NY Times: More Gun Control! John Boehner: “No”

by William Teach | January 12, 2011 7:49 am

Why, yes, the NY Times editorial board is still beating the anti-gun drum, in an attempt to make sure a good tragedy does not go to waste. After discussing Rep Peter King’s silly notion of not allowing guns within 1,000 feet of politicians, something which criminals and wacko’s would surely ignore, because they are criminals and wacko’s, we are treated to[1]

Representative James Clyburn, a Democrat of South Carolina, said that lawmakers should no longer be treated like everyone else at airport security checkpoints, though that inconvenience seems to have nothing to do with the shooting. Representative Robert Brady, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, has proposed making it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening violence against all federal officials, an idea dangerously full of potential First Amendment violations. Representative Dan Burton, a Republican of Indiana, even wants to enclose the public gallery above the House chamber in Plexiglas. These ideas are unlikely to make lawmakers or the public any safer. But if members are concerned that some of the 283 million guns now in the hands of American civilians might one day be turned on them – and they should be – there are many things they can do.

They can follow the advice given on Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, along with 10 other mayors, and begin restoring the nation’s gun control laws to sanity – for the protection of everyone. The most obvious first steps are to ban the extended-round magazines used in the Arizona shooting and tighten a nearly useless system of background checks.

Except, this wasn’t a failure of the system for background checks, this was a failure of people performing the checks. The Pima County Sheriff’s Office, which would have been the ones giving the permit, knew quite a bit about Loughner, and could have denied him the permit. At which point he could have gone to the rally with a knife, or a bomb. Or a hammer. Screwdriver. Machete. And other implements of destruction. Sure, he couldn’t have killed as many people (except with the bomb, plans for which can easily be found on the Internet), yet, he would have been able to get to his primary target. And as I wrote previously, banning extended-round magazines just means that someone carries more than one, which can be changed in a few seconds.

And John Boehner responds[2] to all the hyper-partisan first blush reaction

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation offered by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in response to the weekend shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Arizona.

Meaning it will not see the House floor. Cooler heads may prevail.

Responding to any bad thing that happens with restrictive legislation is what politicians do, affecting the whole due to the actions of a few, or one, instead of realizing that in the real world, bad things can, and will, happen. Such is life on planet Earth.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[3]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[4].

Endnotes:
  1. we are treated to: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/opinion/12wed2.html?ref=opinion
  2. John Boehner responds: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls
  3. Pirate’s Cove: http://www.thepiratescove.us/
  4. @WilliamTeach: http://twitter.com/WilliamTeach

Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/members-of-congress/ny-times-more-gun-control-john-boehner-no/