Peter King (R-NY) introduces gun control legislation

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Of course, you do. Perhaps that is the only thing that will motivate you to vote for a school levy.


Yes, I believe that most laws hinder law-abiding citizens. I should be able to drive my car at any speed I please, and what is the point of safety checks at airports? After all, I'm a law-abiding citizen.

As for this law, it is worth it if it saves just one life. There is no legitimate reason to allow people to brandish weapons at political rallies. If a law-abiding citizen is stupid enough to knowingly bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a politician when it is illegal to do so, then that citizen should lose the label 'law-abiding'.

You are missing my point.
My point is that this law (in the OP) will do nothing in the real world to make government employees safe.
It will do nothing more than cause problem for the honest law abiding citizen.
Key words NOTHING MORE.

You speed limits and airport safety checks do serve purposes other than limit the law abiding citizen.
So your analogies both fail.

This law is not going to save any lives.
Period.

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

This law is not going to save any lives.
Period.

I disagree with you on that point. It has the potential to save lives by giving security forces license to disarm people with guns at political rallies. You cannot imagine how that could be a social benefit, but my imagination is perhaps more active than yours.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

I disagree with you on that point. It has the potential to save lives by giving security forces license to disarm people with guns at political rallies. You cannot imagine how that could be a social benefit, but my imagination is perhaps more active than yours.

I agree that you imagination is MUCH more active than mine if you actually think the OP law is going to actually save governmental employee lives.

[Nowhere Man]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

I disagree with you on that point. It has the potential to save lives by giving security forces license to disarm people with guns at political rallies.

So what happens if one of the armed security people has an agenda? Like this recent event.....

BBC News - Pakistan politician 'shot dead by his own bodyguard'

I agree with Mestemia. False sense of security legislated at the expense of the people. Its not always going to save lives as much as you may think.

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

I agree that you imagination is MUCH more active than mine if you actually think the OP law is going to actually save governmental employee lives.

Perhaps. On the other hand, your imagination may be MUCH more active in coming up with ways to deny the obvious. I have already provided you with a scenario in which the new law could prevent the death of innocents. As things stand, the police cannot remove individuals from political rallies if they have a valid license to carry. This law would remove them. If one such person had lethal intent, then the law would be justified.

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Unless the police arrest someone who wants to commit an assassination before he or she can do it, but that is probably beyond your ability to imagine.

That's a good argument for making sawed-off shotguns illegal, isn't it?

Last first. A sawed off shotgun is illegal in most if not all states.

As to the first point a Glock 19 can go in your pocket so unless they are going to frisk or wand every person within 1000' of the official how in the hell is this going to stop anything? Nobody will see the gun until the shooting starts. I don't know but I highly doubt anyone knew this was going to happen until the shooting started. But hell I guess he could have walked up to them with gun in hand visible to the world and nobody would have thought anything of it until it started.

Get with it this is a reactionary law proposal that is pointless.

[Requia]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

I see. Well, I think that they could communicate those thoughts better with a sign than a gun. A gun is not really necessary when exercising one's right to peacefully petition the government.

That's a good argument for making sawed-off shotguns illegal, isn't it?

Since when has the government respected the right to assemble peacefully?

Sawed off shotguns are all but illegal, (technically you can get one with permission from the ATF, if you have a gun that meets certain criteria, similar process to getting automatic weapons).

[dallas1125]

Originally Posted by Requia

(technically you can get one with permission from the ATF, if you have a gun that meets certain criteria, similar process to getting automatic weapons).

If you mean a pain in the ***. Takes forever to get permission for a sawed off, especially a automatic.

Although, I heard something a little disturbing. Civilians can get mini-guns.

[Requia]

Yeah, for the low low price of $400000 a gun, and about twice that to fire the thing.

I'm still waiting for the *paperwork* to apply for a C&R license (ended up deciding not to buy the gun, so I'm happy to drag this out and see how long it takes).

[dallas1125]

Originally Posted by Requia

Yeah, for the low low price of $400000 a gun, and about twice that to fire the thing.

I'm still waiting for the *paperwork* to apply for a C&R license (ended up deciding not to buy the gun, so I'm happy to drag this out and see how long it takes).

Sorry, im not sure what a C&R permit is? Wasnt it something about relics?

Yeah, the very low price of 1,000,000 if you wanna use it!