Senate panel on Guns and Terrorists. May 5

[douglasmorris99]

Hello folks, First post I think, been lurking off and on.
I found this and want fellow gun owners to know Bloomburg is getting to visit DC and decry private gun ownership in one form or another.

lets all keep an eye on this nonsense....
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cf ... c0dd65d02d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalipsocs]

Bloomberg, Sheriff from LA, Senator from New Jersey, a Representative from New York....hmmm wonder how this is gonna go. Luckily a senate hearing is quite useless minus supeona(sp?) power and threat of purgery. I'm sure that some senator could use it as basis from legislation, but I would say that given the buy up in 2008 and a dodgy mid-term election for dems anyway I am not worried....at the moment.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

If the Dems/Obama decided to go after 2A rights,
they wouldn't even need to wait for the next elections
to get spanked.

There would be such an uproar from the NRA and other
2A friends that any further restrictions on our rights would
be immediately rebuffed by the citizenry.

Bill Clinton acknowledged in an interview that Al Gore
probably lost at least 5 states due to the Assault Weapons
Ban of <1994?>

SIA

[boomerang]

Bloomberg, Sheriff from LA, Senator from New Jersey, a Representative from New York....hmmm wonder how this is gonna go.

Sounds like the Senate invited terrorists to speak.

[UpTheIrons]

Actually, Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, whose district is part of Long Island, is a pretty hawkish guy. Of course, his previous ties to the IRA might be what got him on the panel. Well, that or his seat on the Committee on Homeland Security in the House of Reps.

His personal stance on guns seems a bit schizophrenic (from ontheissues.org):
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated D by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Then there's this gem on his house webpage. That stupid Frank Luntz poll that says the NRA supports gun control:
http://www.peteking.com/NRASupportsKing ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now I don't know what to think...

[kalipsocs]

Actually, Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, whose district is part of Long Island, is a pretty hawkish guy. Of course, his previous ties to the IRA might be what got him on the panel. Well, that or his seat on the Committee on Homeland Security in the House of Reps.

His personal stance on guns seems a bit schizophrenic (from ontheissues.org):
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated D by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Then there's this gem on his house webpage. That stupid Frank Luntz poll that says the NRA supports gun control:
http://www.peteking.com/NRASupportsKing ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now I don't know what to think...

Look at the company he keeps. Birds of a feather...

[Skiprr]

Washington Post article on the hearing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03670.html

To the Post's infrequent credit when the subject is gun control, they actually quoted an opposing viewpoint:

Speaking against the proposed legislation at the hearing was Aaron Titus, privacy director of a Washington-based group called the Liberty Coalition. He said the group "takes no official position on 'gun control' per se," but that "we are very alarmed at legislative attempts, though well-intentioned, which strip away individual constitutional protections."

He said in prepared testimony that the bills in question "strip citizens of their enumerated constitutional right to bear arms without any meaningful due process and create a national firearms registry."

The committee "should not spend time debating whether to take away terrorists' guns, bombs, cell phones, cars or other instruments of terrorism," Titus said. "If a person is a dangerous terrorist, then he should be thrown in jail." He added, however, that the proposed Senate legislation "is based on the assumption that all individuals on terrorist watch lists are terrorists," an assumption he argued is impossible to check.