Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:03 PM ET, 01/11/2011

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) calls for gun-control legislation aimed at protecting lawmakers

By Rachel Weiner

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) plans to introduce legislation making it illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of lawmakers and some other government officials.

"It is imperative that we do all that we can to give law enforcement the tools they need to ensure the safety of New Yorkers and prevent an attack before it happens," King said at a news conference with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "That is why, as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and co-chair of the Congressional Task Force on Illegal Guns, I will be introducing legislation that would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials."

Bloomberg argued for reforms of the background check system.

"Just as we saw after Virginia Tech, the Arizona tragedy has once again exposed fatal cracks in our background check system," Bloomberg said. "The law says that drug abusers can't buy guns, but even though Jared Loughner was rejected by the military for drug use and arrested on drug charges, he was able to pass a background check and buy a gun. It should be clear to everyone that the system is broken, and it is time for our leaders in Washington to step up and fix it."

King is the first Republican lawmaker to seek new gun-control legislation in the wake of Saturday's fatal shootings. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) plans to introduce a bill to restrict sales of high-capacity ammunition clips like the ones used by the Tucson gunman.

Bloomberg News reports that sales of Glock pistols have risen since the attack. "When something like this happens, people get worried that the government is going to ban stuff," said gun shop owner Greg Wolff. "We're at double our volume over what we usually do."

By Rachel Weiner  | January 11, 2011; 3:03 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency, Culture Wars  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What President Obama should say (#obamashouldsay)
Next: Gabrielle Giffords staffers, volunteers carry on in face of tragedy

Comments

what if the Jews had a glock with a 32 round clip?? Would it have been so easy for the nazi's to send them to the gas chambers? I think not!!!!

Posted by: mrexcitement48 | January 13, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

Posted by: mrexcitement48 | January 13, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

to:greenmountainboy
Nuts?How intelligent!!
Maybe your first admendment rights should be restricted to a quail feather pen and parchment paper.You can never understand the true meaning of the 2nd admendment.You have no right to stop me from protecting my family or my country.,and you won't.

Posted by: mrexcitement48 | January 13, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

To:greenmountainboy
Nuts? How intelligent.Maybe your first admendment shoult be restricted to a quail feather pen and parchment paper.You will never understand the true meaning of the 2nd admendment.You can never interfere with my right to protect my family.

Posted by: mrexcitement48 | January 13, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

For all you nuts whining about a personal right to bear arms -- how's this? you have a right to bear the same kind of arms they had in 1787 -- flintlock rifles and fowling pieces. Carry them around all you want for your BS self defense. The rest of us will feel alot safer.

Posted by: greenmountainboy | January 12, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

You can pass all the laws you want, but it won't keep crazy people from doing what they want to do. You see crazy people and criminals don't care about laws.

So the law would do nothing but hurt law abiding citizens and take away more of their rights.

Posted by: tonyjm | January 12, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

When will Politicians realize that making more laws to protect people from Criminals is a fool hardy effort, nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to what they fear! There is no law or any current restriction that will stop a criminal from doing the harm they intend to do. The laws on the books did not prevent the Assignations of Presidents, or in the Dallas Police Station of a suspected asinine, to attempt to place another Gun Free Killing Zone to protect the members of Government would do absolutely nothing to keep them away from a criminal’s intent to do harm. Just accept the fact that you cannot hide from everyone nor can any Secret Service Agent or Police Officer keep you from harm, they may be able to put themselves between the criminals intended intent and you by taking the bullet for you but that is about the extent of it. Making a new Law or Restriction will accomplish nothing! Don’t fear the Gun fear the person holding it, Guns do not Kill, People Do!

Posted by: KellyJ2 | January 12, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant idea, Rep. King!

Because when nutjobs want to shoot lots of people, they NEVER do so in "gun-free" zones!

Posted by: caldodge | January 12, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Probably the last most reasonable attempt to have a logical gun policy was with the Brady Bill. For the most part, the NRA has succeeded in gutting it. No politician who wishes to get elected will fight the NRA no matter how much some common sense gun legislation maybe desired or needed. I did not say 'gun control' as this serves to spark reactions which cloud the problem. For Tucson this means another day or week of pious thoughts which will be forgotten. Until this incident Obama would not go to Arizona due to his policies on illegals. Congress and the Government in general are gradually removing themselves from the very public that elected them.

