Knee-Jerk gun control reaches new low

What is as predictable as a threatened snowstorm bringing Atlanta to a standstill?  Answer – gun control advocates taking advantage of every shooting incident as an excuse to further restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights.  The recent shooting incident in Tucson, Arizona — involving a clearly deranged individual who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge and several other innocent people – is no exception. 

Doctors had barely announced that Rep. Giffords had survived the shooting, than gun-control legislators in the nation’s capitol began trotting out their latest anti-gun schemes. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, was in the forefront of this effort.  Close behind Ms. McCarthy was her Empire State colleague, Republican Peter King.  While most anti-firearms proposals emanating from the Congress are simply ineffective or unworkable; King’s most recent proposal is utterly idiotic. 

In response to the Tucson shooting — in which the gunman showed up at a public, outdoor town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Giffords in the parking lot of a local shopping center — King has proposed what has to be one of the silliest pieces of federal legislation in many a year.  He has suggested the federal criminal code be amended to incorporate a new provision making it illegal for a person to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress. 

One might suppose that – were King’s proposal to actually become law — Members of Congress would have to walk around at all times with some obvious form of identification readily discernible to everyone within 333-1/3 yards of their presence; something that identifies them as a “Member of Congress.”  Perhaps it would be required that every Member at all times wear a large hat with the congressional seal emblazoned thereon; or a distinctly colored sweatshirt with the words, “MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,” printed thereon in a bright, contrasting color.  

In the absence of such clearly identifying garb, it would be impossible for every individual to know for certain they were within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress; in order to ensure they moved beyond the protective zone or so they could dispose of any firearm they might lawfully be carrying at the time.  Because such scenario would be unworkable in the real world, perhaps the alternative is what King and others really have in mind – forcing everyone to assume at all times that a Member of Congress might be lurking somewhere within 1,000 feet of them, and insofar as every such Member is not necessarily known to every other citizen, one would be forced to presume at all times that such person might be nearby and therefore it never would be safe to carry a firearm. 

The King legislation also would preclude a Good Samaritan lawfully carrying a firearm from using their gun to stop a deranged shooter; such as actually happened in Tucson. 

These possibilities illustrate the idiocy of even considering a federal law to prohibit the carrying of a firearm within a certain number of feet of a Representative or Senator; but it is unlikely King or other gun-control advocates in the Congress engaging in typical, knee-jerk reaction to a shooting incident, will be deterred. 

That it already is a violation of federal law to threaten a Member of Congress or other federal official with a firearm, or to use such a weapon, or even to attempt or conspire to do so, seems irrelevant to King and his anti-gun colleagues.  But in their world, the response to every problem is always to propose more laws rather than simply to recognize that not every deranged person can always be stopped before they commit random or premeditated acts of violence.  In their world also, better and more consistent enforcement of existing laws is secondary always to proposing more laws; no matter how idiotic.

 -by Bob Barr, The Barr Code

166 comments Add your comment

Big Jim

January 18th, 2011
1:01 pm

The new low=Kunservatives fueling a fire,then running away when someone gets burned! Officially,kunservatives will have to see their loud mouthed spokesmen are causing a major problem,instigating the feeble minded.

The new low=anything that kunservatives do.


January 18th, 2011
1:05 pm

Didn’t congress just finish reading the constitution a week or so ago. seems like they still either don’t get it or they are in violation of thier oath of office and should be removed. for those that are plain afraid of guns I hope a neighbor or friend that is not afraid and does carry is close when something happens to you or your family so they can protect you.
Those of you that spout all these what if’s and maybes, forget it. it doesn’t wash. And for the rest that like to write about what you obviously know nothing about, why don’t you take some self defence lessons, learn the correct way to handle a firearm. Not saying you have to use or carry just learn about what you are talking about. because truthfully some of what I read here I think some are just folks that don’t understand. the rest of the antigun bunch need to move to a socialist country for a while. see how much you realy enjoy it.

