It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pete King bill would ban guns within 1,000 feet of lawmakers

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Pete King bill would ban guns within 1,000 feet of lawmakers


www.politico.com

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), one of the few pro-gun control Republicans in the House, wants to make it illegal for someone to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of certain high-ranking federal officials, including members of Congress.

In addition to giving him and his colleagues protection, King told POLITICO that his purpose is also to protect constituents who want to meet with public officials and might be hesitant to do so in wake of the shootings in Arizona.



Read more: www.politico.com...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This kind of thinking is asinine. I find this unbelievab­le insulting. This is disgusting self absorption­, brought about by their cowtowing to people who pay into their election campaigns and make sure they have their jobs so they can continue to serve them not us.
The common ordinary people out there who have to worry about what will happen to them when someone goes off at the grocery store are of no concern.
Nowhere is sacred from their insistance that we all be faced with the danger.
Do you think keeping good law abiding citizens from having a gun 1,000ft from certain government workers will do a thing if someone is going to shoot them anyways?
At best this will keep the people in the crowd less safe.
They forget a sniper rifile has a very long distance also never the less 1000ft they say.
Maybe next they will ban all public showings of themselves.
www.politico.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11-1-2011 by MisterCrowley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
An especially bad idea when during this AZ shooting a guy with a concealed weapon was gonna pull his gun out and shoot the kid but didn't because he was already subdued. So if the 2 guys didn't bring down that kid and that guy didn't have his gun more ppl would have been shot.....



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
That's just daft. If you're 300m away from a lawmaker, you might not even know that they were there... along comes a policeman, with some other agenda, and can arrest and charge you for carrying a weapon while constructing some other charge.

I don't like guns on principle, but this would be even dumber than a complete ban.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Reply to post by 11PB11
 


And that guy would have been arrested under this law.

So under this law the shooting still would have happened and anyone present with a firearm wiling to use it to stop the attacker would be in jail today.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I think any politician, left or right, that's tries to benefit from this tradgedy deserves to be run out of town on a rail. They aren't special, they work for us, the people who elected them. Truely disgusting spectacle from all sides......



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 
They are going to try and take your guns.

That is what I see.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
It escapes me that these "servants" seem to think they are so necessary that without them we cannot proceed. They are not "officials" nor are they "authorities". They are "EMPLOYEES".

This "man" is an imbecile with a God complex. Should he slip on the ice and bump his pretty little head, he won't be missed.
edit on 11-1-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
i guess the point is to bring sniper rifles back into play.
heh, so secret service wont be packing anymore? HA



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I don;t understand why are we so reactionary.? We just overreact act these things. The same reaction after Vrigina Tech and Columbine. "Lets take the guns" or even better "The 2nd amendment doesn't gaurantee the ammo so lets take the ammo" I mean this must be why as a p[opulation we are so easy to dominate because are reactions are so predictable



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Do these people not even think anymore>? I find this to be strictly symbolic rhetoric itself.
My thing is, WHY WERE THE TUCSON POLICE NOT THERE?

Where were the police
WHO ARE SUPPOSE TO PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE?
No where near in sight of the safeway thats for damn sure! They want to point fingers lets start with this CRAPPY POLICE WORK!
What are the Tucson tax payers paying these IDIOTS FOR?????
edit on 11-1-2011 by MisterCrowley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
That is completely ignorant ! 1000 ft? Any sniper worth his salt could make a shot at 1500 yards. All this rhetoric about guns and protection is hype. Just one more way to put more control on common people.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Let's see. It's alreeady against the law to take a gun onto a college campus like Virginia Tech or a high school campus like Colombine or a mall like the Tacoma Mall, and yet, somehow, the antagonists who committed crimes in all three places failed to read the signs!

I'm sure a law like this will work and that had this Jared character actually known it was illegal to be within a thousand feet of this representative he would have sighed in frustration, turned a round, and walked dejectedly away,



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
It is times like these, that I seriously wonder about the mindset of some people in this country. Namely our elected officials.

This bill would do nothing but give more fodder for the cannons. and would create mobile "gun free zones". Which, are a bad idea, anyways, as that is where most mass-killings tend to happen.

The elected officials are still in their knee-jerk reaction phase. It's sad, and frustrating, and in some cases, childish. You cannot make everything, and everyone safe.. period. impossible..

If you look at Switzerland, where, by law, everyone must be trained, and serve time in the military, and are given a firearm for life; these sorts of things happen very, very seldom.

As much as people do not like the idea of "Having to be trained" in the area of fire-arms, I'd almost suggest they do something like this.. Teach everyone, and arm everyone.

IMHO, it would make the country a safer place.

If you look at other countries who have banned fire-arms, other crimes rose, and criminal activity has rocketed up in the following years after such bans.

It makes sense to me, to go the other way.. Everyone has a gun, crime would rise a little bit as those who would abuse the right, but would be sorted out quick, I imagine.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Should we ban all bars because people go in get drunk and then leave driving a car, only to drive into oncoming traffic killing a family of four?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Let's see. It's alreeady against the law to take a gun onto a college campus like Virginia Tech or a high school campus like Colombine or a mall like the Tacoma Mall, and yet, somehow, the antagonists who committed crimes in all three places failed to read the signs!

I'm sure a law like this will work and that had this Jared character actually known it was illegal to be within a thousand feet of this representative he would have sighed in frustration, turned a round, and walked dejectedly away,


Nothing beats a gun free zone if you're the one with a gun. Those in "power" know this yet tell us scary stories in hopes that law abiding gun owners will turn over our weapons. I've got plenty but none will ever be handed over...EVER.

Yep, nothing like disarming the populace based on knee jerk logic as if those who don't follow the law to begin with will head right down to the collection center and give up theirs.

If schools, malls, etc are gun free zones, why is it that they seem to be the targets of the nutjobs?? Oh yeah!! because the nutjobs know that those who adhere to said laws are sitting ducks waiting to be taken out and made into the next front page of Drudge.

Obama himself indicated not to bring a knife to a gun fight. I concur with him and yet bring both.
edit on 11-1-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
So does this mean no Armed escorts for politicians?


Maybe it can be used as a double edge sword.

And IF there is no armed escorts, then it would just make them more vulnerable.

So, the law gets to break the law in the name of the law.....nice....

A wise man once said, "When the Law breaks the Law in the name of the Law, there is no Law, only a fight for survival."

Seems pretty true if the bill were to pass...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
What about the rest of us? There should be a law banning congress from standing within 1000 ft of a person with a gun.
edit on 11-1-2011 by Throwback because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
No doubt. Problem Reaction Solution with a cerain MKultra/Cia Agent who went on a shootign spree, in my opinion, because they don't want us to remove them from office if the going gets rough, which we'll have to do. I'm not American, but if I was, its even a Constitutional Obligation if all other things fail and Fascism such as NWO takes off at all.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Bruce Lee wouldn't have needed a gun.

That's a crazy law.
I think this one banning perceived threats and symbols is crazy too.

I even think that the Arizona folks banning Westboro from protesting is crazy - The populace had that situation under control.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join