Video: Obama gun-control package not likely to get action in House … or Senate
posted at 9:01 am on January 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
With Barack Obama scheduled to unveil his sweeping gun-control package today, he’ll be surrounded by children rather than lawmakers. Why? It seems that lawmakers don’t share Obama’s enthusiasm for gun control. According to Politico, the chances of Obama’s proposal seeing a floor vote approach nil:
Before President Barack Obama can even launch his campaign-style blitz for new gun control measures, there are strong indications that any comprehensive legislation restricting weapons and ammunition won’t even see a vote on the House floor.
Interviews with multiple House Republicans from the Midwest and Northeast reveal almost zero appetite to vote on any sort of sweeping gun bill. In the month after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., none have brought up the issue with Speaker John Boehner. Without internal pressure from such center-right Republicans, and given his difficulties with restive conservatives in his conference, Boehner would seem to have little political incentive to move on guns.
And that may leave the president with few options besides focusing on background checks and what he can accomplish by executive action.
For all the coverage devoted to how much political capital Obama will spend on the hot-button issue and the details of what Vice President Joe Biden’s task force will come up with, the political realities of Congress have gotten short shrift. Leaders in both chambers have stalled on the issue, using the Biden commission as cover to not weigh in definitively. But even if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were to attempt to muscle through a bill — no sure thing given his own ties to the National Rifle Association and the many red-state Senate Democrats up for reelection next year — there is only the most minimal support among rank-and-file House Republicans for gun control.
Well, that’s OK. Obama’s Democrats control the upper chamber and can force a vote on the proposal, right? Er … not so fast, says CNN’s Dana Bash (via Mediaite):
CNN’s Dana Bash reported on Tuesday that the President Barack Obama may be forced to use executive orders to pass new restrictions on gun and ammunition ownership because he lacks support for new laws in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The political environment in the upcoming midterm elections may not be as favorable to Democrats as 2012 was, and even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is expressing his reservations about proceeding with new gun control measures hastily….
CNN notes that Senate Democrats facing reelection in 2014 have recently become aware of their own vulnerability. A look at the electoral landscape heading into the 2014 midterms makes it clear why Senate Democrats would be trepidatious about passing new gun control measures.
21 Democratic seats, won in the 2008 pro-Democratic wave election, are up next year. Several Democrats have opted to retire or remain undecided as to whether they will run again in 2014. Six Democratic senators currently represent states which Mitt Romney carried when the national electorate was heavily Democratic. Midterm election years feature a smaller turnout than presidential elections, and the partisan makeup of the total electorate is usually more balanced. …
An executive order by the president will give Democrats time and cover necessary to codify those orders into laws, but the charge that Congress’ priorities – and the priorities of Washington Democrats in general – are not those of average voters may still gain traction as the next election cycle heats up. Combined with the headwinds the president’s party historically faces in midterm election cycles, Democrats in Congress have much to fear from hastily passed gun control legislation.
Don’t forget that normal rules apply on this proposal in the Senate. It’s not a budget package, for which cloture doesn’t apply. It will need 60 votes to even get to a floor vote, and right now it’s not clear that it can get a majority. Six Democrats have to face red-state voters in 2014, and Reid can only afford to lose three for a simple majority. Small wonder House Republicans are insisting that the Senate has to act first before the House will consider the proposal; it puts all of the political risk on Democrats, and practically ensures that the issue won’t come to Republicans at all.
The more clear this becomes, the more Democrats will shy away from it. They don’t need the added encumbrance in the midterms of having demanded gun control and ending up on the fringe of the argument, thanks to bipartisan opposition stalemating the push.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Breaking: FBI shoots, kills person of interest in Boston bombing after man attacks agent
Report: Oversight on IRS targeting came from Washington all along
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
God Bless Texas!
workingclass artist on May 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM
I store my 3D printer in the closet.
hillsoftx on May 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM
He didn’t come out until he thought the 3 had left. So, the man certainly didn’t seek confrontation. Too bad he didn’t shoot all 3 and be done with it.