One last thought not to pick on anybody but the guy with the daughters. What would you do if someone or more likely somebodies picked your house for a home invasion or attempted to hurt you and yours. What are your plans to protect them and yourself. Just asking please take time and actually run some senarios and post. Both my children were brought up around firearms of all kinds. they had to be able to recite and explain the 10 comandments of firearm safety before we went any further. Then I trained them in the different parts of a firearm and how the different types of firearms worked. then came the visual about the damage a firearm can do. (fill a gallon jug with red water and shoot it.It makes a very good impression on young children) then they learned how to shoot starting with a bb gun and moving up to larger firearms. step daughter was 12 when I started her training and son was 4. Never had an accident and they were watched very carefully while learning. never more that a foot away during instruction so I could take control of firearm if need be.
I and my wife and kids all know how to shoot and can defend themselves as we have needed to a few times. No shots fired but all it took was the other person to realize we were not an easy victim.
I also kept the kids firearms in my safe and when they wanted to shoot we did. take away the mystery and its not that big of a deal to the kids.and they know they are doing something that is considered adult. Most act very responsibly. I trained my boyscouts the same way.

BTW my carry is a kimber 5″ .45 230 gr xtp 8+1 and extra mags. have a nice day.

Jim Holzman

January 18th, 2011
1:17 pm

limit size of magazines and they will just bring 2 guns


January 18th, 2011
1:34 pm

In 1952 Judge Wade, Court of Common Pleas of Commonwealth of Pennysylvania, ordered a man to pay his wife $30.00 a week support.

On January 13, 1954 the man stood before Judge Wade and was asked if the man had anything to say for himself for not paying his wife’s support. At that time the man pulled out a Colt 45 and shot the Judge twice through the chest.
Now granted that was 57 years ago and since that time there has been steadily escalating murder with firearms, culminating recently with the shooting of another judge in Tuscon, Az.
It is time for realllly tough new gun laws and get these trigger happy anomalies off the street.


January 18th, 2011
1:51 pm

For the constitutional “literalists” who think “well regulated militia” according to the 2nd amendment means any idiot can have as many of any type of gun and can carry it anywhere all with no responsibility/accountablility, that amendment doesn’t mention bullets


January 18th, 2011
9:08 pm

I guess Bob Barr is one of the paid storm troopers sent out by the NRA to stifle any attempts at gun control. Bob thinks every psycho has a right to own an assault weapon with unlimited ammunition.


January 19th, 2011
2:30 pm

So, Bob, do you have any comment on high capacity magazines? Would you also elaborate on their usefulness to the ordinary U.S. citizen. Not being a knowledgeable gun person like you, do these high capacity magazines fit into the understanding of the Founding Fathers notion of how a citizen is to protect him or herself from the government?

I’m betting you won’t respond even though my post is somewhat dated.


January 19th, 2011
2:35 pm

All schizos who do not have a criminal record deserve to own guns- assault weapons are even better. You never know when one of those talking voices may try to attack us. What really pisses me off is that guy who knocked me to the ground with a chair of all things. The guy with a concealed weapon just stood there staring at me. And that little old lady who disarmed me by taking away my ammunition- what’s up with that.? Why can’t we have old fashion gun duels like that broad in Alaska said in her video?

Big Jim

January 19th, 2011
3:41 pm

Jarhead1982 scares me!This ain’t 1982!


January 19th, 2011
3:53 pm

I think we should take guns away from everybody and let the government protect us. If they make a law outlawing guns they will go away and bad guys will have to do something non-violent to live. I was one of the people who bought a $300,000 house and got scammed into an ARM loan because I didn’t think it was important to find out what an ARM loan was on my own, so now the government should be responsible for letting those big business jerks scam me in the first place. Good news though i got to keep my house but i never did find out what an ARM loan is but who cares. Everyone should just relax and let the government handle problems like this, they have specialists who know better than us what we should be allowed to do and not do. We need more programs to help us and those rich fat cats keep all the money for themselves while i have to sit at home and wait for a small check every month. It isn’t fair.


