Does this mean I can hop into my time machine and stop myself from praising,   formally endorsing and even campaigning for Toomey?

For the Constitution, it is the death of a thousand cuts. 

For the Marxi...errr...Progressives out there, its two steps forward, one step back.  This being one of those forward ones.

Get a sinus infection, we remove a kidney.

It's the Government Way.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:34 PM (f9c2L)

Why are you asking Ace?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:34 PM (f9c2L)

I am in favor of abolishing all background checks since 1) they don't work and 2) there is no reasonable restriction to a Constitutionally protected right. Take it as you will, I see that Chicago is a veritable utopia of non-violence since they have such strict gun control.

Post a comment, we remove spaces.

It's the AOS way.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

===========

Uh, it is already illegal for someone who is "mentally ill" to purchase a firearm.

What, pray tell, would your point be?

Posted by: Yip at April 11, 2013 01:39 PM (/jHWN)

and always equally effective.

If you pass a criminal background check, you can buy a gun. It's the people who fail a criminal or mental health background check that we don't want having guns.

So, hang on.   If you pass a CRIMINAL background check, you can buy a gun.   But it's the people who fail a CRIMINAL      or  MENTAL HEALTH background check who CAN'T have a gun.        Am I reading that correctly?   Yes?

So since doctors will    allegedly have the ability to add a patient's name to the "not mentally stable" list   for the purposes of background checks,   and since   all doctors will eventually be government employees thanks to fucking Obamacare,   and   since   conservatism has been labeled in multiple    scientific journals as being   an     abnormal      ideological belief system and therefore a form of mental illness  (Just like how "global warming" is SETTLED SCIENCE,   don't'cha know, b/c all the journals say it   is)....

Yeah, not hard to see where that's going.  

Posted by: Andy at April 11, 2013 01:38 PM (8vKPP)

You pass a background check for that spitball shooter?

Interesting item from the latest CMP newsletter...the FBI has suspended indefinitely accepting customer service calls for the status of NICS background checks.

In other words, the current system is bogged down with delays and the NICS people can't even answer the phone for people wondering about the status of "delay" responses.

Now there's talk about adding millions more transactions onto that already overburdened system?  And it doesn't even stop crime, frankly. 

But no, hey, "it's not the end of the world."  Like that's an argument.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:40 PM (f9c2L)

And a private seller who was a responsible gun owner wouldn't do it without having someone he knows and trusts vouch for the purchaser. The guy selling them out of the trunk of his car in downtown Chicago, on the other hand...

Again, for the horde:

Researchers estimate that if mental illness could be eliminated as a factor in violent crime, the overall rate would be reduced by only 4 percent. That means 96 percent of violent crimes—defined by the FBI as murders, robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults—are committed by people without any mental-health problems at all. Solutions that focus on reducing crimes by the mentally ill will make only a small dent in the nation’s rate of gun-related murders, ranging from mass killings to shootings that claim a single victim. It’s not just that the mentally ill represent a minority of the country’s population; it’s also that the overlap between mental illness and violent behavior is poor.

========================================

Title: "Why Improving Mental Health Would Do Little to End Gun Violence"

Google teh title.

Sen. Toomey, I supported you in 2004 and was grievously disappointed when Senator Santorum and President Bush didn't.

Today, I am grievously disappointed in you.

A private seller who knows nothing about this person can legally sell him a firearm with no background check.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:40 PM

And as demonstrated by Andy above (not Ace), even with a background check it doesn't work.  States don't always report mental health records out of "privacy" concerns.  And when the system DOES work (in the case of Lanza), the loony just gets his gun another way.

Title: "Why Improving Mental Health Would Do Little to End Gun Violence"
Google teh title.

Posted by: Jay at April 11, 2013 01:43 PM (3LaGb)

But if it can save just one life...

@44.  "The only way to stop them is to have all private sales go through a dealer."

?

The fuck?

that will stop criminals from getting guns?

*dreaming of that first sip of Buffalo Trace*

So, Ace. You are in favor of abolishing all background checks, correct?
Since some nuts passed background checks they are completely useless?

LOOK OUT!    I see a huge flaming STRAWMAN running this way!

Where in ANY part of this post does anyone say that background checks should be abolished because they're useless?   Really, where?      