Blake on May 18, 2013 at 8:39 AM
and the beauty of TX castle doctrine, it extends to property..in Texas, citizens have more “stopping” power than law enforcement…
“Texas law goes further than other states in allowing deadly force not only to protect property, but also to stop rape, arson, burglary, robbery, theft at night and criminal mischief at night”.
hillsoftx on May 18, 2013 at 8:39 AM
What would make my day even more about this is for the perpetrator’s gun(s) to be traced directly back to sleazy Eric Holder.
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Heh.
ladyingray on May 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM
I don’t think burglars deserve death
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Jazz id this happened in your home in Broome County, NY, the victim of the crime would be in jail for shooting the perp. Texas justice rules!
Another good reason to move to a state where you still have a 2nd amendment right to possess and use a gun to protect property.
simkeith on May 18, 2013 at 8:45 AM
I do. It’s considered a violent and serious crime for a reason. You never know if they are going to kill the homeowner.
Blake on May 18, 2013 at 8:46 AM
This is MY Texas! Heres a clue criminals Im in my 50s I have concealed carry and have a sweet little pistol with me at the ready. Think I look innocent and you want to rob me, go ahead. I’ll be the one yelling “surprise!” as I pop a cap in yo azz.
neyney on May 18, 2013 at 8:47 AM
they stuffed him in a closet, don’t seem like they were gonna kill him
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM
When someone breaks into a house in Texas, they already know they’re liable to be killed.
Rebar on May 18, 2013 at 8:49 AM
That is not burglary, that is attempted murder against the homeowner. And I think if it was your spouse or child being shot at you would have a much different attitude.
MidWestFarmer on May 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Your concern is duly noted and predictably moronic. If you invasively bring and direct a gun into someone else’s house, that already being a demonstration of the means and the willingness to use deadly force, then you should expect to be ventilated.
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Hey HAL did you miss the part where the article said they were ARMED burglers?
neyney on May 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM
You know how many cases I’ve read where they shot dead the homeowner before they left? The worse was a 12 year old girl who was home alone sick. She stayed in bed like they told her but before they left they stuck a gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger. Now get lost.
Blake on May 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM
If they didn’t want to get shot – why do it in the first place?
Don’t do the crime if you can’t accept the consequences of someone fighting back.
gophergirl on May 18, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Troll garbage.Put a sign on your basement door,Burglars will not be killed.
docflash on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM
it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM
The burglar pointing his weapon at you doesn’t share such niceties.
lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM
I thought you were taking a break until the “blood lust” had subsided? Go away nobrain.
BeachBum on May 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM
You’ll have to forgive a numbnut like nonbrain.
He read “In Cold Blood” and still couldn’t figure what the fuss was all about.
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM
He was in the guy’s house. His right to self defense disappears when he’s, you know, committing a violent crime.
lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM
thats terrible and I hope those guys got death or worse
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:53 AM
You see these cases where the burglars know someone is at home and knows that the person will be able to identify them. Example, the young woman with the baby in Oklahoma. Two guys broke in looking for drugs. She shot one dead. They were local and she would have easily ID’d them. You really think they were going to leave her alive??
Blake on May 18, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Next time, the burglars should check the newspaper to see who owns a gun, and pick someone else to rob.
lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 8:56 AM
We don’t care what you think.
If someone invades my home, he has two options: Run or die. Keep in mind, too, he never exercised his third option: Don’t invade my home in the first place.
Since you seem too young to have a wife and family, I’ll give you a small ‘excuse’ for your opinion there. But you largely lean left, so it’s a small allowance.
Don’t expect any more to follow.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM
You’re a special kind of stupid.
BallisticBob on May 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 8:59 AM
What do you expect from a kid who has his mommy helping pay his student loan?