Posted by: KBlit | January 12, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Naturally, in his hysteria, Mr. King seeks to ban gun possession within 1000 feet of a "lawmaker". What a load of Horse Fritters! How about making it impossible for ANYONE from purchasing a 9mm Glock automatic weapon equipped with a 32 round clip or similar concealable weaponry without a stringent background check, so John Q. Public, AS WELL as the "lawmakers", has a margin of safety? I believe in America's right to bear arms, but MOST people do NOT need weapons of mass destruction such as the one used in Saturday's assault. Get real, Mr. King. Lawmakers are not the only ones in the cross hairs.

Posted by: billnbillieskid | January 11, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Naturally, in his hysteria, Mr. King seeks to ban gun possession within 1000 feet of a "lawmaker". What a load of Horse Fritters! How about making it impossible for ANYONE from purchasing a 9mm Glock automatic weapon equipped with a 32 round clip or similar concealable weaponry without a stringent background check, so John Q. Public, AS WELL as the "lawmakers", has a margin of safety? I believe in America's right to bear arms, but MOST people do NOT need weapons of mass destruction such as the one used in Saturday's assault. Get real, Mr. King. Lawmakers are not the only ones in the cross hairs.

Posted by: billnbillieskid | January 11, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

I guess his Lordship Peter King of KY believes the ex- Fabian Socialist, George Orwells dictum in Animal Farm. "all people are created equal but some are more equal than others"?
Didn't Adolph Hitler and the National Socialist use an assassination of a Nazi official by a Jewish man as a pretext for Krystal Nacht, Acrion 14 and a repressive, one-party rule? Like wise expect the dialectic Democrats will use this Arizona tradgedy as a ruse to enforce censorship and abrogate the Second Amendment.
The Christian, conservative, Caucasian, Constitution-loving, capitalist straight male is the Jew of the liberal 4th Reich.
What we need is an effective 10th Amendment in which liberals and conservatives can seperate and segreagate into states that best reflect their personal beliefs and ideologies. The influx or egress of capital and populations will show which political philosophies best engender freedom and prosperity. Its this monolithic, federal leviathan thing that causes our antipathy. Sovereign states would attract citizens of like minded ideals, These states could then agree to leave the other states to formulate governments within the will of their respective majorities. Liberals and conservatives could then live in what they believe to be the best form of government and leave each other alone. MG a Tea Party endorser.

Posted by: ServantusDei | January 11, 2011 10:59 PM | Report abuse

S C A R E - D - C A T!

Posted by: Confido | January 11, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I have a conceal carry permit. Maybe 2-3 times a year I use this permit to exercise my right. When I do so it is because of area I am traveling into or thru. No other reason than self-defense and exercise of common sense given the environment I would be found in. Rep King's proposal is knee jerk reaction. How about we pass a law that says a politician cannot come within 1000 feet of sane, hardworking, middleclass Americans. Better yet. Lets pass a law which says its against the law for politicians to give news conference, speak into microphones, appear on t.v. Better yet lets pass a law which says a politician cannot tell a lie within 1000 feet of any American public. I am a Republcian. Mr. King just proves that we have our moment of glory insane also.

Posted by: jhnpeppers | January 11, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I have a conceal carry permit. Maybe 2-3 times a year I use this permit to exercise my right. When I do so it is because of area I am traveling into or thru. No other reason than self-defense and exercise of common sense given the environment I would be found in. Rep King's proposal is knee jerk reaction. How about we pass a law that says a politician cannot come within 1000 feet of sane, hardworking, middleclass Americans. Better yet. Lets pass a law which says its against the law for politicians to give news conference, speak into microphones, appear on t.v. Better yet lets pass a law which says a politician cannot tell a lie within 1000 feet of any American public. I am a Republcian. Mr. King just proves that we have our moment of glory insane also.

Posted by: jhnpeppers | January 11, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I have a conceal carry permit. Maybe 2-3 times a year I use this permit to exercise my right. When I do so it is because of area I am traveling into or thru. No other reason than self-defense and exercise of common sense given the environment I would be found in. Rep King's proposal is knee jerk reaction. How about we pass a law that says a politician cannot come within 1000 feet of sane, hardworking, middleclass Americans. Better yet. Lets pass a law which says its against the law for politicians to give news conference, speak into microphones, appear on t.v. Better yet lets pass a law which says a politician cannot tell a lie within 1000 feet of any American public. I am a Republcian. Mr. King just proves that we have our moment of glory insane also.