Could it ACTUALLY be -- just spitballing here -- that Andy's point is that we already    HAVE    background checks;    that those background checks cleared these particular lunatics    and didn't do jackshit to prevent their killing sprees;      and that, viewed from THAT perspective,   adding EVEN MORE background checks for EVEN MORE venues amounts to nothing more than a bureaucratic,   illegal    circumvention of    the 2nd amendment    designed to create an additional barrier to access for law    abiding people who wish to exercise their   Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Huh?   Could it?   Huh?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:42 PM (f9c2L)

Sure, cause the criminals will adhere to THAT law even though they ignore all the other ones. You are either hopelessly naive or willfully ignorant (or a troll).

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 11, 2013 01:39 PM (9Bj8R)

Dear God yes.  The lazy fucks in Congress that pass these extremely non specific bills and then just transfer responsibility to quisling shitheads to implement whatever the fuck they feel like (and always err on the side of taking rights away from people and making them knuckle under to the fed monster) all deserve to be drawn and quartered.

Posted by: Dennis at April 11, 2013 01:39 PM (2cR/Y)

Kirk is such a milquetoast sellout he makes other RINOs look positively Reaganesque in comparison.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

===============

You are ignorant beyond belief.

You do realize that Possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws, right?

You do realize Possession isn't purchase, right?

Since you are a silly prick, I'm going to bury you in facts.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

===============

Federal Law

 Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

Posted by: JDP at April 11, 2013 01:45 PM (60GaT)

That's why I prefer bigger ships.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2013 01:45 PM (SY2Kh)

I agree and when you lack a perfect solution you should err on the side of not taking away rights.

See.. here's where you are wrong. It is not illegal for them to purchase a firearm.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

  ===============

Stupid shit, we could fit what you don't know about this issue into the grand canyon, fill it up, and have a dance party on top.

State laws:

Arkansas:

No person shall possess or own any firearm if he or she has been:

 Adjudicated mentally ill; or

 Committed involuntarily to any mental institution

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:42 PM (f9c2L)

You totally misrepresent the main opinion and I think you know it. Most of us *don't* think criminals should have guns. We think criminals should be in jail. What we *know* is that criminals *already* get guns, especially in gun control havens such as Chicago, D.C., and New York. The failure of your pet hobby horse in the light of reality in no way obligates the rest of us to forgo our rights. 

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 11, 2013 01:42 PM (eytER)

------------------------------------------------

Ever heard of Cloward-Piven?

See.. here's where you are wrong. It is not illegal for them to purchase a firearm.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry
===============

Actually dum-dum, it is illegal for "mentall ill" people to posesess firearms.

Given that fact, please explain your point again?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:45 PM (f9c2L)

IE, straw purchasing, IE, already illegal background check or not. And of course I'm certain that the BATFE-I-E-I-O was johnny-on-the-spot to arrest both the purchaser and ABC News?

No?

0.0 <---- surprized face...i haz one...

Posted by: Andy at April 11, 2013 01:50 PM (0Veb5)

Damn Republican obstructionism.

Hey jerry, let me know how many state laws you would like me to reference regarding the illegality of posessessing a firearm by the mentally ill.

Delaware prohibits the purchase, ownership, possession or control of a firearm or ammunition by any person:

I sure am glad that our whole government has nothing more important to do than this.  It's nice to see them focusing on the really important things, like the debt, unemployment, urban blight, etc.

Pass the rosin, Obama and the Senate are going to play us another violin concerto while everything burns.

103, I think you could meet the insane definition they have now.

Hi AtC, How are you?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 11, 2013 01:52 PM (F3G1y)

But yet, most of the time not. Proof that Darwin was full of shit.

Again for the horde:

If mental health professionals were required to report severe mental illness (such as paranoid schizophrenia) to state authorities, it would have an immediate chilling effect on the willingness of people to disclose sensitive information, and would discourage many people from seeking treatment. What about depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse or post-traumatic stress disorder, along with other types of mental illness that have some link to self-harm and impulsive action? The scope of disclosure that the government could legally compel might end up very wide, without any real gain in predictive accuracy.

==========================

Title: "Why Mental Health Screening Of Gun Buyers Is No Answer"

Google teh title

Since private sales are not inter-state commerce, on what Constitutional authority are these ass-wipes basing their bill upon?

Posted by: Mr Pink at April 11, 2013 01:52 PM (dWFb6)

No, but on this subject he is perfectly willing to lie as well as misrepresent the rest of us to protect his hobby horse. My children *will not* be made to pay for his inability to face reality.

