Quantcast

Republican Calls for More Federal Gun Control in Spite of Proof that Gun Control Laws Don’t Stop Mass Murder

Screen Shot 2014-05-27 at 12.35.42 PM

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is calling for increased gun laws in the wake of the Isla Vista killing spree. (Of course King seems to have missed the fact that half of the the people who died in that mass murder were actually butchered by a knife, not shot with a gun.)
Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said Sunday that Friday’s deadly rampage near the University of California at Santa Barbara underscores why expanded background checks for firearm sales are needed and said he hopes to pursue legislation to enhance mental health screening.

“This tragedy demonstrates once again the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,” King said in an interview with The Washington Post.

King has never been thought of as being a friend to the Second Amendment. He supported passing additional federal gun control legislation and was one of the authors of last year’s failed universal background check legislation.
Apparently Rep. King isn’t familiar with California’s gun laws, otherwise he would know that:
* California already has universal background checks on private transactions.
* California already has a 10 day waiting period on firearms transfers.
* California already has a mental health database that is used to construct a list of prohibited persons.
* California already has magazine limits.
* California already limits the types of firearms that can be purchased and owned.
* In most areas of California, especially urban areas, concealed carry is all but banned.

NONE of those measures did anything to stop the Isla Vista killer, who, once again, also used a knife and his car as weapons in his crime spree.

According to the Washington Post,

King, who represents a suburban Long Island district and is one of the GOP’s most prominent gun-control advocates, also pushed Republicans to buck powerful gun rights groups.

“Even though this issue may not be popular in particular congressional districts, if we want to be a national party, we ought to be looking closely at it,” he said.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • ronb28135

    King is a parasite riding on the bodies of the
    victims, living and dead. This bloodsucker and his fellow hyenas in the
    Congress just sit in wait for some nut job to go off and do something
    dreadful and then they rush in and raise the specter
    of crushing the law abiding gun owners with confiscation of their
    firearms using the full weight of the thugs with badges, those goons in
    the FBI and BATFE.

    What a country. Bloodsuckers and hyenas
    elected to the Congress along with the chief bloodsucker in the White
    House who is riding on the same bodies.

    And if he’s from New York he’s no Republican he’s a Cuomo lapdog.

  • jcpatriot

    The mentally disturbed murderer was taking psychotropic medication and also used a car and a knife to attack his victims. Rep. King and the other poltroons of hysteria never miss a opportunity to push a statist agenda wherein all citizens will be reduced to unarmed serfs. Why has he and his fellow travelers not called for legislation to make it tougher to own a car, a knife (or any sharp object including a screwdriver) and why are they silent about the effects of “mood altering” pharmaceuticals? The man is a disgrace.

    • Juggy Brodleteen

      I bet you wear a tinfoil hat.

      • I’ll bet you wear your mama’s granny panties.

      • jcpatriot

        You are blind if you cannot see what is happening. Keep your head buried the sand. Kiss Liberty good by. Nothing to see here. Move on.

      • machodog

        I don’t understand why you guys are demeaning jcpatriot. Are you not reading his statement? Are you being a liberal and talking without thinking?? Read it again and make an intelligent comment contrary to the drivel you just fed us.

  • MsgtGdubb

    That’s a good idea. Take all the guns away from New Yorkers and let the criminals have free rein on the streets. Peter King is and idiot, so therefore he will not be voted out. New Yorkers are well known for electing idiots.

    • vernabc

      “Take all the guns away from New Yorkers and let the criminals have free rein on the streets.”
      Please point out where exactly Mr. King said this, or even eluded to it.

      • MsgtGdubb

        Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is calling for increased gun laws
        in the wake of the Isla Vista killing spree. (Of course King seems to
        have missed the fact that half of the the people who died in that mass
        murder were actually butchered by a knife, not shot with a gun.)

        Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said Sunday that Friday’s deadly rampage
        near the University of California at Santa Barbara underscores why
        expanded background checks for firearm sales are needed and said he
        hopes to pursue legislation to enhance mental health screening.

        “This tragedy demonstrates once again the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,” King said in an interview with The Washington Post.

