Laura Ingraham Calls Out GOP Rep. Over His Strict Gun Law Proposal
- Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:33am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the GOP congressman who’s proposing a new law restricting anyone with a gun from coming within 1,000 feet of a federal official (Rep, Senator, or Judge), appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Thursday to defend his proposal. During the exchange, King admitted the law isn’t really to prevent lawbreakers — they will break the law anyway — but to give police an excuse to take a gun away from anyone who they deem suspicious that’s within a close proximity to an official.
“I‘m not saying that a person’s going to follow the law, but I’m saying it gives the police an extra weapon themselves to use,” he said. “They would have the right to take the weapon from the person.”
According to King, he’s also hoping police will be trained to detect suspicious “behavioral traits,” which will prevent non-threatening people from being targeted.
The conversation over the gun law takes place from about 1:40 to about 6:30 below:
The rest of the interview is also interesting. According to King, he thinks that if Loughner was a Muslim, the media’s response would have been completely different. King is the Rep. who has called for hearings on radical Islam. That comes at about 11:00.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 702 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 540 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 357 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 275 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (255)
walkwithme1966
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:10amBut it is not a license for everyone to be able to carry any type of firearm, anywhere they want to, any time they want to. We are not the Old West and we can not go back to the days of the gun slingers. We are the only developed country that has mass murders where one or two shooters take out a large number of people at one time. Why is this? You don’t see incidents in other countries where a person goes into a workplace and kills 10 to 20 people because he has been fired or because people make fun of him or because the voices in his head tells him to. http://wp.me/pYLB7-w1
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:33am“But it is not a license for everyone to be able to carry any type of firearm, anywhere they want to, any time they want to. ”
Yes, in fact, it is.
“We are not the Old West and we can not go back to the days of the gun slingers. ”
We could only be so lucky. The Old West was almost crime free. The few incidents that occurred, we know about by name still even today, that’s how rare violence was there. Your version of the Old West comes directly from Hollywood, not from reality.
“We are the only developed country that has mass murders where one or two shooters take out a large number of people at one time.”
False
“Why is this? You don’t see incidents in other countries where a person goes into a workplace and kills 10 to 20 people because he has been fired or because people make fun of him or because the voices in his head tells him to.”
*cough cough Dunblane cough cough Australia cough cough Britain cough cough disarmed Japan*
Rights are not a concept for the weak of heart. If freedom scares people, they are under no obligation to participate. But they cannot demand that others give up their freedom.
If you calculate the actual number of “events” like this against the number of people in this nation, the percentages of this happening are in the millionths of one percent. Don’t buy into the fear.
Report Post »twofoot_trucker
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:26amThe genius of the founding fathers was that they wrote the Constitution in a manner that the common man of the day could read it and understand it. The common man then had something never before seen in history; a binding contract with his government. The Constitution comes as-is, no interpretation and no guesswork needed.
The failing of modern education and many modern Americans is that they have no clue about what the Constitution says.
When the founders wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” they meant exactly that. CONGRESS shall make no law… The 1st Amendment was never intended to bar states or local governments from setting up manger displays around Christmas. Congress was forbidden from inserting itself.
Now, when it comes to the Second Amendment, it’s completely different.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
No mention of Congress, no mention of states, no mention of local governments. Just an inescapable wording that say “shall not be infringed”. Pretty simple. The problem is we have become so accustomed to having lawyers mangle the language, and then those with an agended then claim that unless we are lawyers or scholars we can never hope to understand the meaning behind clear writing, that we buy into what others tell us something means when the evidence of our own eyes tells us different.
The Second Amendment is perfectly understandable to anyone with a basic education in the english language.
Report Post »RedeyeBlind
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:07am1000 feet is a long distance,
Report Post »twofoot_trucker
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:13amJust a hair over 330 yards. Any Marine recruit just fresh from rifle quals could do 330 yards with iron sights and not even break a sweat.
That’s not the point though. The point is, this law-if passed-would be like all the other gun laws; completely useless at stopping criminals. The only people it would affect are those who are inclined to be law abiding in the first place.