Posted by: joncelli at April 11, 2013 01:52 PM (RD7QR)

Exactly

I'm without words today in describing my feelings.  And I think that's probably true for many people.  As I've said before, we're running out of words to deal with this.  What's next?

I know what I'm going to do.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2013 01:52 PM (SY2Kh)

No they are not. There are no reasonable restrictions. Prisoners and convicted felons have had their rights taken from them by due process. Threats or extortion isn't about speech, it's about fraud. The list is endless...in examples of over-reach and usurpations. The restrictions that the law abiding endure are not reasonable. My statement stands.

And, CW Cook has it wrong.  This Bill is a Universal Registration bill.

It will fail at that, too, but this is effectively Universal Gun Registration- unless you believe that the Government isn't actually going to keep record of those Criminal Background checks which just so happen also to note the model and sierial number of the weapon you're purchasing.

Now, as someone pointed out in an earlier thread- it just means more people will break the law.  But the law now says that I have to register any gun I purchase from any party (well, there's hope that the House will kill this, but not much).

Ack....

I'm so sick of this site now...

It's about conformity for the politicians.  It's about maintaining THEIR wealth and power at ANY cost.

Don't you get it.

It's not about "gun control".  It's about people control. 

Dum ass Ace.

Posted by: JDP at April 11, 2013 01:48 PM (60GaT)

I disagree.  You have to talk about the current background check system    while   arguing against any expansion of it.    Otherwise here's what the mouthbreathers will hear:

"Durrrrrrr, we already have background checks,   so what's wrong with a few more?  Durrrrr, it would have stopped that guy who killed those   babies in Connecticut, durrrrrr."

No.  Fuck that.   Shove it right back at them.       It's the same trap we fall into whenever    some schoolboard slut starts talking about how we need to "invest more money in education"    because   we're not paying "enough" yet.    We keep giving you more and more money and the kids get stupider and stupider.   Well, we keep giving you more and more ways to curtail our right to own a gun and guess what?  Criminals STILL SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE.   Because they're fucking CRIMINALS.    

It's time to stop looking at this through    the   lens of    further    restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens and start looking at it through the lens of    "How do we make    the consequences for committing a crime so bad that fewer criminals will do it?"    Like, say,   having a death sentence that doesn't leave you sitting in prison for forty years as you wage appeal after appeal after a-fucking-peal.    Or hey, maybe making it EASIER for law-abiding folks to    own     guns    and learn    about their proper use and handling,    so that more criminals would have to stop and ask themselves, "Okay, hang on.   I saw this guy out on his porch with a couple of big ass pistols the other day.   I think I won't rob THIS house."

Posted by: Mr Pink at April 11, 2013 01:52 PM (dWFb6)

So...hopelessly naive or willfully ignorant. Got it.

Again for the horde:

As we debate the steps to reducing gun violence in the society a couple points need to be understood: 1. The link between violent crime and mental illness is weak, and 2. Mental health professionals are poor at predicting anyoneÂ’s propensity for any specific behavior, including homicide.

Although it is mass shootings, particularly the massacre of school children in Newtown, that capture our attention and have accelerated the current discussion, Americans for the most part kill each other with guns in ones and twos. Of the total number of gun deaths in this country, around 30,000 a year, the majority are not the result of mental illness, but of ordinary human emotions like anger, hate, greed, and despair. In fact, about half of all shootings are suicides.

====================

Title: "Guns and Mental Health"

Google teh title

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 11, 2013 01:51 PM (LRFds)

What kind of a list are you looking for?

from jerry's own state:

A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when:

========================

So what was your point again jerry?

Unfortunately I am used to this fucked up bullshit, I live in Califuckedupornia

BASTARDS  

Posted by: thunderb at April 11, 2013 02:01 PM (+afNf)

I am against that.  It should be done through a court.

Also- I got to have ribs at the Railhead in Fort Worth for lunch. 

Even better?  Someone else paid.

Ha!

And now back to working at work.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 11, 2013 02:00 PM (XYSwB)

What makes you think they disapprove of this.  Ruling Class and then there is us.

the nutso spree killers had not been patients IN a mental hospital.  All outpatient, if at all. 

OK, let's take all the stop signs from every intersection.

