http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

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

“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.

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 for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” 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.”

1984 here we come...

because of the actions of one, everyone has to pay, complete bullshit

also didn't know a glock 19 could fire hundreds of bullets a minute

The worst thing politicians can do is get too pushy restricting firearms.

They can introduce any bill they want, but it doesn't mean it will get passed. Well... that is if there is still common sense left in DC...

2quik4u;631600 wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html
1984 here we come...

because of the actions of one, everyone has to pay, complete bullshit

also didn't know a glock 19 could fire hundreds of bullets a minute

So, when Congress gets too pushy about guns, the public will fight back, but push at the airports and other areas and no one seems to care.

It won't get far. The NRA is powerful to stop this insanity.

Though, 30 round clips for a Glock 19 is a little much.
But, still, the kid bought the gun legally and went through the proper channels.

While you might think of me as the raving liberal of the board I'm also a proponent of gun rights. A lot of my support of gun rights comes because Orwell wrote that terrifying damn book. We don't need knee jerk gun legislation because of this.

CenterBHSFan;631655 wrote:The worst thing politicians can do is get too pushy restricting firearms.

They can introduce any bill they want, but it doesn't mean it will get passed. Well... that is if there is still common sense left in DC...

Common sense has been lacking for a while now

Predictable.

Apparently the Brady Handgun Violence Act isn't enough.

Quite frankly there are already PLENTY of existing federal, state, and local laws that do plenty to circumvent our Second Amendment rights.

To be quite frank about it Congress could repeal the Second Amendment and make everyone who ones a rifle, handgun, switchblade, or butter knife a criminal but it will NOT stop murder, crime or assassination attempts in this country.

It may be cliche' but it's still very true: Guns don't kill people...people do.

psych evals for handgun owners...? I can see it being proposed...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/scary-world-jared-loughner-dems-target-political-speech/

derek bomar;632055 wrote:psych evals for handgun owners...? I can see it being proposed...

That could be a disaster.
Sounds good on paper, but implementing would be a nightmare.

ptown_trojans_1;632085 wrote:That could be a disaster.
Sounds good on paper, but implementing would be a nightmare.

Will spelling and grammar be part of the evals?

Simple rule to apply: "No job no buy a gun" ..... have to be employed for 1 year (proof of emplymnet) / 40 week (two pay stud) before permited to buy a gun..

Belly35;632097 wrote:Simple rule to apply: "No job no buy a gun" ..... have to be employed for 1 year (proof of emplymnet) / 40 week (two pay stud) before permited to buy a gun..

I have to say I'm shocked to see you agreeing with any form of gun control.

I agree with other that think is total BS. With the exception of a psych eval, I doubt any legislation would have stopped this.

"......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."

Are elected officials who propose limiting gun rights and, now language, really that incredibly stupid? I mean seriously, just how stupid are they? A whack job like this nut, and all other ruthless killers, will commit crimes regardless of 'feel-good' legislation proposed by leftists.

God, it is incredible that supposedly intelligent people come up with this stuff. What is needed is SWIFT capital punishment.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/?GT1=38001

FatHobbit;632103 wrote:I have to say I'm shocked to see you agreeing with any form of gun control.

I agree with other that think is total BS. With the exception of a psych eval, I doubt any legislation would have stopped this.

I not for gun control just good old common sense.

I idea on have to register and to have a back ground check to purchase a weapon is good. Law makers over look the common sense aspect of making a law.

“No job no buying a gun” seems logical to me…

If you don’t have a job then why are You buying a gun?
Because you have shit for brains and can’t think beyond being an asshole, that you have no money for food, kids schooling, child support, rent, car payment or gas to get to your next Union meeting where you’ll be rejected because you’re later $28.00 this month Union fees. You don’t have the money to take the CCW classes so you’ll be irresponsible num nuts with a weapons, who can’t shot for shit but drives around with it under your seat. Because you’ll sell this weapon for 50 percent of what you purchase it for to some other asshole that can’t buy a gun because he or she can pass the back ground check (felon)….. why because you have no money and no job ….. and we are back to the beginning of the cycle of “no job no buying a gun”

Belly35;632226 wrote:No job no buying a gun” seems logical to me…

If you don’t have a job then why are You buying a gun?
Because you have shit for brains and can’t think beyond being an asshole, that you have no money for food, kids schooling, child support, rent, car payment or gas to get to your next Union meeting where you’ll be rejected because you’re later $28.00 this month Union fees. You don’t have the money to take the CCW classes so you’ll be irresponsible num nuts with a weapons, who can’t shot for shit but drives around with it under your seat. Because you’ll sell this weapon for 50 percent of what you purchase it for to some other asshole that can’t buy a gun because he or she can pass the back ground check (felon)….. why because you have no money and no job ….. and we are back to the beginning of the cycle of “no job no buying a gun”

I follow your logic, but that could apply to lots of things. I'm not sure we want the government to try to dictate common sense.

Now i want to see YOUR pay stubs. (mainly because I know you're self employed)

FatHobbit;632241 wrote:I follow your logic, but that could apply to lots of things. I'm not sure we want the government to try to dictate common sense.

Now i want to see YOUR pay stubs. (mainly because I know you're self employed)

I pay myself from a payroll account ... plus I can alway make a Quick Books fruad pay stub...

The problem with this is, people are wanting to use a single incident to try to adjust the law.

In theory, I love the idea of a psych evaluation. The problem is, while it might have prevented THIS incident (we'll assume the foregone conclusion that the criteria for the eval would have failed him), it does nothing for the sound mind who simply wishes to commit violent crime with a gun. That isn't to say I think the law should be more strict. That is to say that I think such a change would end up not being all that fruitful.

Again, in theory, I like the idea of someone not being able to buy a firearm without a job. Problem with that is, that doesn't prevent purchase. That only prevents KNOWN purchase.

Better the guns you know than the guns you don't. I'm not at all a supporter of gun control, but I AM a supporter of firearms being registered properly.

O-Trap;632260 wrote:Better the guns you know than the guns you don't. I'm not at all a supporter of gun control, but I AM a supporter of firearms being registered properly.

Can you elaborate on that please? I live out in the country and do not have to register any of my firearms. Most of them have been passed down from family and there is no record or way to track them to me.

FatHobbit;632277 wrote:Can you elaborate on that please? I live out in the country and do not have to register any of my firearms. Most of them have been passed down from family and there is no record or way to track them to me.

I suppose I misspoke, yes.

By "registered," I mean owned legally. That's all.

So Obama was wrong to say "they bring a knife, you bring a gun"??

Mr. 300;632413 wrote:So Obama was wrong to say "they bring a knife, you bring a gun"??

Not a great thing to say, but alright. The quote reminds me of the Untouchables really.