Report Post »Smitty1969
Posted on January 16, 2011 at 10:02amsame here, 10 out of 10 on the 500yard dog target unless foul weather. 1000 feet on even a point target is a cake walk.
Report Post »love the kids
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:06amIsn’t this just like asking for citizenship papers? I guess it isn’t, for the papers they would already of had to have stopped you for another reason, here, they can just LOOK at you and think you are a strange person. This seems less restrictive than the Arizona law.
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:04amWhat about focusing on the state-level…….of mandatory mental health services….for anyone who terrorizes a community….like Jared Loughner…….no matter whether the parents work for the county, state, Governor or president.
Also mental health evaluations for parents …..of people like Jared Loughner….and law enforcement authorities….like Sheriff Dupnick….who fix charges….for people like Loughner…..constantly giving him a free pass for his on-going criminal behavior…..that enables him to buy a gun and ammunition….to escalate his criminal behavior to go on a killing spree.
Focusing on people fixing charges….dismissing or failing to bring charges……against thugs and “harmless” people terrorizing a community…..is more appropriate…..than placing more restrictions on law-abiding citizens…..needing to protect and defend themselves……when law enforcement authorities fail to perform their jobs to protect the community….because a perpetrator and/or his family is politically connected.
Loughner’s killing spree could have been prevented….if Sheriff Dupnick had not corrupted the law enforcement procedures and convinced his previous victims…that it was of no use to file charges against him….bc his mother works for Pima County.
Loughner should step down….resign on his own…..or face a petition for recall……AND a Grand Jury review of corruption in Pima County……directly involving Sheriff Dupnick.
Report Post »conservativeone
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:36amYo Fina … It’s Captain Conservative. How Are Ya ???
Report Post »Keep up the good fight.
jackkemo
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:03amOut of my cold , dead hands Rep. King…..
Report Post »Mr. John Sauls
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:01amOne thousand Feet, hunter, or professional Hit man, No big deal. Professional criminals don’t care what laws they brake. Laws are for the law-abiding citizen. Congress stop making gun laws.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:18amHell man, a regular criminal intent on killing will not obey and walk up ten feet away and shoot.
This “law” proposal makes absolutely no sense, at all, whatsoever. The only way to enforce it is to pat down every single person within 1000 feet of a Holy One. That’s simply unfeasible. Even if it was possible, then it becomes a police state tactic.
Report Post »Carl1
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:58amDirty corrupt politicians Seem to worry more. Wonder why? Guns don’t kill people. Criminals with guns do.
Report Post »Marine Recon Dad
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:23amExactly. What is next – cars? More people die from altercations with vehicles then guns.
Report Post »ozzie03
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 3:18pmonly from my cold dead hands
Report Post »P---Revere
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:57amThis is why our country suffers. The brilliance of our lawmakers stuns me. Let’s pass the 1000 ft law, and then hope someday the police are taught what to look for, as far as suspicious people go. What will happen, is this law will pass, and God forbid something like this happens again, but there will be a shooter, and unarmed citizens, and no law enforcement, and many more people will lose their lives. More often than not, the citizens are the first line of defense. Quit disabling us and enabling the criminals. Dare I bring up Suzanna Gratia-Hupp? Pray for our country and the idiots running it.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:54amThat kid bought his gun legally, if I’m not mistaken, so even if he hadn’t been able to get the gun legally he would have found another way. I’m sure his drug dealer would have been happy to assist him in the purchase of an illegal gun. So, as my husband pointed out, if he is in a mall with his “legal” gun and doesn’t know some congressman/woman is in the same mall, he gets arrested just because……
Report Post »How about, no one acted on this guy’s bizarre behavior and threats, and that is why this tragedy happened. Lose the PC! Bottom line, the sheriff didn’t do his job!
Culex
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:53amThanks Laura, it seemed to me, that story was buried shortly after it came out.