Posted by: jhnpeppers | January 11, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I have a conceal carry permit. Maybe 2-3 times a year I use this permit to exercise my right. When I do so it is because of area I am traveling into or thru. No other reason than self-defense and exercise of common sense given the environment I would be found in. Rep King's proposal is knee jerk reaction. How about we pass a law that says a politician cannot come within 1000 feet of sane, hardworking, middleclass Americans. Better yet. Lets pass a law which says its against the law for politicians to give news conference, speak into microphones, appear on t.v. Better yet lets pass a law which says a politician cannot tell a lie within 1000 feet of any American public. I am a Republcian. Mr. King just proves that we have our moment of glory insane also.

Posted by: jhnpeppers | January 11, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

It is difficult to agree more with comments such as "what about the rest of us." Nice that Rep. wants to feel safe while walking the streets, but what about the rest of us. I can empathize with the good Republican who feels the heat when it gets close to home, but what about the rest of us?

Had there been 12-15 folks with hand guns at the scene would the tragedy have been smaller or greater?

Rep. King, what about the rest of us?

Posted by: Renaud21 | January 11, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

RealTexan1: NO NO NO. DON'T GIVE IN AND LET THE PASS SUCH LEGISLATON. I won't give up my 2nd Amendment RIGHTS. This RINO does not speak for the American public. We are out here in the real American, not in the Manhattan bubble or the Left Coast. Screw them. We will stand on our rights.

Posted by: baldrnyu | January 11, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Total insane law! How in the world would be know we are within a 1000 feet of anybody that fits that mold of "senator etc" Until 3 days ago I could have passed Gliffords on the street and never knew who she was! Yet, I conceal and carry! Does that mean I could be arrested for not knowing who is where. What if they come within 1000 feet of me? Total insanity!

Posted by: usmc1969 | January 11, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

codexjust1: If 26 percent of Americans have mental problems, it fairly well correlates to the number of liberal/progressives. If you think a nut will observe laws with further prohibitions, you are one of the 26 percent of the paranoid dilutionals. In fact in Arizona, there has NEVER been a CCW permit holder engage in a weapons felony. Ever.

Posted by: baldrnyu | January 11, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Let them create whatever kneejerk reaction gun control legislation they want. As citizens, we are the last bastion of freedom and we can always exercise jury nullification by refusing to convict anyone arrested for peacefully carrying in violation of these laws.

I will NEVER convict anyone of mere peaceful possession of a firearm.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | January 11, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

This just goes to show that even SOME Republicans are Morons. While ALL Democrats are. BTW, will this law include security guards, CIA, FBI, Local police and secret service??? OH, only the TAXPAYER you say!!!

Posted by: markypolo | January 11, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, an estimated 26.2% of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. That’s about 58 million people. Approximately 1.1% of the population suffers from schizophrenia, or about 2.5 million people. But the fact of the matter is that almost anyone can walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm. Heck (note the new toned down language) even people on the no-fly list can buy enough firepower to wage a small war. I’m glad Pete King and other lawmakers will take steps to protect themselves, but I can’t help but wonder why Mr. King and the rest of Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) refuse to take any measures to protect the rest of us?

Posted by: codexjust1 | January 11, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

This is purely political. The law would be of absolutely no value. Why can't people understand we are dealing with criminals. They don't obey the law, that is why we call them criminals. So, how is the law going to stop them from doing something like this guy did? If they intended to obey laws, they wouldn't be criminals. Passing laws will not stop any of this and outlawing guns will not take guns away from criminals. It will just create a black market for them just like what happened in prohibition. If you want to spend your time on something useful, find a way to get elected officials to listen and respond to the people. It might help some if people were not so angry at government. For that to happen, government has to begin to be responsive to the people. Of the people and for the people. What happened to that?

Posted by: dchapman | January 11, 2011 7:14 PM | Report abuse

What about the rest of us, Rep. King? I don't think my life's worth any less than your own.