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 8:59 AM
It’s not up to you, or even me to decide whether they ‘deserve’ death. We all, axiomatically, deserve the consequences of our actions, and when someone takes up deadly arms and invades someone else’s home, HE is deciding what he deserves. And it sure isn’t a dinner invitation and a chance to meet your teenage daughter.
Dirty Creature on May 18, 2013 at 9:00 AM
what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?
a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM
Like I said earlier, he has chance to run. If he doesn’t, and continues to approach, he gets shot. End of story.
I’m not interested in his circumstances. What do you think I should do — Ask him to join me for a beer so we could talk? Pffft!
As I also said, he didn’t exercise his third option: Don’t break into my home.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:04 AM
in the south we generally call folks like him “special” he very well have
ridden the short bus to school ….
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 9:04 AM
Ok folks, there you have it. Nobrain thinks that the victim should interview a burglar before acting. Talk things over with your attacker before you do anything mean to them. Maybe burglars should write up resumes and hand them out to the victims so they can steal whatever they want because they are worse off than the people they are robbing.
BeachBum on May 18, 2013 at 9:05 AM
however I believe he is more likely just a troll …..
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 9:05 AM
You can’t know that for a fact, dimwit. His hands could be the weapons or a shiv or a knife pilfered from a kitchen drawer or the blackjack tucked into his/ her belt… so while you are weeping for some perp you think is starving or unemployed (thanks to Ogabe) the rest of us will be protecting our families from your mentally deficient fantasy land.
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Good Morning…Now STFU!
workingclass artist on May 18, 2013 at 9:06 AM
thats reasonable
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Eric Witholder probably not only sold the perpetrators their weapons but will most likely seek prosecution of man defending his “castle”.
MaiDee on May 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Instead of his mom paying part of his student loan, he should be working to pay it himself, and buying her gifts for all the hard work she did raising him.
That’s what a ‘right’ son does, in my opinion.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM
The need for burglar counseling and understanding while the crime is going down…
…..featuring nobrain on the next Jerry Springer.
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 9:09 AM
OT
Issa subpoened Pickering to splain’ things…Mustsee Teevee (C-Span) on Wednesday
workingclass artist on May 18, 2013 at 9:09 AM
And this scenario of a family starving and desperate, what a crock. We are living in Obamanation. Your hero’s economy has more people than ever before getting food stamps and welfare. Most perps aren’t robbing people because they are hungry and their son Tiny Tim needs a crutch. A good percentage of robberies are done for DRUG MONEY you moron.
BeachBum on May 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM
I am working on that and intend to pay my parents back
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Do more than intend. Do.
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Not in Texas, he can’t.
And always know, an armed robber is just a murderer who got lucky.
M240H on May 18, 2013 at 9:13 AM
Got to tell you as a single woman I don’t care what their circumstances are. If they break into my home I’m going to do whatever I can to protect myself.
gophergirl on May 18, 2013 at 9:14 AM
I don’t ever want to kill a man. But I will if I have to. I’d have a hard time sitting on a jury deciding the death penalty for a criminal who has already been convicted. While he may well deserve it, and while I believe in the death penalty for extremely limited offenses, I pray to never be placed in that position.
You don’t have the experiences many of us do, yet you presume to come here every day to lecture us.
Maybe you should shut up for the next twenty years. Get married, have a family, and find things that are more important to you than politics. We here are political for our life experiences. You, on the other hand, are simply political for its own sake.
Many of us used to be liberal, while you have never been Conservative and have yet to experience life as it can sometimes get. John Lennon once said, “Life is what happens while you’re making other plans.”
Just some ideas.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Burglars sounds like a couple of guys sneaking in and running off with the hi-fi and black & white TV.
These days, we have something called home invasions. They don’t usually end well for the law abiding home owners, especially when the “burglars” are armed and stick around.
Laura in Maryland on May 18, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Yes. I can’t ‘know’ somebody is unarmed. Not until I check the body.
trigon on May 18, 2013 at 9:16 AM
If the perp had any sense he would have robbed a post office.
