Boehner opposes new gun-control bill

[WestVirginiaRebel]

The Hill:

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation offered by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in response to the weekend shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Arizona.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) announced plans Tuesday to introduce legislation prohibiting people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of members of Congress.

King, who has previously called for the removal of illegal guns from the streets, made the announcement alongside New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation’s loudest voices for stricter gun laws.

King said the legislation is not intended only for the safety of government officials but also to protect the public. He said elected officials are not necessarily more important than constituents, but by protecting them in this way, they would feel safer in meeting federal officials at public events.

“The fact is they do represent the people who elect them, and it’s essential, if we’re going to continue to have contact, that the public who are at these meetings are ensured of their own safety,” King said.

King’s legislation got the cold shoulder from Boehner and other Republicans after it was announced.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said the Speaker would not support King’s legislation.

The office of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the majority leader is reserving judgment until the King bill is finalized.

“Mr. Cantor believes it’s appropriate to adequately review and actually read legislation before forming an opinion about it,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring stated in an e-mail.

The immediate rejection of King’s legislation by Boehner illustrates the difficulty gun-control advocates will face in moving forward with any legislation.

Even Capitol Hill’s most ardent gun reformers don’t anticipate any changes to the nation’s gun laws will be forthcoming in the 112th Congress. They say the combination of a GOP-led House and the powerful gun lobby is simply too formidable to take on over an issue that’s become a proverbial third rail of Washington politics.

“Anything you can get through the gun lobby is going to have little consequence,” Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a longtime supporter of tightening Second Amendment restrictions, said in a phone interview. “I don’t see the likelihood of much progress — I don’t see much hope.”
________

Fortunately, the rest of the country does. Good for Boehner on this one.

[pollyannaish]

Excellent.

 

Now. I saw Boehner talking about the Arizona thing today...and I need the guy to quit with the trembling lip/crying stuff.

 

Once in awhile when he feels very strongly about an injustice fine...but at this point I'm getting a little irritated with it.

[ErnstBlofeld]

I like the idea that there is a protective line for Congressmen. Now they have to approprate funds for security.

[AceRimmer]

I like the idea that there is a protective line for Congressmen. Now they have to approprate funds for security.

 

Fine, they can pay for their own CCW permits and handguns, and if they want bodyguards, they can pay for those out of their own pockets, too!

[ErnstBlofeld]

I like the idea that there is a protective line for Congressmen. Now they have to approprate funds for security.

 

Fine, they can pay for their own CCW permits and handguns, and if they want bodyguards, they can pay for those out of their own pockets, too!

They can have their CCW but don't hold your breath they are going to pay for it.

[SrWoodchuck]

I like the idea that there is a protective line for Congressmen. Now they have to approprate funds for security.

I think it's a horrible idea. It increases the real & perceived distance between the legislators & the public they represent. Imagine the imagery of a legislative police force, providing a "safe" barrier between the two. Absolutely & incredibly stupid!

 

Americans are already separated in spirit & in fact, from elected representatives that act in a horribly partisan manner that reflects only the best of what they can be & grab for themselves. Now add gun-toting guards, and you have a banana republic or a communist oligarchy.

[ErnstBlofeld]

I like the idea that there is a protective line for Congressmen. Now they have to approprate funds for security.

I think it's a horrible idea. It increases the real & perceived distance between the legislators & the public they represent. Imagine the imagery of a legislative police force, providing a "safe" barrier between the two. Absolutely & incredibly stupid!

 

Americans are already separated in spirit & in fact, from elected representatives that act in a horribly partisan manner that reflects only the best of what they can be & grab for themselves. Now add gun-toting guards, and you have a banana republic or a communist oligarchy.

 

Out of 20 known assasination assasination and plots against the POTUS., only one (Lee Havey Oswald) was at a distance. Oswald used WWII rifle in a six story building at a moving car.The rest were people walking up to the president in the crowd. I would also like to use George Wallace as an example. In 1972, George Wallace was shot shot five times by Arthur Bremer.He walked up to George Wallace and left him paralyzed from the waist down.The bullet was lodged in his spinal cord.Wallace was shot at a shopping center. This was eeerily similar to what happened in Arizona. All U.S congressmen deserve to the same protective bubble like the POTUS.If its working for the POTUS that same privilege should be extended to members of Congress.

