Here we go again. Nadler,proof positive FORKS are a lethal weapon. Jerry,if YOU and the REST of the liberals would not have mandated that the criminally insane could NOT be institutionalized for THEIR safety as much as the general public’s, and if you and your ilk would spend as much time trying to get a handle on the KNOWN whackjobs running around as you do trying to disarm LAW ABIDING citizens,maybe some of these nutjobs would NOT be able to carry out their intentions.

He could not make the first week of Basic and we all here revel in the Mental Images of Him, Trying.
Louisiana in the good old summertime would doubtless kill ‘his useless a$$,’, but there are going to be countless others.
If this guy took a car or a bicycle where is ‘that’ outcry?

Jerry Nadler could not survive a day in the barracks at Fort Riley, Kansas, in the summer of 1968.

He would have been smart. But not tough.

The reliable face of gun control, Mr Nadler, NYC liberal so out of step with most of Amrican from sea to shining sea.

Tragedies like that at Sandy Hook Elementary may even shake my faith in God; but never my faith in the Second Amendment. Never, never, never!

I think the deal has been made. I think the Assault Weapons Ban is in play in exhcange for a few concessions by the Obama Administration on tax and entitlement program details in the fiscal negotiations and later this Spring.

Rupert Murdoch tweeting his support yesterday for a ban on “automatic weapons…like in Oz” tells me that the heavies had made their phone calls and the outlines of the deal are being drawn up:

“We’ll trade you a new Assault Weapons Ban for some movement in our direction on capital gains, estate taxes, the charitable giving deduction, and some minor commitments on entitlement reform.”

The RINOs are going to give Obama the AWB victory he’s wanted for 4 years in exchange, basically – for cash.

The new AWB is going to be long and complicated. It’s going to have a lot of grey areas and loopholes that can be exploited by well-to-do people who have the means. They will be able to buy the guns they want.

I’m thinking along the lines of:

1) Hi-capacity magazine restriction: Nobody will be able to have more than a 10-round magazine on any weapon – rifle, shotgun or handgun. And all of the existing hi-capacity magazines will have to be turned in. Being caught with one will be a federal crime. This will be subject to some exceptions for personal security guards and services, hired through a licensed provider. Barbra Streisand’s security guards near her Malibu home will still have access to high-capacity magazines for their AR-15s.

2) Insurance mandate: If you own a handgun or a rifle and keep it in your home, you must henceforth carry half a million dollars in liability insurance per weapon. You will have to buy gun insurance just as you have to buy health insurance. The government’s power to do this has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

3) 30 day waiting period except for security institutions, police officers, licensed security guards, and gun clubs and other organizations. If you own a gun club or obviously if you are an FFL you don’t have to wait. You will, however, have to pay a fee of $500 to receive your guns immediately.

4) Everyone who keeps a gun at home must purchase and have installed a rated and approved gun vault, which must be inspected on a regular basis. Personal gun ownership is conditional upon purchasing a vault and having it installed, or co-locating your guns with another facility that does have one.

It’s going to be a very bad Spring for gun owners in America. The Obama Administration literally holds all the cards and the Republicans are ready to play “Let’s Make A Deal” and they’re going to.

The fat man speaks. He makes liberal sense, which is no sense. Another compassionate liberal exploiting a liberal caused tragedy for polictical purposes.

The Second amendment is enshrined in the constitution asa right in need of protection for a self governing republlc whose rights derive from GOD the Creator. . The Bill of Rights needs protection, all ten of them. If One falls they are all weaker for that fall.
Never never give up a right no matter how dark the night.

For Obama to get a ban he’d need the House and 218 votes. He’d need Boehner to agree to it plus 217 more votes.
Are they there?
Sure among Democrats who are not 218 in number, but how many house Republicans would vote for a gun ban in exchange for anything?
That is a stretch to think the House would agree to a ban and if it did. What about the SCF in Senate. Will Rand Paul allow this hypothetical ban to pass or Lee or Demint? .

Well, I’m presenting one of my longstanding worst-case scenarios here, and in part it is a warning of things that I think are plausible if a significant number of Republicans succumb in exchange for other things they want.

It may be a stretch to imagine it happening, but I think it just went from a circus contortionist spectacle to a few days of working out in the House gym.

None of it is written in stone, obviously, but as a Democrat wish list I think it’s just the beginning. I expect them to press the issue and use every means at their disposal to get something done, including dangling a lot of carrots and using a lot of sticks on Republicans in the coming months. And I think a lot of the things they are going to propose are in line with what I’ve written above.

People on this blog who are closer to Washington – and those who have their gnomes living high on a hill with the lonely goatherd – yodelay-he-hoo – are going to have to tell us whether they see significant movement in this direction.

I think people need to be prepared for arguments that are sure to be on the way, so I presented some of what I think are going to spring immediately to mind. This President has shown a remarkable tendency to use existing Massachusetts laws as the basis for his signature federal initiatives and I expect that to continue.