/S <——– that's a huge sarcasm tag
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Sorry, no. In Texas (and I believe in most other civilized states) you cannot claim self-defense while committing a felony, especially one in which force was used against a homeowner in their own home prior to the exchange of fire. You would be facing a felony murder charge regardless of who shot first, and debarred from using self-defense.
In fact, attempting to claim self-defense under those circumstances would increase your chances of receiving a death penalty in Texas. Your claim that you are able to use violent force in “self-defense” while committing a felony would be evidence that you present a continuing danger to the community — one of the preconditions necessary for a death sentence.
No Truce With Kings on May 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM
You shouldn’t be having to pay them back in the first place.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM
This is like one of those cartoons where Bluto would beat the crap out of Popeye and then stuff him in some place full of spinach…
jon1979 on May 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM
But but nobrain thinks that when you ask the perp if he’s armed and they say no, that you should believe them. After all, someone who breaks into your home would never tell a lie. Why they just came from bible study and that bulge in their pocket is just wadded up kleenex they used after crying about their starving children.
BeachBum on May 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Why do you guys insist on enabling him to stink up another good thread?
Cleombrotus on May 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM
He’s failing again; the maso is getting trashed as always.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
A potential far more likely than you may perceive!
There is No Entry Exam for Criminal. This makes criminal attractive to those who cannot succeed in places where intelligence is required.
My limited experience with the Criminal Class has exhibited to me that they have Lots of Mean, and very little in the way of Brains.
They also tend to become very angry when you produce the means to defend yourself, but once it becomes clear that you aren’t going to roll over they tend to flee.
jaydee_007 on May 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
While I agree that burglary is not a capital crime, there are inherent risks in any undertaking. If you work in a coal mine, you may be the victim of a cave-in. If you’re a burglar, you risk being confronted by an armed homeowner and, in Texas at least, that homeowner has the right to use deadly force. If you don’t like the odds, get into a different line of work.
Odysseus on May 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Methinks you’re confusing armed home invasion-hence-kidnapping, possible rape of the family (it has happened you know) and, as happened more than once in these situations–execution.
Did he deserve death? No, but then neither do drunks who drive at 100 MPH, but that’s it happens when you take life-threatening risk by defying God’s moral laws.
Don L on May 18, 2013 at 9:26 AM
*sploosh* a little more chlorine i the ole gene pool (not enough but HEY ya gotta start somewhere!)
Don’t want to be shot? DON’T BREAK INTO HOMES!!!!!!!!!
God BLESS TEXAS!
Katfish on May 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Because regardless of the circumstances, the case will go to a grand jury.
I know, from experience.
cozmo on May 18, 2013 at 9:30 AM
Special? Why yes he’s special, bless his heart.
Oldnuke on May 18, 2013 at 9:30 AM
It becomes a potentially capital crime when the criminal(s) are confronted with and armed victim.
Unlike under the law after a conviction, the criminal decides his own fate at that very moment. Either run, or push the circumstance.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:32 AM
Holy crap! Sympathy for armed home invasion robbers from libs?
I didn’t think they were that stupid.
cozmo on May 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM
They’re not that stupid.
They’re that much without honor, class, humanity, morals, etc.
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Armed Robber Pet Peeves…. on the next Geraldo!
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM
LOL
Good one!
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:41 AM
Actually, they do. They committed several crimes using the advantage of a gun. And their conduct had absolutely no social utility whatsoever. They wouldn’t be misssed by those whom they’ve harmed and will harm in the future. To the extent they might have “peeps” who’d mourn their loss, those mourners could reflect on what they could–and should–have done to ensure that these scum didn’t travel the wrong path in life.
Beyond that, it would serve as a useful thinning of the herd.
BuckeyeSam on May 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM
OT
Anybody seen this…
“Two Congressmen are asking the Treasury Department if it inappropriately scrutinized conservative-owned businesses the same way it targeted Tea Party groups filing for tax-exempt status.