Posted by: LHHeadJr | January 11, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

These are the same lawmakers who worry so much about their security but can't secure our countrys border puttings us all at risk. Once again guns don't kill people, and another stupid law will only keep more honest people from being able to defend themselves. The man who helped catch the attacker has a concealed weapon permit but pretty soon the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

Posted by: ren51 | January 11, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

How swiftly the Republicans change their colors (to yellow)..when the Cross hairs could be directed at them..!!

and
ESPECIALLY from their own Teabagger crowd

Posted by: IssaGallegos1 | January 11, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps if we just start behaving more civilly toward each other, leaving out the personal attacks and keep argument about policies not personalities, the nut cases would be easier to spot in the crowds. When everyone is angrily yelling and turning red in the face, it is hard to tell which one is going to pull out the gun and start shooting.

When you have those openly carrying weaponry to political gatherings where someone they obviously disagree with, how does one tell if this is the nut case? Perhaps we should install a psychiatrist at the door instead of police?

Posted by: alaskan2 | January 11, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

aserwin: I really doubt that Rep King is another liberal.

Posted by: sdexnorva | January 11, 2011 6:22 PM | Report abuse

aserwin: I really doubt that Rep King is another liberal.

Posted by: sdexnorva | January 11, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Creating yet another class protected by the law does nothing more than the present law which says it is against the law to shoot or kill people. Using a firearm doing it is another violation; now shooting a lawmaker is yet a third. The REAL issue (yes, I am one of those liberals) is getting lots of things out of circulation: guns, pistols, high rate of fire weapons. The notion that more guns in the hands of citizens will reduce crime did not work in this case, did it? I don't mind their being bought by folks who can "pass the test" but most states have so many loopholes around such rules that they are useless.

Posted by: sdexnorva | January 11, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

When will the lawmakers begin to realize that the people do not want them to continue to elevate their privileges above all the populace? I don't want any guns within 1000 feet of me, either. Lawmakers need to be treated like everyone else, then maybe we'll get some laws that make sense. As long as there is a class of lawmakers that remain above the fray, nothing they do will make life any different for the population in general. Besides, this is a basically unenforceable law. Or, it will end politicians meeting with people.

Posted by: jdennisg | January 11, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Did you know the man that tackled the shooter has a concealed weapons permit and was caring at the time of the incident. report that.

Posted by: tonyspdx | January 11, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Did you know the man that tackled the shooter has a concealed weapons permit and was caring at the time of the incident. report that.

Posted by: tonyspdx | January 11, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

This is outrageous. Why don't I as a normal everyday citizen enjoy the same protection from idiots toting guns? As a previous poster put it: what about the rest of us. Incredible..

Posted by: eh0710 | January 11, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Just so I understand his proposal, he's saying that had Rep Giffords and the Judge not been in that parking lot, he otherwise would not want to have infringed on Laughner's 2nd Amendment right. Perhaps he's suggesting the rest of us schlubs are worth only 3/5 ths of a person?

Posted by: tzem | January 11, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

No surprise there! This is how it starts. This is how we get to where Liberals want to go... 2 classes of citizens; with different rights, with different privileges. This is Barack Obama's America. Welcome to it!

Posted by: aserwin | January 11, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

By "certain high-profile government officials," King probably means Republicans.

Posted by: rw-c | January 11, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

They are killing an average of one a day just across the Anacostia river from DC and Mr. King wants to create a special or protected class of citizen. Obvious Mr. King is being reactionary here or is either afraid or stupid. Whatever the case he should consider another line of work.

Posted by: slim21 | January 11, 2011 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Rep Peter King only respects the Second Amendment FOR himself, and otherwise wants it kept at some distance FROM himself.

Typical "solution" from the ruling elites... extra protection for them. To hell with the rest of us. And an idiotic, pointless "solution" even for King's apparent purpose: it is already illegal to shoot and murder people, whether they are members of Congress or not... and if any law enforcement officer had SEEN this guy approaching a crowd of people with gun in his hand, the nut would already have been confronted and arrested (or shot), whether there was a Congressperson in the area or not.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | January 11, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Rep King what makes you and other officials so special? Do you plan to wear an electronic device that beeps when a gun owner accidentally gets within the legally prescribed distance? How will I know when an elected official suddenly enters the same grocery store and I'm immediately forced to leave due to be in too close proximity of your holiness. Will you employ someone to announce your arrival and departure into every public building? Preferably one wearing a Beefeater costume to add to the hilarity of the situation. Your knee jerk reaction is asinine. Rep King do your job and increase the odds that it's another 33 years before another elected official is attacked by an insane citizen. Only a politician would want such special treatment because they are "special". Most of us would prefer you resign and allow someone with common sense to take your place.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | January 11, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Great!