[pollyannaish]

I have to respectfully disagree. When you consider how long and how many people have served in congress, it is truly amazing this sort of thing happens this infrequently.

 

We live in an amazing country where we really do have the opportunity to have powerful people we have access to. I remember years ago, when Nethercutt was running against Tom Foley. I live in a tiny town, and I pulled next to an SUV at a stoplight. Sitting right next to me was a yawning Tom Foley in the passenger seat.

 

I thought what a great country that the third most powerful person in my country is sitting right here next to me on a regular Tuesday afternoon.

 

Of course, my next thought was that I couldn't wait to vote against the $%^&*#$%^&*...but I digress.

[SrWoodchuck]

I like the idea that there is a protective line for Congressmen. Now they have to approprate funds for security.

I think it's a horrible idea. It increases the real & perceived distance between the legislators & the public they represent. Imagine the imagery of a legislative police force, providing a "safe" barrier between the two. Absolutely & incredibly stupid!

 

Americans are already separated in spirit & in fact, from elected representatives that act in a horribly partisan manner that reflects only the best of what they can be & grab for themselves. Now add gun-toting guards, and you have a banana republic or a communist oligarchy.

 

Out of 20 known assasination assasination and plots against the U.S., only one (Lee Havey Oswald) was at a distance. The rest were people walking up to the president in the crowd. I would also like to use George Wallace. In 1972, George Wallace was shot shot five times by Arthur Bremer.He walked up to George Wallace and left him paralyzed. This was eeerily similar to what happened in Arizona All U.S congressmen deserve to the same protective bubble like the POTUS.

Ernst, you are completely & totally wrong, and nothing you say will make me believe that our legislators need a police force to keep them safe in addition to all the other perks they get when punching out one term in the Senate or House & getting benefits forever. If you don't have the balls to represent your constituency without your coterie of armed protectors.....don't do it! It will stop being America at that point, but I doubt you can ever see that.

[ErnstBlofeld]

I like the idea that there is a protective line for Congressmen. Now they have to approprate funds for security.

I think it's a horrible idea. It increases the real & perceived distance between the legislators & the public they represent. Imagine the imagery of a legislative police force, providing a "safe" barrier between the two. Absolutely & incredibly stupid!

 

Americans are already separated in spirit & in fact, from elected representatives that act in a horribly partisan manner that reflects only the best of what they can be & grab for themselves. Now add gun-toting guards, and you have a banana republic or a communist oligarchy.

 

Out of 20 known assasination assasination and plots against the U.S., only one (Lee Havey Oswald) was at a distance. The rest were people walking up to the president in the crowd. I would also like to use George Wallace. In 1972, George Wallace was shot shot five times by Arthur Bremer.He walked up to George Wallace and left him paralyzed. This was eeerily similar to what happened in Arizona All U.S congressmen deserve to the same protective bubble like the POTUS.

Ernst, you are completely & totally wrong, and nothing you say will make me believe that our legislators need a police force to keep them safe in addition to all the other perks they get when punching out one term in the Senate or House & getting benefits forever. If you don't have the balls to represent your constituency without your coterie of armed protectors.....don't do it! It will stop being America at that point, but I doubt you can ever see that.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink .We need lessons from the past,remember George Wallace. Sombody from the crowd walked up to him and shot him and paralyzed him. Just like somebody from the crowd walked up to Congressman Giffords in Arizona and changed her life forever.There were no protection from the crowd in both cases.I believe the day of federal officials interacting with the public has gone the way of the dodo. It has become too dangerous(escpecially with psychiatric nutcases wuth guns) in a post 9/11 world and we need to be security conscience. They deserve the same security as the POTUS.

[ErnstBlofeld]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. George Santayana