Gun looneydom is soaring to new heights
Carlos Latuff | Wikimedia Commons | Modified by Dan
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any dumber out there in gun-legislation land, along comes a state lawmaker who’s trying to make gun control a felony.
Meet Missouri Rep. Mike Leara, a Republican who represents a section of suburban St. Louis County.
He’s proposed a state law that would make it a crime for a lawmaker to sponsor gun control legislation.
From Talking Points Memo:
Any member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony,” Leara’s bill reads in its entirety.
. . .Unlike some of the sponsors of those bills, Leara said he doesn’t expect his bill to pass. He filed the bill criminalizing certain bill language to make a point about freedom, he said.
Amazingly, no Virginia lawmaker has thought to offer up this gem. I’ve got a better idea: How about a law criminalizing stupidity by lawmakers? Or at the least, a measure that would make them pay costs associated with sponsoring ridiculous legislation for the sole purpose of making “a point?”
February 20, 2013 - 9:00 AM
“stupidity by lawmakers?”
If indeed that was a crime we would not have prison space for the
offenders.
looneydom, now thats way over the top. gotta love this one. joe biden says you don’t need to own an ar15 rifle to protect yourself and property. he suggests we buy a shotgun, a double barrel at that, said it’s easier to aim and sure to make contact with the intended target. i agree!
Hey Dan, I checked with the NRA, they still don’t know who you are. Or care.
Have a great day!
Yeah they do Walt! Just another liberal transplanted yankee carpetbagger moved south and trying to impose their views and beleifs on the real people of america, Comment all you want about the way things get done around here but if you don’t like it, you always got the option of moving back up north!
Not sure how to break it to ya’, Garland, but there are plenty of us who were born and raised here who don’t like the way some things are done around here.
Oh and who is it that decides who are the “real people of america”? Reading or posting here are not mandatory…
Yep this ranks right up there with Salazar suggesting that women can’t figure out when they are being raped so they should not be able to carry a gun; But suggests a whistle (or run to a call box or safe zone) so they don’t ignorantly “pop” the aggressor.
Does this guy really believe that a woman does not know when she is being raped?
Stupid is not bound by right or left…
“Yep this ranks right up there with [Colorado state Rep. Joe] Salazar suggesting that women can’t figure out when they are being raped so they should not be able to carry a gun; But suggests a whistle (or run to a call box or safe zone) so they don’t ignorantly “pop” the aggressor.
Does this guy really believe that a woman does not know when she is being raped?
Stupid is not bound by right or left…”
-mikeO
I would agree with you that this was the same if Salazar proposed a bill banning women from owning guns. Do you have that bill number?
The answer is no because he never introduced such a bill. The Missouri lawmaker took “the point” he was trying to make to a very different and higher and even more stupid level.
By the way, mikeO, you have mischaracterized that bill. It would ban concealed carry on college campuses, not necessarily open carry. That’s a key difference.
Other RWer sites are making the same mischaracterization, for the purpose of criticizing the bill.
Was your mischaracterization deliberate or accidental?
“real people of america” Are they related to the People of Walmart?
Debbie | February 20, 2013 at 5:55 pm
“real people of america” Are they related to the People of Walmart?
Possibly. You could also find them at most meetings of the Roanoke
Co. Bd.of Supervisors where they’re discussing ICLEI, on the Tea Party
Website, at home listening to Rush Limbaugh or watching Sean Hannity,
or at your nearest convocation of the KKK.
Dan,
I never “characterized” any bill, I only posted what the man said…
sheeze you libprogs always want to make something out of nothing…
However,
To debate the “bill” (which I have not read, but will accept your analysis) you say the “bill” is about “open carry”, are you agreeing that “open carry” is acceptable for women who wish to protect themselves from potential felons; or do you think the “whistle, run to safe zones is adequate.?
BTW, Dan, I hope from this time hence, you might not disparage those legislators who disagree with your opinions if they only “speak” opposite as opposed to “introduce” bills opposite of your beliefs.
(like that “consistency” is going to happen)…lmao
On a side note: since I never have been able to find your response (since only a few posts are readable) about how bad your evil employer has treated you regarding your insurance, maybe you could repost your response.
Dan,
The caricature you posted is extremely racist, you must hate obama. You should be ashamed…
I never “characterized” any bill, I only posted what the man said…
sheeze you libprogs always want to make something out of nothing……
. . .On a side note: since I never have been able to find your response (since only a few posts are readable) about how bad your evil employer has treated you regarding your insurance, maybe you could repost your response.
–mikeO
mikeO,
My mistake, you’re right, you didn’t mischaracterize that Colorado bill.
FYI, I have never described my employer as evil or anything like that. You’re making that up. Why?
Carlos Latuff puts out some really over the top political satire. If you think this one is bad then don’t look for the one with Lady Liberty in a body bag.
Dan; re 9:59,
thanks…
The question was based on the comment about employer provided insurance and the suggestion that if the employee doesn’t like it he can go find another job.
I am glad that your employer provides good insurance, maybe that should be more of a thrust of conversation than employers are evil and don’t provide or assist their employees with issues that arise.
mikeO: “On a side note: since I never have been able to find your response (since only a few posts are readable) about how bad your evil employer has treated you regarding your insurance, maybe you could repost your response.”
Dan: I have never described my employer as evil or anything like that. You’re making that up. Why?
mikeO: “The question was based on the comment about employer provided insurance and the suggestion that if the employee doesn’t like it he can go find another job. I am glad that your employer provides good insurance, maybe that should be more of a thrust of conversation than employers are evil and don’t provide or assist their employees with issues that arise.”
mikeO, that’s an incredibly weak explanation. I’ve never written that my employer is evil or anything like that. You made that up. The question is, why? What was your purpose in doing that?
Dan,
The purpose of the query was to figure out if you had some personal reason to bash employer provided insurance.
“Dan,
The purpose of the query was to figure out if you had some personal reason to bash employer provided insurance.”
–mikeO
mikeO
That really weak, and it’s dishonest as well. You don’t have to pretend I wrote something that I did not to determine what you say you were trying to determine.
A far better way would be to ask the question directly: “Do you have some personal reason to bash employer provided insurance?”
Why did you invent words that I never wrote, and claim that I wrote them, instead of asking a straight question?
Boy, mike o, that was some sad feces.