January 21st, 2011
5:52 am

I think we should take guns away from everybody and let the government protect us

ah…ha ha ha ha!…….we need guns to protect US from “the government(s)”….which are incompetent and corrupt at best and a bunch of out-of-control psychopaths at worst!….how many people have “governments” brutally murdered over the last century or so?

how many have “lone nut” gunmen murdered?


yeh….come DownUnder is youse want to see “gun laws strictly enforced”…..against the average punter, that is!….NO government can “strictly enforce” gun laws against criminals… Japanese Yakuza and Chinese Triads!…..

citizens need to be ARMED to both protect them from criminals, thugs and hoons AND from tyrannical governments (often one and the same!)


January 21st, 2011
6:06 am

I think we should take guns away from everybody and let the government protect us

i think we should take guns away from the government and protect OUR-SELVES!

the much-maligned Wild West was, in fact, one of the most peaceful, prosperous and tranquil locales that ever existed!

an armed society is a polite society!

Prfssr John Lott has categorically and irrefutably established this with unassailable intellectual rigor!

further-more, many of these so-called “lone-nut gun massacres” are highly dubious and suspect…with considerable evidence pointing to the distinct possibility of them being “false flag black psy-ops” inteneded to dis-arm a gullible citizenry!

cases in point: the Dunbland massacre in the UK and the Prt Arthur massacre in Australia, 1996……;

i’m not saying that this incident in Arizona was of the same “calibre” but, on the balance of probabilities, it may well have been!

t’aint “conspiracy theory”, either, but a rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the cold, hard facts of the matter that lead inevitably to such conclusion(s)!


January 21st, 2011
8:03 am

@ “freethinker”….. guess Bob Barr is one of the paid storm troopers sent out by the NRA to stifle any attempts at gun control. Bob thinks every psycho has a right to own an assault weapon with unlimited ammunition

uh….so sez “the commisar of political correctness”!

youse marxist jerks always roll out the “nazi” perjorative as proving the validity of yr “argument”….notwithstanding that any-one utilising the opprobium attached to a defunct, 70-year old “philosophy” that was extant for less than 15yrs is grasping at straws!

the Second Amendment should be a blanket right just like the First Amendment!…..”psychotic” people ain’t denied their right to Free Speech just becuase they’re “psychotic”, are they?

and, who determines “psychosis” any-way?
psychiatry is one of the most inexact ’sciences’ imaginable!

it’s more important that the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens are armed to protect them-selves from the REAL thugs, hoons & psychos….who’ll get weapons regardless!

most cops are incompetent, lazy, corrupt cowards….during the Virginia Tech’ massacre a few years back…most ran like scared rabbits!…..the average citizen CANNOT rely on the cops or the government for “protection”!…that’s why they must be armed!…if a few weapons fall into the hands of the deranged, then, that is a small price to pay for such freedom from fear!

US gun grabbers are ignorant fools!….they should try living in a dis-armed country like Australia or the UK to experience the joys of “out-of-control” thugs and psychos!…all heavily armed and all holding the incompetent coppers in utter and justified contempt!


January 21st, 2011
8:09 am

do these high capacity magazines fit into the understanding of the Founding Fathers notion of how a citizen is to protect him or herself from the government?


the “intent” of the Founding Fathers was that the government should NEVER have any sort of fire-power advantage over the average citizen!

as such: up until WWI, American citizens were entitled to own any sort of weapon that the government owned!

there is no other effective way to prevent tyranny!

the sad and sorry record of “governments” as a bunch of mass-murdering pscyopaths over the last century or so provides even more justification for the views of the FFs!….we should be taking more and more power OFF governemnts…NOT piling it on them!


January 21st, 2011
12:46 pm

All these same quacks that are supposedly anti-gun all have security detail that are as strapped as a Soprano mobster, ie; Rosie O’Donnell.


January 23rd, 2011
6:47 pm

I think a shirt with the words “Member Of Congress” would be too hard to discern from such a distance. Perhaps a simple symbol could be used to denote a person of high importance like having them wear a shirt with a large X or a series of concentric circles which could be recognized at the necessary distances. Also, taking a page note from the movie “Minority Report” could assist us in our endeavor. Let it be authorized and funded that we start a government agency with the purpose to identify “future crime” against people of “high” importance to ensure their safety. Until that time, all persons of high importance, please be sure to wear your shirts with the dayglow “I’m important” symbol when you are out in public. Thank you for your cooperation.