Yesterday, we had a Dem politico not wanting to be treated like "everybody else" by the TSA at airports, now we have a Repub politico wanting to "ensure the safety of New Yorkers" via "introducing legislation that would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials."

Ahh, the Special Ones. It must be wondrous indeed to feel that you are so much more important than the little people. Really no difference between the parties, they'll both use the congresswoman's sorrows to line their pockets, push their agendas, make themselves more powerful and lecture us about our failings.

Posted by: deadmanwalking | January 11, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

So what will constitute a "high profile" person? Seems a little ambiguous and a law that if not worded correctly, can be enforced whenever it suits them..........

Posted by: Jsuf | January 11, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I want to understand this new law if a law maker protected under this act drives down your street. You peacefully own a gun in your home and your house is less than 1000 feet from the road have you now committed a fed crime?

Posted by: petermcknight | January 11, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

What a classic knee-jerk reaction by a Republican, ban all handguns within 1,000 feet of a politician. And just who is going to carry the tape measure and who is going to search for the guy with the handgun and no permit? If there was ever a poster child for STUPID, he is it. The assailant could just as easily be a police officer with an issued sidearm or as the Army officer on post with a weapon who takes his vexation out on anyone he can find.

NO more gun control laws like this. This guy is Mrs. Gump's model child, stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: ronjeske | January 11, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, this is a step in the right direction. But why are we limited gun control and security to just lawmakers? What about all the everyday people who have died in acts of violent rampage? More innocent victims have died as a result of gun violence than just politicians. If we are going to enact gun control, which we should why limit to lawmakers many of whom already appear to the public as elite?

Posted by: sak54 | January 11, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

So now we have lawmakers panicking. That's just asking to have people arrested because they inadvertently walk or drive within range of a lawmaker.

If they really want to protect lawmakers they need to act as reasonable adults and not as spoiled little children. If they don't show respect for opposing viewpoints they cannot expect others to respect them. It is the politicians attitudes that makes people think they can act the same.

Posted by: reiley | January 11, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

@pgmichigan —

Machine guns ARE illegal....certainly no child is walking around with legally acquired machines guns...learn about gun laws before you open your mouth...your ignorance is showing.

Posted by: davebriggman | January 11, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins wrote: :we hear you...according to your wishes...you will feel steel instead..."

It would be nice if Sista Sarah got some steel...right between her eyes.

We can only hope.

Give the right a taste of their own hate. Yeah, that's the ticket. Teach 'em a lesson. They understand only force. Yeah, right between the eyes.

Posted by: Garak | January 11, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

If this law passes, the key will be to always stay within 1000 feet of a covered government official. I may have to move...

Posted by: MarkMcK1 | January 11, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Isn't King one of the firebrand right wingers, or am I thinking of a different King (maybe Steve King?). In any case, how cowardly that the GOP can consider protecting their own butts while leaving the rest of the population out to dry because they're too afraid to anger the NRA terrorism lobby.

Posted by: B2O2 | January 11, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Like part of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, declared unconstitutional when it banned possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school, I'd likely file a suit challenging a constitutionality of this piece of crap -- assuming it ever sees enactment.

A moving 1000 feet circle around joe blow congressman or joe blow federal judge makes massive arrests possible.

Congressman King, you way wish to extend your vacation...those of us with concealed handgun permits need to ring this idiot's phone off the hook.

Washington Office
339 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202-225-7896 Fax: 202-226-2279
Pete.King@mail.house.gov

Posted by: davebriggman | January 11, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"What about the rest of us?
Posted by: FlatEarth | January 11, 2011 4:56 PM | Report abuse "

we hear you...
according to your wishes...
you will feel steel instead...

Posted by: DwightCollins | January 11, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, this is just grand.

So I'm sitting with my family in a restaurant, legally carrying a weapon. In walks some congressman, and I am commiting a felony if I don't get up and leave immediately.