Tell the liberals they either need a Constitutional amendment, or to kiss my posterior. They keep trying for these legal “amendments” to the Constitution in terms of laws instead of being forced to amend the Constitution to get their stupid ideas. They took DOMA and turned it into an “unconstitutional” deal with their progressive sugar daddy in the White House. Anybody passes a law this stupid as s Republican deserves to be thrown on the ash-heap of history.

Highly doubtful. The Democrats would never put that out there. They may, however, be willing to make some concessions on revenue and even entitlement reform in order to get the Republican caucus to throw the NRA under the bus. The big prize that they’ve wanted for a long time is to have the *Republicans* defenestrate the NRA and other pro-2am lobbying groups.

I expect them to go for it this time in a big way. This is one of Bill Clinton’s “Art of the Possible” moments.

Dude, really, what are you doing here?

You sound like a lib, through and through.

considering all your posts are lackluster and add nothing either to discussion or anything else

We are conservatives, the last thing we should be doing is calling people fat. Personal Freedom, be it to eat yourself to death or smoke etc. is a cornerstone of conservative beliefs and calling people fat is both childish and sad.

Did I say he had no right to call him fat? No.
Did I police his language in anyway? Nope.
I said, shouldn’t we (conservatives) be above this? the answer is yes.

As for my posts, you may not agree with them but the last thing they are is bland.or shallow, but insipid was probably the only scrabble word you know, tovarish.

I have long been uncomfortable with Murdochs owning Fox news, He adores both Clintons and look how friendly Hannity and Bill OR were to her 2008. Murdoch endorsed her for Senate and it shows.
He dropped the UK Conservatives in 1997 also when Labour and Blair were rising in polls. He dropped Labor when Cameron won a few yeara back.

DOMA is a plug in the dam and Obama in court may unleash a flood. If it breaks through the courts Full faith and credit clause of constitution that says states honor each states contracts kicks in and Zap–state laws are unvalid on marrriage re same sex.
part II of FFC may be like DOMA but is not used.

Another stupid lib troll.

State legislatures not governors, courts or the president decide on the amendment to our constitution, No one in DC could cut a deal to do more than pass thier super majority–thankfully. They do not speak for state legislatures.
My state, Wisiconsin is run by Republicans who passed a CC with Democratic support 2011. They picked up a seat in state Senate after numerous senseless recalls 2012. The governor is pro gun rights and survived recall also. yet Obama carried the state and the Dem held the Senate seat.
The governor would not be involved but the GOP legislature would be when that ban amend came to the state. It would fail if they voted Jan 2013.

Former Obama administration Chief of Staff Rahm ‘dead fish’ Emanuel said: “never let a crisis go to waste.” I fully expect Barack Obama to issue an executive order reinstating an Assault Weapons Ban similar to, or more stringent than, the one passed in 1994 (under a Democrat-controlled Congress) – which never proved effective in the first place. The Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994 did little to cut down on violent crime and in certain aspects crime using assault type weapons actually went up after the ban went into effect. Government research conducted by the Department of Justice concluded the assault weapons ban wasn’t really effective in its intended purpose and thus Congress let it lapse in 2004. Reinstating a new and possibly more stringent assault weapons ban is worth a try but Obama needs to allow Congress to act on the initiative and not to act like a dictator by “bypassing” the process that is required by Congress to get done. Obama has ‘repeatedly’ bypassed Congress since taking office and he needs to STOP DOING IT! Don’t expect him to listen by the way.

There are other ways to insure a safer America rather than instituting a new assault weapons ban (which probably wouldn’t work anyway – just like the last one didn’t really work). Did you realize the Obama administration actually let school security funds ‘lapse’ over the last several years? Hundreds of millions of dollars that were supposed to be used to increase security in our children’s schools – were “taken away” by Barack Obama and his onerous, socialist administration. In fact, Obama’s teary eyed speech the other day over the shooting may have been ‘forced’ tears, in my opinion, to try and “hide” the fact that Barack Obama’s own administration “refused” to provide the funding that could have allowed Sandy Hook and other schools all across the country the “additional security” that possibly could have averted this latest tragedy in Connecticut from occurring. Nonetheless, incompetence and partisan politics are quite possibly the main reason(s) why violent crime and chaos continues to escalate under Obama’s corrupt administration.