Report Post »KEA
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:51amAnd this is what is running our government. For the sake of our Country people PLEASE get off your ass and get involved at ANY level of Government you can. Throw these people out and run yourself!
Report Post »CETMEONFIRE
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:50amHey Pete, the nutcase with evil intentions doesn’t give a crap about your gun law, it just keeps the good guys who are carrying legally from blowing his arse away!
Report Post »wampanoag
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:49amAs a gun owner I also think there must be some better way of keeping guns away from criminals and mental cases. We cannot have lasisez faire policy-as even the NRA admits.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:12amIt’s called a background check. They do it now. And while I don’t agree with the concept necessarily, it does address your concern. Nothing else can be done. You cannot provide enough security ever, in any society, to stop the random loon from acting out. To think that’s possible is to subscribe to a prison lock down mentality. That mentality is inherently un-American.
Report Post »Marine Recon Dad
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:19amThat is one step. Try this idea – if more of us were armed, and ‘they’ didn’t know if the person standing next to them was, do you think they’d be more or less inclined to perform a crime? I know that common sense comes into play (most of them don’t have any, but…), so I’d put my money on the fact that me carrying is a deterant to their actions…
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:36amI’m with you Dad.
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 12:36pmIf people followed the law the crazies and criminals couldn’t get guns. Obey the law become a victim. Don’t obey the law become a criminal. If that happens, think I’ll be a criminal.
Report Post »EyeofthePatriot
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 3:14pmAs GHOSTOFJEFFERSON said… there will always be a level of security that you can NOT proactively stop.
The more guns that find their way into everyday American’s hands who are respectful of the power a firearm wields… the better off we will be. What better way to deter a criminal than to keep him in constant fear that his next victim has the capacity to defend themselves with deadly force.
Report Post »Xcori8r
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:49am“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants….”
Report Post »— Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
StonyBurk
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:48amThe Patriot Post a few days ago said it better than I.Thomas Jefferson citing Casar Beccaria–On crimes and Punishment– “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms …disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.Such laws make things worse for the assaulted,and better for the assailants.They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides– for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” One can also read what Freud said of gun ownership ,1931 – How those who insist mere possession of a gun would incline one to use it. How such talk says more about the person making the claim than it does about the gun owner. ” I believe a story has come out that it was a responsible gun owner who waited until the killer was reloading -and did not use the gun he was carrying when innocents could have been harmed in the defense.?
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:48amWhat an idiot. Does ANYONE in Washington DC have common sense?
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:58amto answer your question “NOPE”. It seems once they obtain that R or D in front of there name there exempt from everyone and evrything except what they propose for themselves.
Report Post »Marine Recon Dad
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:15amWashington and common sense should NEVER be used in the same sentence. They are diametrically opposed ideas….
Report Post »twofoot_trucker
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:47amAnother fine example of a politicians first response to anything being that more control of the populace is needed. Doesn’t matter what side the politician comes from. They are all infested with this disgusting mindset to some degree or another.
To Rep King, you are a coward. If you want my weapons, then YOU come and take them yourself.
Report Post »mhgadfly
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:47amThis man is no protector of the constitution or the people he “represents” but is out to protect his own backside. Perhaps, he should step down from office the way the other GOP cowards in AZ have? Not one more restriction on our freedom should we allow these elitists to make.
SEPARATION OF CORPORATIONS AND STATE
Report Post »stop freddie, fannie and the fha
SOCIALIZM IS MASS SLAVERY
don’t raise the debt ceiling
Thighmaster
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:46amVote him out! I guess now I’m in trouble…
Report Post »Lesterp
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:58amAre the F.B.I. at your door now?
Report Post »SgtHenick
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:11amDid you say vote him out or take him out?!?!? because the words “vote” and “take” BOTH have the letters “t” and “e” in them so that COULD be perceived and violent, radical, threatening, right wing propaganda rhetoric!!!…I need a drink >.>
Report Post »Thighmaster
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:16amSome girl with a white rabbit tattoed on her shoulder..