If you want, I'll post the names of people who have ran stop signs and ended up killing someone.  The stop sign didn't work 100% of the time because some people ignored them.

So, following your logic, there is no need for any stop sign in the entire country.  It infringes on our rights to move about freely.  It makes us all slaves and everything we've fought for is lost if any stop signs remain.

Everyone who even thinks of putting up a stop sign is a fucking communist, hell bent on subverting the American way of life.

Do I have it right so far?

PS: Criminals will still get guns illegally regardless of whatever bill Congress passes. BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

--------------------------------------------

This is the ultimate goal of leftists/progressives.  They want to make everyone a criminal.  And criminals only have rights to the justice system and no other.  It'll be like a massive house-arrest.   What better way to control the masses. 

Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 11, 2013 02:05 PM (mN8D3)

How about a fucking background check to become the fucking President?

Again for the horde:

One reason even experienced psychiatrists are often wrong is that there are only a few clear signs that a person with a mental illness is likely to act violently, says Steven Hoge, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. These include a history of violence and a current threat to commit violence.

Without either of these, Hoge says, "an accurate assessment of the likelihood of future violence is virtually impossible."

"The biggest risk for gun violence is possession of a gun," says Hoge. "And there's no evidence that the mentally ill possess guns or commit gun violence at any greater rate than the normal population."

===================

Title: "Mental Health Gun Laws Unlikely To Reduce Shootings"

Google teh title...

Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 11, 2013 02:05 PM (mN8D3)

Ummmm....that already exists. You have to be fingerprinted and have a background check run on you before you can even sit for the bar exam.

Sadly the Tree of Liberty is not big enough to hang all the traitors from amd worse yet there are no Patriots left that would honor their oaths of office and do so.

Montana do you have room for another Freedom Lover in your mountains?

Posted by: jwest at

==============

Um, considering you don't have a constitutional right to drive a car, no.

Could you get any more dumb at this point?

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 11, 2013 02:03 PM (LRFds)

He had two opponents in the last primary for him.  It went to a run-off.  That is when they ran out of ballots in Myrtle Beach at 10 am. From what I understand there are also 2 opponents signed up in the next primary.  But it is hard to primary an incumbent.

The two opponents so far are:

^{Lee Bright, State Senator[3]}

^{Nancy Mace, businesswoman and co-owner of FITSNews[4]}

Posted by: mare at April 11, 2013 02:03 PM (A98Xu)

*buries kay hagin in pine straw*

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 11, 2013 02:06 PM (LRFds)

It's back to the old game really. Can't believe how  often the term "good behavior" showed up in The Federalist Papers as a requirement for continuing to serve in a government position. We as the electorate are culpable for this mess as well by not having immediately punished those of our public *servants* found to be dishonest.

Posted by: kreplach at April 11, 2013 01:53 PM (ojOys)

Not really, its sole purpose is to DO SOMETHING!1!1!1!!1

Jay the only reason it is so hard to commit mentally ill people now is because of a supreme court case in the 80s.  That is why the homeless population exploded.

And to think back in '06 I wasn't nearly conservative enough for the true   conservatives of the Internet.  Toomey couldn't hold my jock back then or   now.  Go figure. 

Posted by: Beagle at April 11, 2013 02:07 PM (sOtz/)

That's the huge,   flailing,   incendiary strawman that's currently running loose in this thread.

It's akin   to saying,   "You don't think    abortion on demand should be legal?   WHY DO YOU SUPPORT RAPE!?"    

The sad thing is this action on Toomey's part will not swing one vote to him from his donk opponent in 2016.

Not. One.

Worse, it may lose him critical conservative votes.

Well, I really worry about the background checks because of what happened with the health care law.  So many questions unanswered about this mental health check.  Are authorities now going to have access to our electronic medical records during a background check; or will they contact our doctors to find out if we're on any anxiety meds (I take them for flights sometimes)? The devil will be in the regulations.

And, what about that excerpt from the Army manual that was posted here a few days ago.  Since Catholics and Christians are now considered to be religious "extremists," can they deny a gun application because someone belongs to an extremist group, as defined by Holder/Hagel/Obama? Wouldn't put it past them.  I have this feeling that Toomey will regret supporting this a few years from now when he says the regs that come out.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at April 11, 2013 02:08 PM (i2Lsf)

I look at it as Toomey being the surpise.  If ChuckU wasn't part of a constitution stomp party...I would be shocked.