        King has never been thought of as being a friend to the Second
        Amendment. He supported passing additional federal gun control
        legislation and was one of the authors of last year’s failed universal
        background check legislation.
        Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/05/republican-calls-federal-gun-control-spite-proof-gun-control-laws-dont-stop-mass-murder/#bx97claQvpYA7Zp0.99

  • MsgtGdubb

    By the way, Mr. King is a liberal Republican that sides with the dems. on many issues.

  • NotRedYet

    Shows you, they are all in this together. No incumbents.

  • This California case completely obliterates ALL of the “common sense reasonable” gun regulations leaving only two options. The draconian, authoritarian, totalitarian disarmament that other “civilized” nations have chosen, which leaves the citizens/subjects dependent upon the continued benevolence of the State. OR Americans put on their big boy/girl panties and take personal responsibility for their own safety. That means more than just buying and carrying a gun, although that is a start. It means firearms training, self-defense training, situational awareness and letting go of the illusion of safety propagated by the government. It needs to be taught universally in school from an early age and supported through government subsidized training centers throughout the country. THAT I can accept my tax dollars funding, perpetuating the fantasy of gun control and militarized law enforcement to reinforce the fantasy I cannot support.

    • Clint

      You made some good points until you advocated government schools teaching self defense and government subsidized training centers. Nothing the government has anything to do with ever turns out well for we the people. Remember the schools punish little boys for biting their “Poptart” into the shape of a gun, and another for seeing an imaginary gun in a cloud and drawing it, and the list goes on and on.

      • Clint, obviously that will require some educational reforms as well. That being said, a truly Constitutional, 2nd Amendment adhering government would subsidize private training facilities through grants, tax breaks, etc and NOT in a hands on type of way. Education is the key and eliminating the cost prohibitions would enable those of meager means to exercise their rights as well. I would also go so far as to say firearms and ammo should be tax exempt like food. They are just as much of a necessity.

        • Clint

          You sir are entitled to that opinion. First off, what you are proposing is not going to happen because of liberals. As I said before, I don’t want the government involved. Anytime the government gets involved, little by little they make laws, rules, etc., and chip away at our Constitutional rights. We in America are at the point we are because of government interference and meddling.

          • @disqus_iRLypz7SqP:disqus you seem to have misread what I wrote. I agree that the government should be out of it, but as our government their purpose is to protect our rights. Therefore they do have a role to play in that regard. It is OUR responsibility to ensure they stay within their Constitutional limits and it is WE who have failed in that regard.

          • Clint

            You might need to go back to the beginning and learn what powers and responsibilities that the U.S. of America government really has. Those powers and responsibilities have never been given to the U.S. government and were retained to the states. In my opinion you are advocating having the U.S. government be deeply involved in things that our founding fathers never intended them to be even slightly involved in.

          • Clint, not at all. The Constitution gives the federal government express control of the military AND the militias. The 2nd amendment establishes the need for a “well-regulated”, i.e. well-trained militia. That would include the “unorganized militia” being the “whole of the people”. It also expressly forbids the government from disarming the people. Therefore the federal government has both the power AND the responsibility to ensure that the “whole of the people” are trained and disciplined in the use of arms. That is actually one of their many enumerated powers they have sorely neglected while snatching up other powers that are not within their constitutional purview.

          • Clint

            You would have the very group (Federal Government) that the citizenry of the U.S. using our 2nd amendment rights, are to guard against the infringement of our God given rights by that same Federal Government, holding sway over and being directly charged with our organization and training. Am I missing something here? Is that not charging the fox with the responsibility of organizing and training the chickens to protect themselves from the fox? The fox couldn’t ask for better employment. I trust the citizenry much more than I trust a bureaucracy. The Federal Government is much too big and growing. No thanks. I’ve enjoyed more of that than I ever wished to.

          • Clint you are getting ahead of yourself. I am NOT advocating putting the fox in charge of the hen house. I’m saying the fox is ALREADY in charge of the hen house. What I am advocating is We The People regaining control of the government so that it can act in the manner it was designed to again. Would I put the government in charge of all training TODAY? Hell No!! However, if we can manage to pull Americans collective heads out of their collective asses, then maybe. You seem to direct your ire at the federal government, but our government today is nothing more that a reflection of the decline and corruption of the American people themselves. Fix the people and government will fix itself. Our current government isn’t fit to guard an outhouse, but pull American society out of the toilet and that will change. Keep a watchful eye always on the government, but it is The People who are the source of the disease.