To be perfectly honest, I would probably leave anyway - but that does not mean that I should not be guilty of a felony if I first finish the dinner I paid for.

Posted by: fizzlechip | January 11, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Did you say Republican??? He will be chased from the party for taking a bold stand. Better solution is to get rid of "repeating" handguns and to make AK-47 type machine guns completely illegal. A kid walking around New York, Chicago, or Cleveland does NOT need a machine gun. In addition, there needs to be a better system of background checks.

Posted by: pgmichigan | January 11, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

A little late when we have given anyone, in this country, the right to carry guns openly, wherever they chose.

Posted by: brit89 | January 11, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Only for lawmakers? King continues to be a creep who I consider not to be a typical New York politician. He has no heart. Notre Dame U. did not do much for him as a human being.

Posted by: truth1 | January 11, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

A little late when we have given anyone, in this country, the right to carry guns openly, wherever they chose.

Posted by: brit89 | January 11, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

What about the rest of us?

Posted by: FlatEarth | January 11, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

What about the rest of us?

Posted by: FlatEarth | January 11, 2011 4:56 PM | Report abuse

What about the rest of us?

Posted by: FlatEarth | January 11, 2011 4:56 PM | Report abuse

What about the rest of us?

Posted by: FlatEarth | January 11, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure that having a law on the books would have stopped this guy in his tracks. He'd have thought twice and said to himself, "Self, I'm not going to go to a store and kill up a bunch of people because the law says that I can't come within 1,000 of certain high-profile policymakers. We'll have to go with Plan B, writing my congresswoman a letter instead."

And, this is so typical Republican. Let everyone else get all shot up by gun nuts hiding under the Second Amendment so they can continue to make their billions in weapons manufacturing but then try to protect their own hides. These people get on my last nerve. I swear.

Posted by: TruthBKnown2 | January 11, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

What happens when a high profile lawmaker visits a military base? What about the policemen and women around them? Security personnel? Private security people? Air Marshals? How about the gun store that the lawmaker passes on the way to the ice cream parlor? What if the lawmaker is walking down the street and he passes by a legally-carrying, concealed-weapons-permitted citizen who is sitting at an outdoor cafe?

And who says who is a high profile government official? Isn't that, like, everybody who works at any governmental level?

Basically a would-be assassin would probably ignore that law, right? I mean they are planning to break civil and moral laws ANYway, so what's another broken law to their list of "counts"?

Sounds like more arm waving and yelping and not-really-thinking-things-through in response to a tragedy that will just add to more useless legislation.

It would be better to develop a way to identify and treat the psychotic people that do these evil things in the first place-before they would do such things.

Posted by: puppy2 | January 11, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure that having a law on the books would have stopped this guy in his tracks. He'd have thought twice and said to himself, "Self, I'm not going to go to a store and kill up a bunch of people because the law says that I can't come within 1,000 of certain high-profile policymakers. We'll have to go with Plan B, writing my congresswoman a letter instead."

And, this is so typical Republican. Let everyone else get all shot up by gun nuts hiding under the Second Amendment so they can continue to make their billions in weapons manufacturing but then try to protect their own hides. These people get on my last nerve. I swear.

Posted by: TruthBKnown2 | January 11, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

What?! A law only for yourselves? What about the rest of us? So, those that got shot in Arizona don't matter?

Posted by: goldryu | January 11, 2011 4:49 PM | Report abuse

King must be stupid, even for a Republican -- thinking that passing a law which the criminally insane will obey? Usually we see such pandering idiocy only from democrat lawmakers -- ala "look how righteous I am by this law I wrote". He's fooling no one who has half a brain. Shame on him.

Posted by: ah6602 | January 11, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I don't think King's proposed law would be enforceable. The cops would have to frisk everyone within 1000 feet of the politician

Posted by: crudblue | January 11, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

How about a prohibition of firearms within 1000 yards of me too? I guess my life and safety don't matter to this guy.

Posted by: audritsh | January 11, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Law makers making a law to protect themselves? Interesting.....

Posted by: kishorgala | January 11, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Just curious sir, what about the 'right to bear arms'? It is the background check process that is apparently flawed. I'd be facinated to hear how you propose this idiot suggestion be enforced.

Posted by: azspots | January 11, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company