Posted by: Whatev at April 11, 2013 02:13 PM (A7Wh1)

That seems like a low estimate to me.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2013 02:10 PM (SY2Kh)

1) There aren't, and I never implied that there were.

2) They can be. I, however, have not been convicted of a crime so why should I have my rights removed? That is my point. Taking my rights without due process is a restriction, but there is nothing reasonable about it.

3) It's not the speech that is the crime. It is the threat. However, I do not support any legal action against spoken threats. Arm and train the would-be victim and deal with the threat when it becomes physical, not spoken.

Posted by: kallisto at April 11, 2013 02:14 PM (jm/9g)

The DNC is probably partying like it's 2006 thanks to that dumbass.

Forest.... trees...

Tommeys crap is an AMENDMENT... which has not been voted on yet...

The Repubs just voted for closure of the ORIGIONAL BILL!

So.... we could get Tommeys crap voted down as an amendment... then an up or down vote on the ORIGIONAL Bill....

Which is just what I think will happen.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2013 02:10 PM (SY2Kh)

4) because being "reasonable" has worked so well for us so far, no one thinks we are extremist nutjobs just because we want to hold on to our guns, no sir!

If there were no stop signs I and I am sure the majority would stop and
proceed when it is feasible to do so. Common sense and all that.

And idiots would blow through intersections like they do right now,   even with a sign or a light.   Because they're idiots.   Signs aren't going to stop idiots from being idiots.

If the signs weren't there, then     the other drivers    the     idiot endangers would,   for    survival purposes,   be forced to    have enough situational awareness to    see the     bastard   and   hopefully   avoid the collision.    

Unlike presently,    where    The Light Turns Green And You Go,     even if some dickweed in a low rider is zooming toward the intersection at 80MPH.    Because Dickweed In A Low Rider has a red light,  so Dickweed In A Low Rider Will Stop.

Just like criminals will get background checks because that's what the law tells them they have to do.

If we don't successfully primary this guy

___

Toomey did have a conservative opponent in the primary, Sam Rohrer. Maybe he'll resurface.

The problem will be with who the donks run against him. So much will depend on the zeitgeist of the moment though.

Posted by: irongrampa at April 11, 2013 02:06 PM (SAMxH)

In a perfect world that would put a bunch of Beretta M92s on the surplus market to buy on the cheap, but I'm not holding my breath. 

If anyone wants to support Toomey's primary opponent, please do so. But don't send one red cent to the donk, please don't.

I'm done arguing. 

Ace, you might as well stay hidden in the bushes and not even attempt a position on this one.

#275 Actually, the Democrats' thinking is, Obama got his ass way out on a limb calling for huge new restrictions on guns, and we don't want to get our asses kicked over this in the 2014 midterms like we did in 1993 after we stupidly passed that assault weapons ban.  But we can't totally hang him out to dry, either.  So we'll get our most pro-gun Democrat out front and pass something minimal, and get our pals in the media to trump it up as a huge cave in by Republicans.  They won't write about how Obama got nothing he wanted and campaigned all over the country for, they will write about the new Civil War On The Right. 

Works every time.

Posted by: Whatev at April 11, 2013 02:13 PM (A7Wh1)

I asked a Navy shrink (civilian, employed by the USN) if he ever met anyone that was completely sane and he gave me the non-answer of "well, we all have our problems."  If there were no crazy people we wouldn't need shrinks, so shrinks think we're all nuts, see how that works?

Posted by: Dennis at April 11, 2013 01:39 PM (2cR/Y)

Thats' a mighty fine list of Senilers what needs to be primaried right there Dennis. May they all rot in a dementia unit!

If due process can result in loss of freedom and other constitutional rights in response to being convicted of a crime, why not 2nd Amendment rights?

Because "due process" is not a trump for the "least restrictive means" or "narrowly tailored" tests of strict scrutiny.  And like it or not, lots of people look at the 2A through that lens.

Blanket background checks on everyone wishing to purchase a gun does not seem very narrowly tailored to me, nor does it seem least restrictive, and as Andy's excellent post points out, it sure isn't as effective as proponents want you to believe anyway.

Posted by: Waldo Truth at April 11, 2013 02:20 PM (nnxpx)

There are no reruns shown because the NAACP bitched and moaned about stereotypes being used in the show.  Kind of like anybody suggesting that a "Memphis Soul" night at the White House would only be held by a stereotypical black grifter determined to maximize any perq of the office.

