Where Did HuffPo Get This Crap?

[Rusty5329]

I normally do not jump on the trash-huffpo bus. Sure, they act as if we landed on the moon 24/7 with their bigger than-life-headlines, and they jump at the slightest bit of school-ground gossip with a giddy smile splashed across their face (okay, that's just in my imagination, but it's the picture they paint). However for the most part, the political writers there are very good at what they do and are as smart as they come. So I keep on reading. Today I am fuming.

"Peter King, Leading Republican, To Introduce Strict Gun-Control Legislation"

That's the headline on one of their leading stories right now. And what I want to know, how one earth is anyone going to claim that Peter King is calling for gun-control, let alone strict gun-control?

Keep reading at Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/11/935415/-Where-Did-HuffPo-Get-This-Crap

[emulatorloo]

Yeah it isn't "Strict Gun Control"

OTOH I am getting pretty tired of seeing Gun Toting Protesters at Politically Rallies.

[emulatorloo]

1. Every post I make today gets duplicated. Should I buy a lottery ticket?

[hlthe2b]

3. I've had that problem the past several days as well...

Buy duplicate lottery tickets and send me one. ;)

[emulatorloo]

4. Let's cut out the middleman and get Skinner to double our money n/t

[hlthe2b]

2. His bill may not be going anywhere but it is for real

http://www.salon.com/news/guns/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/peter_king_gun_control
Outside of a pissing contest with Huffpo, I don't get the poster at Daily Kos' point-- but I am reminded why I detest the daily kos website. I can never find anything or follow any post without a dozen clicks or so. I find it even more irritating than Huffpo


Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports:

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

As I explored in a piece today, the chances that gun control legislation will pass through this Congress, even in the wake of the Arizona mass shooting, are slim.

But still, it's worth considering King's proposal. And if the goal is to prevent further incidents like the one on Saturday, it seems fair to conclude that King's legislation would not have any effect at all.

Consider if such a law had been in place when Jared Loughner went on his rampage Saturday. Nothing would have changed, except that he would now be facing one or two extra felony charges, on top of the five federal murder and attempted murder charges he already faces (and the state charges that are expected later).

There are other criticisms of King's reported proposal, too. As Huffington Post snarked on Twitter, "Someone please explain why we're introducing bills keeping guns 1000 ft away from gov't officials but not 1000 ft away from...er...people?"

[sabrina 1]

5. I agree about Daily Kos though, anything you read there

if it isn't just links to the MSM, always needs to be double-checked. I personally avoid the site, after witnessing the personal invective aimed at members and the trashing of people after they leave, like Cindy Sheehan, Greg Palast etc. Not a nice place to waste time on.

As for King's bill, it is real, but as already pointed out, why protect just politicians, don't ordinary people, who are killed in far greater numbers in these incidents, deserve protection from these gun-toting criminals?

[littlewolf]

6. ok I will take the bait .... which gun toting criminals are

you talking about ... proof please ...

[sabrina 1]

7. Are you serious?

Start with Jared Loughner who shot over a dozen ordinary citizens, one member of Congress, one judge (who he probably did not know was a judge) and one Congressional aide.

So, a gun-toting criminal aiming for a member of Congress, shot approx. 15 ordinary civilians. This is generally what gun-toting criminals do, they kill civilians in these tragedies. So why is Rep. King not more concerned about the threat to ordinary people posed by these guns being permitted in public places?

[Fla_Democrat]

8. That 1 extra law

would have stopped it all. Why, oh why, couldn't they pass a gun free zone type act in time to stop the lunatic from shooting every body?


hint..... "So, a gun-toting criminal aiming for a member of Congress, shot approx. 15 ordinary civilians. This is generally what gun-toting criminals do, they kill civilians in these tragedies."

"Criminals".... also.. break the law. If the law agains't murder didn't slow him down, you think the law limiting his carry ability would have worked? :eyes:





:smoke:

[sabrina 1]

15. Well, I wasn't defending King's law, if that's what you mean,

I was questioning why his law would only protect elected officials considering how many ordinary citizens died in all these shootings. If there's going to be a law, it should not just be aimed at elected officials. Gunmen have slaughtered people at McDonald's when no elected official was present eg. How do you stop that? We can't have gun free zones everywhere. We CAN make it impossible for would-be killers to have such easy access to guns that can kill so many people so easily.

[Fla_Democrat]

17. What I mean is

Laws have zero effect on people who by very definition, break them as part of their identity. The notion that making a 1000 feet safe zone, or a mile safe zone will be effective in stopping acts like this is delusional.


:smoke:

[sabrina 1]

18. Okay, I agree ~ I was struck by him not showing any concern

for the public ~ :-)

[littlewolf]

10. Jared Loughner was not a criminal until he committed the act.

[sabrina 1]

13. Then lets open the safes at all banks because no one is a criminal

until they commit the act.

I don't now what you're trying to say. No one is a criminal until they are convicted of the act. That doesn't mean we should assume people do not have criminal intentions and take precautions to protect innocent people from the very real possibility that some of them will and do commit crimes.

[littlewolf]

16. apples and oranges .. *yawn*

[Angry Dragon]

9. What, rep king, don't the rest of us matter??

How about make it illegal to bring a gun within 1000 ft of anyone??

[Rusty5329]

11. or at least...

within a 1,000 feet of children? One would think children deserve as gun-free an environment as elected officials, sadly, too many of our elected officials don't think that way.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. Maybe he wants to give free gun sights to everyone, to better control their guns

[Recursion]

14. Brilliant. The next attacker will know nobody within 1000 feet is armed

I don't see how this could possibly go wrong...