Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (597991)	1/13/2011 6:23:09 PM
From: d[-_-]b	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

Way to grow a pair Boehner - stop stoopid knee jerk legislation before it picks up speed.

To: tejek who wrote (597991)	1/13/2011 8:56:33 PM
From: bentway	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

If you mean the bill where you're breaking the law if you're armed within 1000 ft of a politician, I'm against it too. Why should pols get special protection? Besides, it's just moronic. If I carry a pistol into a eatery where a pol is chowing down, am I supposed to: Carefully look at every person in the room and recognize any pols? Choose another place if I see one? Or, what if I'm in the place and a pol walks in? Am I supposed to monitor the door? Leave if one comes in? It's just dumbass, cowardly, reaction without thought.

To: tejek who wrote (597991)	1/14/2011 4:28:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

Good for him the bill is idiotic even if you start with the (false) assumption that gun control reduces crime. 1000 feet radius circle is 72 acres. There could be numerous gun owners in that radius without even knowing that a "high-profile government official" is in the area, esp. as the offical moves. As he goes down a street you would have a corridor over a third of a mile wide that would have to be clear of guns. And such a law wouldn't protect politicians. Anyone willing to break the law against murder, would be willing to break this law and could conceal a handgun. Even in some bizarre alternate universe where crazy assassin did respect such a law, they could easily take a rifle shot from beyond 1000 feet. You don't have to be an expert sniper to do so, just someone with average skill at shooting rifles (expert snipers have hit as far as about a mile and a half). Such a law would be about as effective as one of these silly, sarcastically proposed laws from comments to a blog post Palladian said... I propose a Lawmaker-Free Gun Zone Act, which requires lawmakers to stay at least 1000 feet away from legally owned and carried firearms. Russ said... How about a law that makes it illegal to break existing laws? That'd cover it, right? No, maybe not enough,... another law making it illegal to break the law against breaking existing laws. There, now we're 3 times as safe! DaveW said... How about a law that we all have to bow down face to the ground when one of these characters is near? Can't shoot from that position plus it's a worshipful pose. So it would accomplish two goals. And really, these guys are special, not like us peons, and they deserve to be worshiped. junyo said... I wonder if the proposed bill also bans knives, cars, gasoline, fertilizer, and/or physically strong people from within a 1,000 feet of his cowardly self? Freeman Hunt said... Too bad we don't have a "no shooting people" law. Perhaps this tragedy could have been prevented. Freeman Hunt said... And then, "Today I stand with my Congressional colleagues as we prepare to introduce the No Aiming Act. It is nearly impossible to murder someone with a firearm without the use of aim, and so we propose to outlaw aiming entirely. By this act, we have balanced the interest of stopping murderers with the interests of those who shoot guns for recreation. This act does not ban guns, nor does it outlaw the shooting of firearms for entertainment. It simply forbids the aiming of firearms. We understand that this may end the niche sport of target shooting, but we feel that that is a small price to pay for saving lives." Freeman Hunt said... Later, "Today we introduce a new layer of protection upon the American people; today we put forward the No Eating if You're Planning to Murder Anyone Act. The protection provided by this bill, if passed, will be twofold. First, it will deincentivize murder by forcing would-be murderers to endure extreme hunger to carry out their bad acts. All people planning to murder anyone will consider themselves put on notice to starve. This great suffering will, assuredly, cause them to rethink their intentions. Two, would-be criminals will weaken themselves by their lack of food and be inhibited in their abilities to carry out their nefarious deeds. By supporting this bill, we are telling the would-be murderers of this country that we don't like what they are planning to do. Not at all. And so, we ask our fellow Representatives to come together with us on this legislation. That is, unless they want more Americans to die." blogger.com Also from the comments to the same blog post Lem said... I heard that one of the reasons one of the person that ultimately tackled the shooter did so was that he was/is a licenced gun owner and had his gun with him. When he heard the shots he ran towards the scene.. and when he got there the shooter was reloading and so he felt he could tackle him w/o having to shoot him. Had it been a "gun free zone" more people would have died.. that is an incontrovertible fact that gets in the way of gun control advocates over and over again.