I'm done arguing.

==============

Laugh out loud funny.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at April 11, 2013 02:19 PM (+lsX1)

Go to the head of the class! Yes indeed, a background check is required before you can pick up your internet purchase from the FFL that is handling it, so bullshit window dressing. Or red herring, your pick.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 11, 2013 02:26 PM (eytER)

Simple test.... if you have to ask your Government permission to do somthing... is it a RIGHT?

#300 So who's gonna primary Pat Toomey from the right?  Seriously, I want a name or you guys need to all shut the hell up.  You gonna get Christine O'Donnell to move to PA? 

Toomey is going to have a tough enough time in 2016 as it is, and probably should have been expected to lose even before this.  They are going to run Kathleen Kane against him, and by that time she will have all sorts of bullshit crime-fighting credentials as AG.  If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Toomey has a less than 10% chance of beating Kane. 

So let me get this straight.

Mental health records are not making it into the NCIC, mainly because of privacy issues related to state laws, and the answer this alleged problem is to conduct more background checks on the same database containing the same data.

Sounds like a swell plan.

"jj, I'm thinking we need to stop being polite."

True, but if I wrote what I really thought about Burr I would get a visit from the friendly government gentlemen.

318 I think Toomey was "an operation", kinda' like a three-for:

___

I don't know, I think it's just he has an eye on the vote-rich Philadelphia collar counties AKA  "Home of the soccer mommies."

He squeaked by in 2010, and IIRC didn't win all the five Philly burb counties. This was his way of keeping the soccer mommies, if in fact they did vote for him. The problem is that 2010 was the 0bamacare reaction vote. He probably drew more votes from libertarian/indies in the Philly burbs than suburban Ladies Who Lunch.

If it was Toomey's objective to keep his senatorial seat, this was the worst move possible. Conservatives won't vote for him now.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at April 11, 2013 02:13 PM (Kpn/z)

--------------------------------------

There should be a law.  Call it the "Criminal Quality-Assurance Gun Purchase Act".  That should solve that problem.

Posted by: rockmom at April 11, 2013 02:29 PM (qE3AR)

___

Pat Meehan

Mike Fitzpatrick

Two conservative PA congressmen. They're from the Philly burbs, certainly there's more out in central or Western PA.

I'd rather have 3 good men in DC with GOP on their placard than a lying asshole like you guys elected.

___

Wait a minute...

Toomey had a solid conservative record and rating. Who knew he would turn out to be a squish?

Guess we should have considered the Wall Street background a big red flag. Toomey cut his teeth  in  Yuppieworld.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 11, 2013 02:29 PM (lZBBB)

--------------------------------------

One of the  very good points made today. 

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2013 02:28 PM (SY2Kh)

Their argument is that since the felons have served their time either they should have their rights restored to them or they should still be in jail. I don't agree with them on that point (automatically restoring all rights to them), but I do agree that there should be a process to have their rights restored, just like there was a process to have their rights taken away. (G. Gordon Liddy is restricted from firearms ownership because he is a convicted felon. You can become a convicted felon in North Carolina for larceny of pine straw. Not all felonies are created equally. Just an OBTW.)

Back to the subject, my point is that the restrictions placed upon me, as a non-criminal, are unreasonable. The only way to take my rights from me (or you) is by due process. If you have not had your rights taken from you by due process, then any and all restrictions placed upon you are unreasonable.

kallisto, let's see if any polls are taken on Toomey in the next few weeks.  I'll bet his approval rating goes up, and by a lot.  You're right, he didn't win Montgomery County and he won Bucks by only a couple thousand votes, running way behind Corbett.  His race ended up being way closer than most people expected, it was not called until late in the evening, and that was against a really weak opponent in a midterm election that was fueled by opposition to Obamacare.  There aren't nearly as many gun owners in this part of the state, but a hell of a lot of parents of young kids who want to DO SOMETHING!!11!!!1!! after Sandy Hook.  They will vote for him.  By 2016 it's going to be pretty hard to convince any but the hardest core gun-rights people to vote against him.  JMO. 

If you are pissed at him over this, you probably don't need to waste your time and money trying to primary him, because he isn't likely to be reelected anyway. 