Report Post »Thighmaster
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:20amI need a witness protection plan…
Report Post »SgtHenick
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:47amHAHAHAH!!!!! You know… all this crap would REALLY be funny is these loons weren’t running the damned country (well… for now )
Report Post »SgtHenick
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:46am*facepalm* can we just fire these people already…
Report Post »MJDalton
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:46amRino.
Report Post »SecretPolice
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:45amUnreal, how sad to hear this man wanting to go down this road, I’m sure the police will find most people to be somehow suspicious looking.
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:00amHell, I find most local, county law enforcement agencies looking more and more like your local para military unit.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:10am@Shorthand
More and more? They are now mostly all paramilitary units. The only exceptions I know about are very small local police offices where the cops actually live in the same neighborhood as they attend to in their jobs. These types are becoming increasingly rare however.
Report Post »Legal Immigrant
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:25am@shorthand
CATO Institute. Balko White Paper. Google. Enjoy…
Report Post »SecretPolice
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:28amSo true you guys.. Agreed.
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:45am2nd amendment isn’t a toy. Go away with this crap.
Report Post »Docrow
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:00am3 words…..
cold
Report Post »dead
hand
Marine Recon Dad
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:14amAmen, 338.
btw,, nice round
Report Post »Chuck
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:40amgot that righ 338
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:05amPretty sure I’m gonna be in trouble one day because on of those dumb@sses wont tell me he’s within 1000 feet. I’m glad I have a great BULLSH@T smell detector so I can get out of the stinkin’ piece of craps way…
I used to like Peter King…NO MORE!! I will be sending money to have him removed when a good opposing candidate emerges. You screw with my rights and you get screwed. Got it Peter??
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 11:14amSo when a Fed LEO comes for your guns you will have already broken the Law?
Report Post »338_LM
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 11:34amNice screen name. ;-) I love my SRS.
Simply put…
“If one were able to purchase safety with Liberty, then the safest place on earth would be prison.”
Simple concept, yet elusive to many!
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 12:24pmYo, Greets 338 Lapua: I’m already in trouble. These laws prevent guns within 1000 feet of schools, politicans and the like. At that distance I live from 1 public and 1 catholic grade school plus 4 or 5 day care centers.
Report Post »beckwill
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:42amSo, 1001 feet is OK? This is just a prime example of being clear full of dumbass!
Report Post »truthncharity
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:05amYeah, really…….so the bullets will become ineffective at 1001 ft.? Who’s going to inform the bullets that they will have to be responsible and refuse to work when within 1000 ft. of such important people since we know people who intend to break the law…will break the law. Derrrr – interruption of brain activity apparently.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:14am1 foot is ok. A right is a right is a right. “Shall make no law” means just that. They cannot selectively disarm us around Elites. That is inherently unconstitutional. We should, if you ask me, not even be checked if POTUS is around. The very notion of surrendering a right when before government is patently offensive.
Report Post »Chuck
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:27amThis is assinine, how is one to know who is a federal official or not? Will this pertain to rallys only or everyday life, so much BS! It will never pass the Constitutional smell test anyway, but I’m not surprised this NY rino wants to do this, kick all rinos and progressives out in 2012, take names, know who you’re voting for, we have to take back control from the traitors to the Constitution!
Report Post »criticalpuppy
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:58amThis is called job creation. I’ll be going to the local community college to try to qualify to be the keeper of the “official yardstick” and “czar of the radius” surrounding these important officials. Thank god someone in congress is finally coming up with ideas for jobs.
Our country spawns a new population of loons every day. It should be great job security.
Report Post »101
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 3:20pm.
State Lawmaker Packs Handgun On Senate Floor
“Many of our members carry,” Klein said. “I’m not the only one, because we are the first line of defense. We have a right given to us by the Second Amendment to protect ourselves.”
The first-year Republican senator carries a .380-caliber Ruger and she takes it with her onto the Senate floor
http://www.kpho.com/valleynews/26487269/detail.html
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:40amPass something just to say that he did, even if it is stupid.
