libel, for those who don't know:

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

Link to full article on wiki


Here's the thing - Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish...''

[Moon]

No gun control legislation will get through or even voted on in the House. It is controlled by Republicans and they are not going to upset their base.

[Orfeas]

Here's the thing - Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish...''

Both were jewish, Gabrielle Giffords and Jared Lee Loughner.
And the main stream media cried anti semitism until the news came over that the shooter was Jewish also.

[PegasusAngel]

And the main stream media cried anti semitism until the news came over that the shooter was Jewish also.

Hmm interesting...thanks for pointing that out...

[angeloneastralseed]

Update on Gifford's husband - he's going into space!

http://news.discovery.com/space/gifford ... ssion.html