Republicans Mike Kelly (PA-03) and Jim Renacci (OH-16) circulated a letter Thursday requesting Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to release documents detailing the process and methodology the Automotive Task Force used to shut down General Motors dealerships in 2009 during the automotive industry crisis.
Renacci’s Northeast Ohio Chevrolet dealership was closed in 2010 after losing a battle with General Motors. Congress loaned General Motors $50 billion in 2009 after GM declared bankruptcy, which resulted in the federal government owning a majority share of the company. Roughly 2000 dealerships received “wind-down” agreements, and while hundreds were able to survive an exhaustive arbitration process, Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet in Wadsworth did not. Renacci, then a Congressional candidate challenging incumbent John Boccieri, placed the blame squarely on President Obama.
“I jumped into the campaign because of what happened to the car business,” Renacci said in 2010. “This is another example of the devastation of this administration’s massive government intrusion into the private sector.” He went on to describe the government takeover of GM as “the Obama Administration dictating to small-business owners whether they can continue to operate privately owned businesses.”
Mike Kelly has a similar story. He decided to run for Congress when it was announced that Obama’s Automotive Task Force slated Wayland Chevrolet in Butler, Pennsylvania for closure. The dealership was started by Kelly’s father in 1953.
Now that it has been confirmed that the Treasury Department unfairly profiled conservatives around that time, the Congressmen are wondering if that could have been a factor in the selection of certain dealerships for closure.
The IRS scandal “raises serious questions about past decisions made by the [Treasury] Department regarding auto dealership closures that occurred in 2008 and 2009,” reads the letter. “We formally request that the Treasury Department provide all e-mails, phone records, notes, memoranda, reports, and other communications regarding the decision-making process for dealership closures from the Automotive Task Force headed by Car Czars Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom.”
The letter also notes that while the Automotive Task Force claimed to have objectively evaluated each dealership, a Special Inspector General Report found that there was “little or no documentation” that proves objective criteria were used.
“At the heart of this request,” the letter concludes, “is the obligation we have to the American people to ensure that political profiling has not been a systemic issue within this administration.”
Full letter here:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/17/congressmen-letter-GM-closures
workingclass artist on May 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM
No, not according to Texas law. Here we are allowed to defend ourselves and even out property with deadly force. The homeowner had every legal and moral right to kill them from the instant they entered his home.
Also, don’t try to concoct some excuse for them. Armed robbery and hot burglaries are violent crimes that often escalate to rape and murder. This homeowner was assaulted and illegally confined. The type of people who do this are always repeat offenders too, which is why we would all be better off if they had been killed.
People like you who excuse criminal violence just enable more of it.
juliesa on May 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM
Uh, no. lol!
Blake on May 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM
That idiot is so stupid he thinks soldier and Marine are interchangeable terms.
cozmo on May 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM
It’s the same in PA, where I used to live in a rural country.
Break into a home, you can be shot with no questions asked. It’s even in the PA constitution, which is two centuries old. Yo paraphrases, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of self and property shall not be questioned.”
That’s a powerful statement there — “…Shall not be questioned.”
Liam on May 18, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Well, that’s true, isn’t it? You’d think he’d learn.
Cleombrotus on May 18, 2013 at 9:49 AM
You just keep it up don’t you? The person you responded to didn’t say anything about killing them. F 8ck off.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:50 AM
I do think you’re naive and borderline mentally retarded.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:51 AM
I’ve had to deal once in my life with a potentially armed robber. Unfortunately, I wasn’t armed in that case. I hope it never happens again, but if it does, I’d much rather be armed. If you’ve never experienced it, it’s pretty damned scary.
trigon on May 18, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Be sure to offer up your backside as a burglar receptacle while you’re reassuring them how caring you are.
Maybe it’s ‘professional courtesy’ for their political brethren more than sympathy. After all, the robbers are almost assuredly Democrat-leaning pieces of shit to begin with.
Midas on May 18, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Nonpartisaned what if the homeowner shot with a skeet gun?