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:44amLaura Ingraham is truly one of the good guys. She’s a brilliant thinker and an asset to the conservative cause.
Report Post »Marcobob69
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:52amMore legislation is not the answer to madmen on a mission. More security, maybe. “Never let a crisis go to waste” is a slogan for politicians in general, not just the left or right or progressives or conservatives. ANY politician can follow that “rule”. We don’t need more laws! Less is better!!!
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 8:58amWith so many false premises the man must be mentally challenged to submit to an interview by Laura Ingraham. http://commonsense21c.com/
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:02amThis is a crazy idea .. how in the heck are you supposed to know that you are 1,000 or under feet away from someone … garbage law … and a Republican (NY) working on this while the victims are still nearly warm… I expect that from the Dems .. they were “busy” blaming the TEA Party from the moment the bullets stopped flying .. I expect more but I guess you can’t take the RINO out of a RINO republican.
Report Post »guyperram
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:10amHow dare this so called Republican attempt to impose another unconstitutional law on guns. These are the people that need to be retired.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:20amRep. Peter Rhino King ………pass a stupid law from a NY fool because.
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:22amI thought the Police were trained in “Behavioral Traits”. Lame excuse.
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:23amComming next an “Excuse” to put you in Jail.
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:27amThe “never let a crisis go to waste” mantra is used because our lawmakers cannot pass laws based on the law’s merits. It seems like more and more of these bills that are proposed in Congress deal with CONTROL and are not based on benefitting American citizens i.e. the Fairness Doctrine, TARP, Wall Street Reform, and the Bailout for the auto companies, banks, and mortgage companies. The nasty curse of Progressivism has creeped into both parties…..they both feel that “control” is better than self-reliance and the free-will of American citizens. Our beloved leaders know where they want to take us….they just don’t know how to get us there without our knowledge and consent. This is when a “crisis” becomes invaluable to them. There are some in Congress who get it but they are in the minority. We need to VOTE the majority out of office until we have a truly representative government. It is our DUTY as citizens. No more of this “11th hour” legislating where they tack these abhorent bills into another bill that is to be passed….no more “business as usual” where the American people are hung out to dry because our lawmakers are sneaky, gutless, immoral cowards…..They ALL must be held accountable.
Report Post »SlippedThroughAWormHole
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:44amSooo, are the Reps. going to publish their itinerary (second by second) so someone with a legal gun doesn’t accidently come within 1000 feet? Or, is the public supposed to use ESP?
Report Post »Cobra Blue
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:45amThis guy is all over the map. Take someone’s gun because they LQQK suspicious. Isn’t that called profiling. What a concept. Why not just do good police work BY USING PROFILING NOW as an affective tool and do the same thing without the distance limit. OK. let’s assume your mickey mouse law is passed. Then another public official is shot. What’s next. 2,000 feet…not in the same city…not in the same county..Whaa! Then you bring up the Mooslem issue. I agree with his accessment that things would have been handled differently. No doubt. BUT if you are trying to identify suspicious people at a rally i.e. profiling because they appear I don’t know nervous, long over coat in the summertime. …whatever…then you should be in favor of profiling for Mooslem extremists. Sounds to me the guy is trying to have it both ways. Profile yes…profile no. You can bet this type legislation is to be used primarily against WE THE PEOPLE….Black panthers, Mooslems, ACORN, Unions…will all be exempt under this type legislation. Wonder if it would cover billy clubs.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:47amJust saw this lady’s picture for the first time.
Yowzers! Daddy like!
Report Post »Kurty C Wipe
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:54amI love what Laura did to O’reilly last night. Bill is so full of himself anymore, I can barely watch him. At least Lou Dobbs would allow a guest to answer a question. This would be a nice change.Laura, you do have a big “set”. Now go after Barrycare!
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:58am@Ghost… guaranteed high maintenance.
Report Post »psst
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:08am@ Kurty.
Report Post »I caught that piece. I made a post about it on page 3.
I thought babbling billO would have a stroke when she made reference about his up and coming interview w/ Oh-mama.