          • Clint

            Jon, you seem to want it both ways. You make a blanket statement that “the Constitution gives the Federal Government express control of the military and the militias”, which is a misunderstanding of what powers the Constitution gives to the Federal Government. If that is the power that The U.S. Constitution gives to the Federal Government, then we the people are handicapped and handcuffed from the get go. The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal Government and acknowledges that the Power shall always reside with the people, not the Government. On one hand you say that the Constitution gives the power to the Federal Government to be in charge of the military AND the militia. When I or anyone else disagrees with your understanding, you make the claim that somehow, anyone who disagrees with you is “getting ahead of one’s self”. Allow me to share with you just how your statements read on my end. You Sir, are either ignorant of what the writing of the U.S. Constitution was meant to convey and protect, or you Sir are drunk. I do hope you are not the latter. Final thought and statement is this. If, as you say, the Constitution gives the Federal Government these powers over the people, the people have no leg to stand on. You Sir, trash the meaning and purpose of the Constitution.

          • I don’t want it both ways, I’m merely pointing out what IS and what SHOULD BE. The Constitution gives power to the federal government, the Constitution is what CREATED the federal government. The Bill of Rights on the other hand, is what outlines the protections of We The People. Perhaps if you read the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers, you’d understand the difference between the two better. My point was quite clear, the Constitution clearly gives the President and Congress oversight and regulatory control of the militias as well as the military. Selective Service is one method with which the government controls the unorganized militia. The government can institute a draft or even mandatory service for ALL young adults and the Constitution gives them that power. Granted, that power is divided between branches of government. It is still a constitutional power the government has to raise armies and call up militias. The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights both recognizes that power and necessity AND protects our individual right to keep and bear arms. With more research and less emotion, you’ll find that although they feared standing armies would become a tool of tyranny, they also knew they were necessary. Rather than have an unarmed population against an armed military, they chose to ensure the right to arms for the citizen to balance that threat. The entirety of our founding documents are based on the balance of power. Balance between the branches of government, balance between state and federal and balance between the government and We The People. It is all severely out of balance right now, but if it was operating in the balanced way it was intended, then every point I have made would make sense to you. That’s the difference between what IS and what SHOULD BE.

  • Eliott

    It looks like we have another R.I.N.O. in our midst.

  • Guest

    Hell…. California will eventually fall off into the ocean and take all the D.A Libturds out …. Just a matter of time.

  • This POS isn’t a Republican! He’s a lying, manipulating, slithering RINO! Only idiots would vote for this traitor.

  • Emmett Marin

    Downstate NY is controlled by IDIOTS!!!

  • junkmailbin

    moron

  • 2War Abn Vet

    No single gun control law, and we have over 20,000 of them, has ever stopped a criminal intent on causing havoc. Passing additional laws will only serve to disarm honest people. Nothing government does – or ever intends to do – will have any effect whatever on criminals.
    Law-abiding people use guns to defend themselves approximately two and a half million times each year. Denied a means of self-defense they would provide easy prey to criminals, and add massive numbers of victims to the crime rate.
    Individual defense, incidentally, is not the reason the Founders championed gun ownership. The ability of citizens to prevent being victimized by tyrannical government was uppermost in their minds.

  • tompro97


    And this buffoon, King, wants to run for president in 16 – lotsa luck, Peter. You have about as much chance as Bernie Sanders does.

  • wdcraftr

    This is Precisely why we have Guns.. To protect our rights, and to resist tyranny, and unlawful gun laws. At what point do American’s say, “Enough”?

  • TexRancher

    Tell you what, you Constitution Sell out….Try to come to Texas and grab someone’s gun. It would be unwise, very unwise. You would leave cured of what ails you….

  • Archie

    The abovementioned dirtbag, Peter King, is no more a republican then is Dingy Harry. The man is a fraud who, I guess, wants to be the next Schumer since he follows in his footsteps of liberalism.

  • Donnie J McDonald

    Stupid is as stupid does. I have such a low opinion of those who want to disarm the American Citizen they might as well be bugs.