/
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Unarmed burglar…
viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM
There’s that superior intellect at work again. If you had actually attended an institution of higher learning, you should request a refund. Seriously, you were robbed…
Midas on May 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Does nonpartisaned even know how to google?
He is a banner so the fact that he loves the criminal does not surprise me in the least.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM
The homeowner waited until he thought they left, and when he happened upon the burglars still there, they shot at the homeowner
So they were armed and did indeed fire on him and his family, in his own house
Idiot
thurman on May 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM
.
Who shot first, Greedo or Han?
ExpressoBold on May 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM
Nothing about who fires first nimrod.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM
Wow, that’s such awesome thinking.
Now all we have to do is let the cop killers know that if they can get the Police to Fire First as they flee the scene of their bank robbery (or Boston Marathon bombing) they can then claim “Self Defense”!
I’m so glad we have your brilliance to enlighten us on these issues.
jaydee_007 on May 18, 2013 at 9:56 AM
So that is the way we have to live? Luckily tard in Texas they don’t have to. You go ahead live your life like the worm you are…oh and eff off.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Agree.
But…
They can claim anything they want but in Texas they have the Castle Doctrine. Good luck with that.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:57 AM
The libs kinda get off on something like this when the G-men do the same thing to a conservative homeowner. It’s kind of difficult for them to see that this is all wrong.
DaveDief on May 18, 2013 at 9:57 AM
The burglars could have yelled “We’re from the IRS, and we’re here for tea…
Yoop on May 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Yes. I am a woman, and I would assume he was stronger than I am. If he was wiling to break into my house, I have to assume he’s also willing to rape or kill. Plus, what’s to keep that unarmed burglar from arming himself with one of my Japanese kitchen knives, or with my hammer, once he’s in the house?
That homeowner was confronted by three men who could have easily killed him even without a gun.
Why do you hate women?
juliesa on May 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Heh, in my state of Alabama, if someone threatens you in your yard, you can kill them. Don’t even have to drag them in the house anymore. Just call 911 to haul their sorry carcass off.
1sttofight on May 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Anyone threatening the safety of my children deserves every measure of hell I unleash upon them. End of discussion.
Bruce MacMahon on May 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Because to the libtards that control the entire media, the idea that someone would actually want to defend themselves is inconceivable. So they think it needs further explanation. The lib strategy would be: 1) cower, 2) engage in ‘reasoned dialogue.’
WhatSlushfund on May 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Well said.
Nonpartisan, it is the people like you in our society that cause more violent crime to happen bcs of your constant support of the victimhood meme.
If a man is desperate to feed his family or provide for them, he doesn’t have to resort to HURTING other people. He can go to the govt for food stamps & welfare payments.
Or a CHURCH.
If he’s robbing people to pay bills, then I have zero sympathy for him. Bcs they don’t send people to debtor’s prison anymore.
Except, I suppose, for your beloved IRS.
It doesn’t ever matter how desperate a person becomes, there has never been an excuse for SEEKING OUT people in their homes & attacking them with guns, or any other weapon.
You, Sir, are nothing but an usurper of Liberty.
Go crawl back in your hole or get some better arguments.
Your moniker is extremely disingenuous.
Badger40 on May 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Texas gun safe = closet.
There are 7 closets in my Texas house. You could safely put me in only 2 of them.
Spider79 on May 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM
That’s because the only crime they were able to commit was burglary, they were stopped a bit short of anything else.
David Louis Rice was a home invasion burglar.
Joshua Komisarjevsky was a home invasion burglar.
So was his partner Steven Hayes.
And let’s not forget The Golden State Killer; Fifty rapes Ten murders.
I could go on, but to people like you it would be meaningless. (and you probably don’t think any of them deserve the Death Penalty either.)
The problem with Idiotic thinking like yours is that you expect people to put their lives on the line to determine if their burglar is the peaceful or violent sort.
Besides, burglary is a Civil Rights Violation – people have the Right to be Secure in their homes.
jaydee_007 on May 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »