Pennsylvania does not let municipalities set their own gun laws, has no waiting period before buying a gun, other than a background check, and does not allow police to restrict who can get a license to carry a concealed weapon. And on Tuesday, as one of these girls was dying, the state house saw no reason to change things now.
State Rep. Doug Reichley, pawn of special interests, told the House these shootings "were not related at all to the purchase of a firearm." I see.
On Monday, I told you we need to rid government of legislators who place special interests like the NRA ahead of the rest of us. And Reichley has just proved my point.
Update: Blue Collar Casey, Reichley's common sense opponent this November, is troubled by our growing indifference to human life, especially when it involves children.
"I agree that gun laws had nothing to do with it. Because there is no law that would question why a man would suddenly purchase a small arsenal and 600 rounds of ammunition. There is no law requiring that he receive training and prove himself competent, capable, and responsible to be allowed to handle a firearm. There is no law, reasonable as it would be, limiting firearm purchases to one a month, or even one a year. There is no law following this simple reasoning, because powerful lobbyists and their money stand against it."
25 comments:
Why were they even talking about this on Tuesday? Couldn't they give it a rest until the children are at least buried?
Reichley is a Nazi. He'd let creeps mow down little girls with lawnmowers if it would get him a PAC contribution. He's a nasty, evil man. His comments only cause more pain for those families who lost their little girls so tragically and are still grieving. What a tool of the special interests! Talk about turning your back on all those parents who worry that their child may be next.
Anon 7:44, You need to be a little more forthright in your opinions. Don't hold back. Tell us how you feel.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
This is true, whether you like it or not.
Don't blame the gun, blame the killer.
Thank God for the NRA.
Mark,
Next time I see God I'll be sure to thank Her, but not for the NRA.
I'm sick and tired of NRA propaganda. Six little girls just died. They were senselessly slaughtered by a deranged man armed to the teeth with 600 rounds of ammo! Everything, and I mean everything, needs to be examined to prevent that sort of thing from happening in a society that is supposed to be civilized. If that means you should only be able to buy one gun per month, so be it. If that means you must be licensed to own a weapon, let's do it.
Our lax gun laws cause too many deaths. "This is true, whether you like it or not." And please don't insult these little girls with those trite phrases. You and I both know that if that milkman had no gun, those girls would probably be alive today. Death is a lot more ugly when a gun is not involved. It might have made the poor bastard think.
Your slogans sound very hollow to me right now, but I thank you for ypour opinion.
Damn the kids. Praise the NRA!
That's the message I get.
LVDem, I've seen what guns can do, up close and personal. It's not pretty. They're killing machines. That's their sole purpose. But it's a very impersonal way of ending someone's life. You don't really have to think about it. Let the bullets do the work.
I respect sportsmen and hunters, and I even understand that some people need to carry a weapon to protect themselves. But we definitely need tougher gun control laws.
I'm very sorry for these poor young ladies and their families. And I'm disgusted by our state House and the insensitive nature of Reichley's remarks.
Gov. Rendell, who supports tougher gun laws, said he did not believe any one gun law would have stopped Roberts from carrying out the crime.
"I believe with all my heart that we need more gun control," Rendell said at a news conference Tuesday, and then added, "You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life."
Rendell's right. Which undercuts the logic of using the horrific incident in Lancaster as the reason for more gun control.
Finally, anyone who anonymously calls someone else a "Nazi" is a chickenshit.
Anon 12:07, Anonymous name-calling doesn't help debate, whether you're calling someone a Nazi or a chickenshit.
And I'd have to disagree w/ Rendell. In fact, gun control laws are most effective when dealing with the random or emotional acts of violence. Waiting periods give people a chance to cool down. If someone is off his rocker, others might notice during a waiting period.
And 600 rounds of ammo? Come on. In the army, I was never issued more than 60 rounds at a time.
It's a lot easier to kill w/ a gun than w/ a knife or some othjer implement. If this milkman had no gun instead of three, I think those girls would be alive. If he had only one gun, he probably would think twice before going into that school.
Our gun control laws need to be revisited and strengthened. In an Amish commuinity, a municipality might want to ban guns completely, which would be consistent w/ their religious beliefs. Yet our laws won't permit that. A license that required periodic renewal might have helped.
Thanks for your input. You're right about the name-calling, but I'm no comment cop.
Anonymous name-calling is wrong, whether it's Nazi or chickenshit. By the way, do you know what they call the white stuff in chickenshit?
Chickenshit.
Isn't it amazing how Reichley has the guts to go out on the House Floor and give a speech about what he believes in -- whether you agree with him or not?
But then some one can just go on a blog like this and spew "Nazi" this and "special interest" that and no one's the wiser about who it is?
Maybe there should be a calming down or cooling off period on blog posting.
But no wait, that would violate the First Amendment. And that's an Amendment everyone loves. It's such a warm and fuzzy one.
We wouldn't want to trample all over that one -- just because some nitwit misuses it to anonymously libel someone, right?
Anybody else want to toss out any other parts of the Bill of Rights?
wHAT AR U GONNA DO ABOUT
THAT LIL OLE 2AM?
iF 2ND AM is here to say and it is--what then?
It becomes moot/academic. Not much anyone can do.
iF 2ND AM is here to say and it is--what then?
It becomes moot/academic. Not much anyone can do.
I have a constitutional right to bear arms Bernie. Don't mess with it.
The highest law in the land will never waiver even under the most liberal of justices.
This was another isolated incident where some nutcase went over the edge. There ar millions of guns in the USA. People aren't shooting up schools.
This is what you call an unfortunate circumstance. I feel sorry for the girls and their families - not the assailant or his.
And yes, I too am greatful for the NRA.
I don't think Reichley displayed courtage: he displayed insensitivity. And he spewed his special interest message over the dead and dying bodies of schoolgirls. What a guy!
Dr. Rick. Gun control laws that require a license or give municipalities some control or that minit the number of weapons would easily pass constitutional muster. Nobody is missing with your Konstitutional Right to KIll.
Let's license blogs. Or at least limit the number of dumb posts per day.
To Anon 12:05, Oh by all means! Let people shoot at will. Have an open season on Amish. That ought to lure in the tourists. But whatever you do, don't talk about it. That's right. Let's make sure that the only message heard is one that Reichley pays for. In fact, let's make sure there's only one blog, the Precision Marketing blog. That's where we can go to find the dirt on all reform candidates.
Gosh, you got a little jumpy there. Almost like you resented the idea of one of your rights guaranteed by the Constitution being "infringed" upon.
By the way, you know what backs up the First Amendment, ultimately?
The Second Amendment.
You don't think so? Trying being a student dissident in China. Very low incident of gun crime in China. Great place to live, too.
Anon 2:00, I understood where you were coming from. The First Amendment is the foundaton of the rest of our civil liberties. We would have no rights, including the "right" to bear arms, without the right to speak freely.
As important and fundamental as that right may be, limitations are regularly imposed. People may not use shopping centers to vent about the war or to protest abortion. In the name of "national security," people can be kept a distance from government officials. Time and place restrictions have long been upheld. And this is our most fundamental right!
Now we also have a right of privacy, to do what we want, and no one seriously questions limitations on those. Bars must close at 2 AM, and they must be licensed. Gambling is strictly regulated. Drugging and the purchase of sexual services is barred.
So we all have rights, but we also have reasonable restrictions on those rights that pass consititutional scrutiny if they serve a legitimate public interest.
Tighter gun controls would not prevent you from going out to a pheasant farm w/ Abe Atiyeh and Doug Reichley to blast away. But they would serve a legitimate public interest in keeping our kids alive until they're 18, so we can send them off to get killed in a war somewhere else.
I'm on your side when you talk about defending our constitution. I'd even agree that the right to bear arms is protected not only by the second amendement, but by our right to be secure in our homes.
But this doesn't mean there can't be gun controls. I think you'd agree you shouldn't be able to drive an M1 Abrams to your 7-11.
In the wake of these deaths, we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Are we doing EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING that we can reasonable do, to prevent a repetition? I think tighter gun controls would help. They would be constitional.
And by the way, we're getting closer to China every day, thanks to Team Bush.
Anon 2:00, I understood where you were coming from. The First Amendment is the foundaton of the rest of our civil liberties. We would have no rights, including the "right" to bear arms, without the right to speak freely.
As important and fundamental as that right may be, limitations are regularly imposed. People may not use shopping centers to vent about the war or to protest abortion. In the name of "national security," people can be kept a distance from government officials. Time and place restrictions have long been upheld. And this is our most fundamental right!
Now we also have a right of privacy, to do what we want, and no one seriously questions limitations on those. Bars must close at 2 AM, and they must be licensed. Gambling is strictly regulated. Drugging and the purchase of sexual services is barred.
So we all have rights, but we also have reasonable restrictions on those rights that pass consititutional scrutiny if they serve a legitimate public interest.
Tighter gun controls would not prevent you from going out to a pheasant farm w/ Abe Atiyeh and Doug Reichley to blast away. But they would serve a legitimate public interest in keeping our kids alive until they're 18, so we can send them off to get killed in a war somewhere else.
I'm on your side when you talk about defending our constitution. I'd even agree that the right to bear arms is protected not only by the second amendement, but by our right to be secure in our homes.
But this doesn't mean there can't be gun controls. I think you'd agree you shouldn't be able to drive an M1 Abrams to your 7-11.
In the wake of these deaths, we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Are we doing EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING that we can reasonable do, to prevent a repetition? I think tighter gun controls would help. They would be constitional.
And by the way, we're getting closer to China every day, thanks to Team Bush.
I hope all of you who are so proud of the 2nd Amendment bear those arms for a well regulated militia... see that word... regulated... the founders allowed for arms to be regulated
Come on, man. You must know this type of attack is unfair unless you've got pics of Doug goose-stepping down some hallway with a swastika branded on his forehead. I don't think Reichley should be re-elected because he is a pawn of special interests, anti-union, took the payraise, is opposed to reform and is insensitive to most of us. In fact, I don't think even Reps can in good conscience vote for him. But it's wrong to start name-calling.
Post a Comment