“All Rise and Raise Your Right Hand… Do You, solemnly swear to have no remorse, to allow those known to be extremely violent and mentally twisted, to possess all purchasable firearms and ammunition, and to have no restrictions upon their use? So Help You?
“WE DO. WE VOTED AGAINST Barbieri HB 88 w/HA 1, HA 1 to HA 1, HA 2 BECAUSE WE BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN WITH NO RESTRICTIONS, EVEN IF THEY LOVE THE MALICIOUS KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
Ok then in order please state your name and affiliation… in the order you are listed above.
Sweeney Todd– Republican; Bruce Ennis– Democrat; James Holmes–Republican; Colin Bonini– Republican; Adam Lanza– Republican; Cathy Clouthier– Republican; Charles Manson– Republican; Brian Bushweller,–Democrat; Gerald Hocker– Republican; Greg Lavelle– Republican; Robert Marshall– Democrat; David McBride–Democrat; Gary Simpson–Republican; Robert Venables– Democrat; Charley Manson– Republican; Brian Pettyjohn– Republican; Jeffery Dahmer– Republican; Ernie Lopez– Republican; Sweeney Todd– Republican; David Lawson– Republican; Jeremy Loughner– Republican…..
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 30, 2013 at 6:34 am
Owen Kellogg
I think Steve has a little better grasp of this then you do:
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-difference-between-liberals-and.html
There is a lot more to this legislation then what the cover says.
June 30, 2013 at 9:13 am
Nancy Willing
you misses Bryan Townsend….voted no IIRC.
And if you listened to the floor debate, there appear to be significant gaps in the bill. Better clarify and correct the gaps before making it law. That was our complaint – ignored – on HB 165 after all.
June 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm
kavips
i was aware of Steve’s points made against Cassandra, and actually held off 24 hours from posting this. because of the points he made… and then I read the actual bill.
In a proposed bill, the underlined parts are the new pieces being added, and the scratch-throughs are the the parts deleted..
Neither are on the points Steve was making and Cassandra was inardently defending…. Which means, whether this bill is passed or not, those objections raised by Steve are still in the existing code.. They do not go away if this bill fails. They are the existing law of the land and will remain in place whether this bill is voted up or is voted down… .
In fact, obviously since this bill is to change existing law making it harder for a diagnosed dangerous person to own a gun, nothing changes if this bill gets voted down. Nothing.
The status quo will remain. Someone like James Holmes who makes a number of cries for help, can still arm himself to the teeth and take out all he doesn’t understand, on innocent people having a good time..
What needs to happen is this bill gets passed. A brand new bill striking out those offensive and outdated pieces of legislation already in existence then gets laid on the table, with a suspension of rules… ….
Which leads us to Bryan and Nicole. By not voting either of these two can bring the bill up for a re-analysis on Sunday, and a new vote.
June 30, 2013 at 12:44 pm
kavips
Second, to address the point of having an attorney present. That seems to be the only valid objection now being raised by Steve on this entire bill. And the acknowledgement that without an attorney specified by law, were one to accompany their client without this language in the law, he could be barred because it is not in the code..
I have yet to see an attorney barred from a DMV hearing or a labor board hearing… or the floor of the General Assembly, I believe none of which are specified. In unemployment hearings, they are usually the only ones representing the employer’s side. But knowing how skittish people can be, then having the insertion of (with or without attorney) would certainly clarify things.
Considering we are discussing the legal taking away of a Constitutional Right, probably the most fundamental of all court proceedings other than the taking of ones life or liberty, having an attorney added to the language just might be proper in this case. Just to make sure that somewhere up or down the line, in a different time (or a different parallel universe), this law has protections in place against the arbitrary declaration of insanity in order to take away a person’s guns…
If just thinking insane thoughts were a reason to bar one from owning weapons, no Republican should be allowed to own a gun…
As in more stringent, tougher, tighter government austerity creates good high paying jobs and promote healthy economic activity: Humph… really.
June 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm
kavips
And Nancy… Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was a big difference between 165 and 88… 165 was creating a new agency and a new policy. 88 is plugging holes in one existing.
Using water as an analogy, 165 was like buying a new boat that was unseaworthy. 88 is plugging up the leaks in the one we’re sitting in. You can always shop around for another boat. You can’t wait too long to plug you leaks… :)
July 2, 2013 at 8:56 pm
Mike W
The reporting requirement, not to mention the weak “preponderance of the evidence” standard mean gun owners who need mental health services will forgo treatment.
Anti-gunners seem to want to make the problem of mental illness and guns worse
July 2, 2013 at 9:33 pm
kavips
Thanks. I wondered what the objection was. Makes sense now. i guess we need a clause similar to the drug overdose piece of legislation that absolves them if they turn themselves in voluntarily .
September 5, 2013 at 3:17 pm
mike w.
What we “need” Kavips, is for leftist anti-gunners to stop
1. Attacking the 2nd Amendment. It’s an individual right. If you hate individual rights go to Europe.
2. Tying “mental health” to the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right that will
(a) act as a barrier to the exercise of that right and / or discourage exercise.
(b) greatly discourage any gun owner who needs mental health assistance from seeking help. Anyone with half a brain can see that this will exacerbate the very problem anti-gunners claim to want to “solve” with such legislation. Truth is, there have always been crazy people intent on murder, even decades ago when there were no background checks and you could buy a gun mail order or at your local mom & pop hardware store & shoot it in the basement of the local high school. IF the problem of crazies and guns has gotten worse (a big if) it’s not because of lack of gun control laws, historically speaking.
September 6, 2013 at 10:53 am
kavips
The Right is Gun Owners own worst enemy. Sort of like that mouthy little guy in one’s group, who after 3 beers can’t shut his mouth in a bar and always gets you into rip-roaring bar fights, the Right is doing that to the Second Amendment.
Gun owners know that to keep their right to own guns, guns will have to always be used responsibly. Every time someone creates a headline with a gun, their rights come under attack. With enough attacks, their rights will erode.
Being smart now, is the answer. Joining with the Left, not the right, and creating compromise legislation now, to defend your rights for later, is the smart option.
As things get worse, sooner or later, someone is going to have enough clout to seriously impede everyone’s right to own guns. We all know that in truth, it makes no sense, taking guns will not do good or bad, but taking guns will do something most assuredly…. it will put all guns into the hands of the group that collects them…
That we can’t have. Which is why it makes sense to abandon the irresponsible people on the Right, who for their own attention involve gun owners into rip roaring political altercations, with no care or concern for those actually owning guns. They are using you.
Better to compromise now, with those who just want to establish peace of mind within our population, so all can sleep safer at night… That was almost done this session, and probably will be done the next….. with a couple of minor changes.
Granting criminal Immunity upon turning oneself in to seek mental health care, and actually signing an affidavit granting ownership to that person, might go a long way in such situations, of making all of society safer.
September 25, 2013 at 10:11 am
Mike W.
History shows us gun owners what your goals are. Hell, your own words show us that, and history shows that you cannot and should not be “compromised” with.
It is no more “smart” to compromise with your ilk than it would be for a woman to let her rapist penetrate “just a little” or for a black man to compromise with a KKK members. It gets us absolutely nothing, and is, therefore, by definition not actually compromise, but capitulation to those who seek to do us harm (I.E. anti’s like yourself)
September 25, 2013 at 7:38 pm
kavips
Your sense of history is delusional, I’m afraid. That history is not taught in schools because it isn’t true.
No American has ever taken guns away. That is a myth stolen from a TV show in the 80’s.
The A Team, ever watch it? Here is an episode to occupy your time and keep you for a little while, away from your distorted vision of history…
The A Team