It was easy to read between the lines that she was telling him he was being a suck-up to get his Oh-mama’s interview.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:10am@912828Buckeye
“@Ghost… guaranteed high maintenance.”
Well, maybe.
High maintenance women have always struck me as women wanting to dominate their man. That’s why they make their demands, throw their fits and are always attempting to manipulate. I’ve found that the best way to deal with that kind of thing is to calmly say “no” and let her pout, and when she tries a different tactic, calmly say “no” again. Rinse lather repeat, as long as it is only for the unreasonable or “maintenance” demands. When she comes around to reason, she stops being high maintenance. If she doesn’t come around to reason, she leaves. Either way, you win.
I’ve also discovered that pretty does not necessarily equal high maintenance. Sometimes guys are so afraid of dealing with a pretty woman that the pretty woman is often the most lonely woman in the room (even if she is surrounded by other women and gabbing, she has no guys brave enough to approach).
It is my theory that there were very few high maintenance women prior to the 20th century. The less men act like men however, the more you’ll find high maintenance women popping up. I expect the trend to get worse.
This is of course, a tangent from the thread. :)
Report Post »79USMC83
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:14amThe key point in this is that he said “King admitted the law isn’t really to prevent lawbreakers — they will break the law anyway ” so if he knows this, then the LAW he wants to pass is NO GOOD!! These CAREER POLITICIANS know when and WHAT to use to get SOUND BITES!! If the LAW is NOT for LAWBREAKERS then it is “RESTRICT” LAW ABIDING citizens whom only want to PROTECT themselves and families!! It is NOT about guns. I had a coyote in my cross-hairs the other day. I do NOT take the shot or pull the trigger. The coyote had not come onto OUR property yet!! It is my neighbors job and choice on how he chooses to PROTECT his land and property. I will protect mine how I see fit!!!
Report Post »fatjack
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:26amI think I’m falling in love with that slim.
Report Post »robkeigan
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:28amExactly. I had respect for this guy until I saw this. This killer broke multiple laws in this act. Politicians are such BOOBS!
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:29am@Ghost….. Been married to a Non-Maintenance woman
Report Post »for 18years now……spoiled I guess. Lucky me.
1Patriotgal
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 10:32amLaura I., is definately one of the best radio personalities ot there. She is CONSISTANT, which most aren’t. Plus, she is SO good-looking!! :)
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 11:11amIf a person is willing to kill are they really going to worry about this law? NO!! This will be another meaningless law.
Report Post »rgranger
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 11:25amThis is like the SCOTUS saying that police can enter a home if they suspect that evidence may be flushed, as in Pot. So, I suspect that they will start smelling POT everywhere and will not need to bother with those pesky warrants or the 4th. Unfortunately, several of the Conservatives sided with this opinion.
Report Post »Another Right bites the dust
And another one gone
And another one gone
Another one bites the dust
What-A-Joke
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 11:27amIf your job is creating laws, rules and regulations (that you don’t need to follow, buy the way) EVERYTHING MUST be solved with a NEW law. I think that is called job security?
http://clubseabreeze.com/TimPhillips/productsnew.html
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 11:36amCheeseball,
Laura Ingraham in NOT a fraud.
The quotes you list from “Rome” are NOT DOGMA. As a practicing Catholic, you can agree or disagree with these viewpoints. And I doubt seriously that Ms. Ingraham needs rescuing when it comes to verbally battling anyone, much less this loser. Why do you constantly pick on Catholicism? There are many other religions that are hypocritical and/or disingenuous.
Report Post »Mikeyyy
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 12:43pmthat pic of Laura is really hot. oops, typing out loud again, my bad. there’s your stupid comment. here’s my not so stupid comment:
the last thing we need is more laws that have little meaning. i dont want police doing the tsa special, patting down and groping the masses that come near a politician…politicians should not be viewed as demigods…this incident should not be the impetus for another dumb law…and the proposal is unenforceable. There are so many things wrong with it, that i would be writing forever to list them all. Another great example of how stupid politicians are. If I had my way, id replace congress, the whitehouse, and the senators with a room full of reeses monkeys.
