ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 12, 2011 8:48:49 GMT -5
"A snafu during a legislative debate where a microphone was turned on captured banter between two Iowa GOP leaders, who also joked about a “give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill.” Republicans this week revived a proposal that would allow Iowans to carry weapons in public without permission from a sheriff, without background checks and without training requirements. The legislation, House Study bill 219, is known as “Alaska carry,” which is law in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming. Rep. Erik Helland, R-Johnston, is listed as one of the three legislators on a subcommittee assigned the bill. Helland is the House majority whip. Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, who made the schizophrenic remark, is the speaker pro tem. Also in the conversation is Rep. Steve Lukan, R-New Vienna who is also an assistant majority leader. The conversation begins with jokes between the members that they’re going to pull Rep. Ron Jorgenson, R-Sioux City, from leading debate on House File 525, a controversial union collective bargaining bill. Debate halted for more than two hours because of a technical issue that the representatives joked was Jorgenson’s fault." blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/03/10/house-republican-caught-on-tape-jokes-of-give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic-bill/
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 12, 2011 11:20:53 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 12, 2011 11:44:37 GMT -5
Liberals have NO sense of humor-- but then, it's probably because your side is in full-on meltdown right now and you're losing everywhere you look. But it's not a recent phenomenon-- I remember the left wing freak out over the Youtube clip below, which most normal people found hilarious:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 7:46:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 11:47:00 GMT -5
I'm sorry... i miss how arming crazy people is hilarious?
I didn't know Youtube and Reagan were contemporaries?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 12, 2011 11:47:07 GMT -5
The funny part is he voted for it.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 7:33:56 GMT -5
Permits equate to infringements. Besides, crazies are prohibited from purchasing guns to begin with. Nice to see legislators that know the law!
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 13, 2011 8:19:50 GMT -5
More laws are made to ensure that everyone eventually becomes a criminal in some sense so the govt always has the ability to destoy people. But, we have a zillion gun laws. And, the last time I checked, murdering someone was actually illegal, so getting a gun legally or illegally isn't going to prevent someone intent on lawbreaking. Yeah, but it makes it a whole lot easier to kill somebody especially a political official. Just think about it, they can't say anything if everybody in the crowd at a rally has a gun and if one just got pissed off enough, BANNNGGGGG!!! lol Not that I would be dissappointed or anything. I kind of like the idea of giving morons all guns and then the smart people can just hide out in basements and wait out. Survival of the smartest and cleaining of the gene pool.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 8:29:22 GMT -5
Reason, If I am intent on killing someone, do you think a carry permit is going to matter to me? Right now, it is easier for a criminal to get a gun then for a law abiding citizen. I tested the theory once and within 1/2 hour found a guy who would sell me a gun outta his car's trunk.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 9:02:15 GMT -5
You libs are still talking about this like it was a serious proposal. I'm more concerned about ACTUAL POLICY by you libs-- like early release for a man who tortured and killed a 5 year old boy-- whose body wasn't found until 7 years later. He should have been EXECUTED, but you all can't manage to do that; and you libs can't even leave a guy like that in jail...instead you spend a lot of time hand-wringing over how to make it even more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals released from your revolving door prison system.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 9:03:48 GMT -5
In short- it was a JOKE. And a funny one at that. The much more serious issue / question is why there are so many who want to take away the law abiding citizen's natural right of self defense.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 9:05:50 GMT -5
PBP - The darn libs gave him a light sentence. From what I understand, the kid's father will remedy that! Hopefully, he will have a rock solid alibi when he does.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 7:46:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 9:28:04 GMT -5
Yeah... funny joke... Gifford gets shot and a 9 year old killed by a mentally ill person and a month later we are talking about a 'guns for schizophrenics' bill... lmao... not...
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 9:45:54 GMT -5
Oped, fear the person, not the tool. The gun isn't evil, it is the person. Without a gun, he would have found another way. Criminals can always get guns. Regular Citizens have been infringed!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 7:46:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 9:50:37 GMT -5
That 9 year old certainly had her rights infringed...
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 9:52:57 GMT -5
Oped, that is the cost of living in a free society. Things happen. I will take that any day rather than living in a regimented society like China, or what the libs envision. I have a really hard time believing that in Texas, no one shot back!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 7:46:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 9:55:06 GMT -5
Having rules that REGULATE guns, as stated in the constitution, does not make us China... suggesting that there should be some rules that DO NOT give schiziphrenics guns... does not make us China...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 7:46:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 9:56:31 GMT -5
A free society PROTECTS the rights of its citizens... that girls had the RIGHT to LIFE... that is the RIGHT that needed protecting...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 9:58:40 GMT -5
Well regulated means well able to USE the weapons. It means not only was it assumed people would have them, and that one of the necessities of having them was a "free state" was being able to defend ourselves from the government-- not merely to hunt and shoot intruders.