Barack Obama continues to reward our enemies and he also continues to punish our allies and friends. That is not only true on an international level but it is also true on a domestic level as well. For instance, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress fully supported the anarchist “Occupy Wall Street” movement that caused untold havoc, crime and chaos all across the country and also destroyed significant amounts of both public and private property. Obama and Democrats in Congress have never spoken out against the Occupy anarchist movement and the result is a continuance of “chaotic” occurrences that continue to wreck havoc, death and destruction, all across America. When the occupant of the White House and his own administration are incompetent at best then it is of little wonder why America is going to hell-in-a-hand-basket under his corrupt and self-serving administration. Barack Obama also refuses to denounce or condemn Union leaders who incite violence and retribution against American citizens they disagree with. Obama continues to remain silent on the issue to this very day. When the president of the United States refuses to denounce or condemn atrocities that incite violence and retribution against American citizens (like Occupy Wall Street and Big Labor Union goons have done), then it is of little wonder why violent crime(s) and chaos continue to run rampant across America on Obama’s watch. The answer to America’s continuing troubles is to impeach the guy who is allowing them to escalate through sheer incompetence and through divisive self-serving politics that have negatively impacted not only the safety and security of the American people, but also the safety and security of nations throughout the world. Nuff’ said.

I was hoping that the true paper of record, the right-leaning NY Post, would stand against victim disarmament in a city which in the name of compassion declines to institutionalize long-term the most dangerous amongst us.

Hoping against hope, as usual… The Post editorializes that legislators who would ban firearms must “contend” with the Constitution, but many Albany opinion writers seem to have swayed the paper’s course leftward. Frederick Dicker, whose adulation of Gov. Mario Cuomo and his gay marriage agenda (which Dicker assured Post readers in numerous pre-election columns was *the* top priority of contemporary, altruistic NYers) helped Cuomo sweep to victory. Now NY’s anti-gun left legislators opportunistically seizing upon the blood of murdered children in the waters, and smelling political triumph at hand, are lining up employing dire expressions of grief for photo-ops dotted throughout even the Post, to continue the march against Second Amendment rights, starting with nebulously defined assault weapons and going on from there.

no need to look them up, I actually knew what they meant, unlike the person who cant see the contradictions.

We’re not particularly worried about hurting Fat Jerry’s feelings.

I sure hope you’re wrong about all of that. Any republican that votes for a package like that should lose all support, including in general elections. I would seriously rather have a dem than an republican that votes that way.

Jerry Nadler is a bully. A great big, giant, fat bully.

Man, I don’t know if I agree with that. I think liberal policies get exactly the opposite effect of what THEY SAY they intend. But I think those policies get them EXACTLY what they actually intend.

As for the worth of my question? 16 people agreed with my comment.

Big deal, I’ve seen trolls get over 30.

my point is I’m not the only person with this feeling

and the point of him being fat is?

No. You have to infringe on it even with the smallest restriction on magazine capacity. Here in Massachusetts, I own a weapon with a ten round magazine restriction and I am at a disadvantage to a criminal who comes across the state line (near my home) with a higher-capacity magazine or who has more than one gun. It’s a stupid restriction and it shouldn’t be the law here, but it is.

The only way to do it otherwise it is to electrify the weapon and establish permissive action links on the guns themselves, making them electromechanical devices with chips inside them that allow the gun to fire or not fire. The next step in gun control is to electrify the weapon itself. Right now, aside from some kinds of electroptical sights and laser sights, every gun you can buy is a strictly mechanical device: you pull the trigger and if it is chambered and loaded and the safety mechanisms are in line, it will go *bang* almost all the time, unless there is a strictly mechanical problem.

That is the single most important reason guns are designed the way they are: they are machines. If they’re loaded properly and maintained properly, they will fire.

What is coming in addition to what I wrote are permissive action links on guns. That sounds nice except that if someone wants to, they will be able to “turn off” all the guns for which they control the electromechanical mechanism. Think about that for a second:

Someone with the codes can drive through a town and shut everyone’s guns off with a signal. No need to have probable cause, no arrest warrants, no nothing: you just shut all the guns off with a computer. Wait until Anonymous gets ahold of the codes.

Yes, this is time to play by the leftist rules, Alinsky style and we should respond in kind to this leftist propaganda. We have been on this path for decades of more gun laws, the left owns these gun laws, we relied on them and yet again, they have failed. Now leftists have the blood of more children on their hands, they own the laws that caused this tragedy but cry more gun laws. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results…

One small problem w/ the tax and confiscate scenario, the logistics of removing several hundred million firearms from the populace. If the Democrats thought deporting 12 million illegal aliens was a stretch, imagine ten times as many guns taken from gun owners. Although, you are correct regarding the SCOTUS’ belief that any tax but a poll tax is constitutional.

I’m reminded of Obama’s indignant lecturing of Mitt Romney in the second debate, asserting that any questions regarding his handling of the Benghazi affair amounted to “politicizing a tragedy.” The banal tirade drew cheers from the left, the same folks who are probably cheering Nadler. Evidently this is yet another free speech limitation that applies only the conservatives – if we want answers after a tragedy we are “exploiting” the situation for “evil” purposes; if the left does it they are simply leveraging the public good. From my point of view, I cannot imagine anything more disgusting than politicizing the murder of a bunch of 6 year olds.