#338 Meehan and Fitzpatrick are hardly more conservative than Toomey.  Fitzpatrick is my Rep. and he has term-limited himself for 2016 anyway.  I doubt he would run for Senate at all and he would never primary Toomey.  Meehan has moved quite a bit left since he was elected, to keep his seat which is marginally Democratic.  I don't think any sitting Congressman would be dumb enough to give up his seat to primary Toomey.  The only one I could think of might be Lou Barletta, but again eh would have to give up a House seat in a quixotic primary run. 

Put it this way, in a Presidential election year, anyone who managed to beat Toomey from the right would be absolutely shellacked in Novermber.  It would make Casey vs. Santorum look close. 

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2013 02:46 PM (SY2Kh)

Same here in NC, which is the main reason I got my CCW.

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 11, 2013 02:46 PM (LRFds)

It's also a way for the FFL to get a transaction fee from you.

There aren't nearly as many gun owners in this part of the state,

___

The residents of Delaware county are heavily armed.

Not referring to the W-S crowd, go down the river from the city to Delaware state. Lots of union brothers and sisters who support 2nd amendment.

As I said last night on this subject, we waited in 2008 and 2012 for all those Pennsylvania gun owners to show up and vote against Obama.  They didn't.   But Democrats registered a million new voters in 2006-2008 and they ALL showed up. 

Posted by: rockmom at April 11, 2013 02:46 PM (Q4elb)

__

I haven't seen evidence of Pat Meehan moving left on 2nd amendment rights. Some of his activities could be interpreted as being left-friendly, I'm referring specifically to his support of the unions when the refineries in his district were closing shop. The same union brothers and sisters who own firearms.

Mike Fitzpatrick term-limiting himself as a Congressman doesn't preclude a run for Senate. Which donk bills has he supported? I really don't know since I am not in his district.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2013 02:28 PM (SY2Kh)

I understand your confusion now. What I should have specified is there are no reasonable restrictions for the law abiding on Constitutionally protected rights.

A clarification of speech, specifically threats: if I say "Someone should kick your ass!" I have made no threats and am not in violation of the law. If I say "I'm gonna kick your ass!" I have made a threat and MAY be in violation of the law (but IMO shouldn't be, since I believe you should be punished for your actions, not your thoughts). If I attempt to make good on my threat I am in violation of the law...but the most effective counter is a well armed and trained ("regulated", in the vernacular of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written) you to change my mind, by hemorrhagic shock, if necessary.

I hope this makes it clear.

The difference between a politician and a statesman is a politician always acts in perceived self-interest; while a statesman will, from time to time, do something that he believes is right though not in perceived self-interest.

Sen. Toomey is a politician.  He saw a perceived threat to himself and acted as he believed would reduce the threat.  Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 11, 2013 01:42 PM (f9c2L)

So, your response to people who break the law is to pass another law?   Which they will break because they are criminals in the first place?

"We got that murderin' devil now!  Look here, says he broke the Criminal Background Check statute afore he shot all of those folks!  That's really goinna get him in trouble!"

"My two Senators are on the quisling list (Chambliss and Isakson). I am so pissed off I can hardly see straight ( red curtain of blood as Kim du Toit used to say). I fired off e-mails to each of them vowing retaliation at the ballot box. Not much good, probably, but ultimately the only weapon I have."

I like to threaten to raise money for their upcoming opponents Also threaten to organize your community if they are your reps.  Both things bother them way more than your vote.

Posted by: jeannebodine at April 11, 2013 03:00 PM (x0dlI)

___

I am very disappointed to hear about Meehan's support for Toomey's action. Meehan has been articulate and strong in support of discovering what really occurred at Benghazi, I figured he would be just as articulate in defense of second amendment issues.

I'm  glad  I  never  sent  him  any  money.  I  don't  send  any  of  them  bucks  anymore.  If  I  know  it's  a  grassroots  Tea Partier  I will,  but  other  than  that, go get your funds from the GOP apparatchiks. I'm done.

I think we need to mention more often that the 2nd Amendment isn't just for  protecting us from a tyranical government but also from foreign invasion. Reading the concurrent headlines today about  what's  going on  North Korea and banning guns here,  it really brings home the fact that our citizens being armed is a deterrent to attacks.

  Time to move south...in spirit....    I'll stand with Texas.  When she goes I'll go....

  Fuck all these statist mother fuckers.