Report Post »What-A-Joke
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 12:53pmI don’t recall hearing about ANY police officers being present at the time of the shooting. So even if there was the all important LAW, their was no one to inforce it and nothing would have turned out any diferently?
One more time. “GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!”
http://clubseabreeze.com/TimPhillips/productsnew.html
Report Post »P C BE DAMNED
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 1:06pmThese fools need to stop treating our Constitutional liberty as anything other than sacred. To do anything other is inviting trouble as we who love the law of the land will not put up with lawlessness in our elected representatives. They were elected to up hold our laws and swore under oath to do so. Anything less borders on Treason and carries a heavy punishment. I call up on you the representatives of this Country to repent of your crimes against the Constitution and Americans every where. To do your duty and not shirk it. This is the only way we can live in harmony. If you continue in the current direction of lawlessness we the American people will have to arrest you and try you for high crimes. It could get ugly for you, fools. Thanks
Report Post »Ashrak
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 2:43pmLet me know when Laura (or King for that matter) will point out that, here in Illinois, police ALREADY HAVE the “right” (OMG) to take a firearm from a person no matter where they are unless they are on their own property or where they have express permission from the owner.
There is NO CARRY whatsoever here in Illinois. not concealed, not open and not loaded for sure. Do so and you are a felon, period. There is no way to lawfully or legally exercise the right to bear arms here in Illinois. In your car you ask? Sure, unloaded and fully enclosed in a case. On your person? Fat chance! Felony unlawful use of a weapon charges are in your immediate future if you dare exercise your right.
What say you Laura? Glenn? Sean? Mark? Any of you? Not a word. Tom Delay – should we accept a license to pray and speak too? It is left to the police here in Illinois, entirely, Rep, King. How is that working out in Chicago? Oh yeah, up to 50 shootings in a weekend’s time. You don;t see the harm Re. King? Come to Illinois where none of us can exercise our rights.
I‘m surprised you didn’t mention the status of this here in Illinois Rick.
Report Post »*************************
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 4:32pmSaying a Rep. Peter King from New York is a Rebublican (in the Conservative sense) is like saying Barack Hussein Obama is the President (in the birth certificate sense).
[on line to the movie house]
Report Post »HEDLEY LAMARR: “One please.” [holds up an old ID for discount] “Uh … Student?”
movie CASHIER: “Are you kidding?”
-Blazing Saddles
avenger
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 4:33pmthank you Laura…peter is a real peter….I can hardly wait for his election…plans made to work to defeat this moron.
Report Post »Shoshanna
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 5:51pm@BeckIsNuts: I couldn’t agree more.
Oh, by the way, I don’t think your nuts. At times I don’t agree with everything you say, but not often.
I read many of the posts on here and don’t post much myself. It seems to me that conservatives are just as detestable in their comments as the liberals. It makes me not even want to admit that I’m a conservative.
Our country is torn apart as it is. How does being unkind to others on this site help make things better? It doesn’t. I’m a Bible believing Christian and find it very sad reading so many vicious comments.
If someone is a troll, there is no need to be hateful to that person. I’ve never seen anyone won to Christ by being hateful to them. I may not agree with what they say, do or how they live, but I’m not their judge, God is. Also, when I start to judge others and point a finger at them, I notice that I have three fingers pointing right back at me and a thumb that would, if it could.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on January 14, 2011 at 9:39pmHey what’s with the “come hither” look of the photograph? Was she posing for a magazine or something?
Report Post »lionslayer44
Posted on January 15, 2011 at 12:56amif the guy who held him down had instead pulled his weapon and shot this piece of crap we wouldnt be having this conversation, now would we? an armed society is a polite society.
Report Post »ricklap
Posted on January 16, 2011 at 12:31amWouldn’t the Police acting merely on someones “behavior” be considered profiling? I thought Profiling was taboo? Or is it taboo unless it involves a government official?
Report Post »