Nobody proposed this. It was a joke.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 9:59:00 GMT -5
Then her guardian of the moment should have protected her! Don't try to infringe my rights because of your fears. Many more kids die each day from abuse than from gun nuts, but I don't hear the libs screaming about that. Oped, the constitution does not have a clause about "Regulating" guns.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 13, 2011 10:00:47 GMT -5
Speaking of that 9 year old girl-- anyone want to bet that Jarrod Loughtner (SP?- don't really care) doesn't do hard time, or get the death penalty? That's liberalism.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 10:04:10 GMT -5
PBP, that probably will be the case, but then you can only blame the public for puting the libs in place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 7:46:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 10:14:03 GMT -5
Second Ammendment... A Well - Regulated Militia being necessary is the qualifying clause...
"Many more kids die each day from abuse than from gun nuts, but I don't hear the libs screaming about that."
This statement makes me so angry i'm having difficulty typing... i have said repeatedly that my main concern in social programs is children... the idea that 'liberals' don't care about children and abuse is baseless lies... of the worst sort...
If a person is mentally uncapable of standing trial.... he should NOT HAVE A GUN... seems logical to me... say he would have gotten one anyway... but in this case the facts are he got one legally... in a state where anyone can carry concealed... those are the facts of this case... a mentally unstable person was not barred from owning a gun and 6 people including a child lost their right to life... so that mentally ill people can retain their rights to carry guns... apparently?...
In any case... it is NOT funny...
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 10:17:46 GMT -5
Oped, "regulated" militia. It later states the rights of the people shall not be infringed. Just keep twisting the words like all anti gunners. The nutjob got a gun because he was not in the nutjob registry. These things happen. Libs spend far more time complaining about guns than about abuse. I am glad you are angry. I am angry when someone wants to restrict my gun rights.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 7:46:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 10:28:29 GMT -5
The first phrase is the QUALIFIER... it says... WHY the people's rights should not be infringed... because we need a well-regulated militia...
I'm not an anti gun person.... we own a lot... that does not mean i think there should be no regulations on guns... its crazy to suggest there should be no regulations on guns... i have never not been able to buy what i wanted... my rights are not infringed by going through the proper channels... and making crazy people go through those channels, and denying them the right to have a gun... also protects MY RIGHTS...
Blue... i do not spend more time complaining about guns than abuse... and the very suggestion is so far from reality, that it makes all of your claims suspect...
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 13, 2011 11:56:34 GMT -5
Oped, the SCOTUS disagrees and has confirmed it is an individual right. Now, Militias DO need regulation. Oped try buying a Thompson. Then you will see infringements. Yes, you can, but there are many obstacles. You may be a gunner, but you have been swayed by the anti gun lies. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the citizens in a position to over throw a tyrannical government. To my view, that means I should be able to own anything the government does. Anything else is an infringment. Now, I don't want an F-16 sitting in the drive, but it would be nice knowing I could.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 13:45:58 GMT -5
"Why Conservatives Aren't Funny" But there is no good right-slanted Onion, or Daily Show or Bill Maher and no right-wing satirist who can nail liberals like Stephen Colbert nails conservatives. In 2007 Fox tried to launch a show to take on Comedy Central (despite Jon Stewart, in particular, sniping across political lines). The 1/2 Hour News Hour, marked by canned laughter, was described as "so heavy handed that it seems almost like self-parody," and was quickly cancelled. gawker.com/#!5460506/why-arent-conservatives-funny
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 13:52:26 GMT -5
[/quote]
The word in bold is the reason why your argument fails.
Many shooting crimes do not start with the intent to kill. In many cases the intent was to commit some other crime such as burglary, but the criminal was too twitchy and the gun goes off or the home owner shows up and the burglar panics, etc. In other cases, an argument erupts, and through a combination of anger and a convenient firearm, someone is shot.
While a permit may not stop a person dead-set on killing someone, it can reduce the number of guns falling into the hands of the psychotic, the criminal, and the easily provoked.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 13, 2011 13:54:09 GMT -5
Criminals apply for permits to carry guns?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 13, 2011 14:01:27 GMT -5
No it doesn't.
If you read the COTUS carefully, the words "well regulated" refer to the militia itself, not the rules regarding the ownership of guns.
It is the militia that is well regulated.
Do we have a well regulated militia? Yes, it's called the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment never granted the right for any old citizen to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment was designed for an 18th Century militia when members kept their equipment in their homes and no one had anything more deadly than a one-shot musket or, maybe, a repeating revolver.
I have to question whether the Founders intended for people to have semi-automatic assault rifles in their homes - a weapon that could've destroyed an entire regiment in the 18th Century.
Having said that, I do not oppose gun ownership. I wanted to make that very clear before some conservative comes back with an attack on me claiming I'm a "typical liberal" who wants to take everyone's guns away.
However, if we are to allow gun ownership, we have to do so in a responsible way, not hand them out like candy to any nutter, psychopath, convicted felon, or terrorist who can plop down a credit card.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 13, 2011 14:04:20 GMT -5
Lol, I think the funny part is is how he describes the Alaska Carry Law-----Kaufmann: Sounds like you’re getting out of the Alaska bill.
Helland: Oh yeah, I’m getting out of it after I end up on a blog.
Lukan: The Alaska bill – what’s the Alaska bill?
Helland. I’m the dirty hatchet man for the caucus. Something nobody wants to do. Some dirty, nasty job. I’m the one who gets dropped in you know why, ’cause I’m expendable.
Kaufmann: The crazy, give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill.
|
|