Police in Clarkstown, New York have confiscated a cache of high-powered weapons and body armor from a man who was arrested for posting death threats against against many Democratic politicians and every liberal supporter of President Barack Obama.
According to WCBS, 49-year-old Larry Mulqueen was arraigned on Thursday on charges of “making terroristic threats, illegally possessing weapons and harassment.”
Mulqueen’s landlady had tipped off police after she found a “hit list” posted on Facebook that threatened Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and all members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Nothing really at all except it looks more “assault like” than a normal pistol. I figured you wouldn’t like it because of cosmetics, and sure enough you didn’t.
I love it when you gun grabbers use the words “a good start.” It proves the slippery slope is the real strategy rather than a than a logical fallacy.
They don’t oppose independent research. They oppose research into gun violence from the public health perspective. I think they are just bothered by the fact that the CDC discovered that guns can kill people. They are also a bit wary of how the public health professionals present the facts. They compare the frequency of accidental shooting by a gun in the home with the frequency of shooting a home invader. They entirely ignore situations where you don’t actually shoot the home invader.
We have plenty of independent and government research on gun violence by criminologists which falls on either side of the argument but public health folks aren’t equipped to evaluate the role of guns in society. They can only evaluate the impact of guns in society. Their studies leads you to believe that the country would be better off if noone had guns, and that may be true, but what people end up advocating based on these studies is a society where no law abiding citizen has guns and make no provision for what to do about guns in the criminal sphere.
No kidding. If they REALLY wanted to hurt the gun enthusiasts, they would lift the ban on automatic weapons and watch gun collecters let out a collective gasp as the value of a full auto M-16 goes from 20K-25K to 2k or 3K.
Has anyone proposed concentration camps for gays? Because they have proposed seizing some guns (or forcing you to sell them out of state).
Reducing firearms only among law abiding citizens is a HORRIBLE start.
Its like saying, “nuclear weapons are bad, we should get rid of them. First things we should do is decommission the US nuclear arsenal, I’m sure the whole North Korea and Iran thing will work itself out”
Of course the NRA opposes independent research. The more actual data is out there, the less people can run around saying CCW people never commit crimes or there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.
A minor nitpick on that one, in that there are several metropolitan areas that straddle state lines. You might be only “driving across town” to sell your people plugger, but you will be crossing a state line.
So you are comparing the rantings of some crazy religious nut to the legislative actions taken by senators and governors?
Then shouldn’t your focus be on reducing the transfer of guns between law abiding citizens and criminals? Disarming the general populace only makes sense if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are committedby criminals.
If I’m not mistaken you do want to chop certain guns out of existence though, don’t you? Those black ones that aren’t live affirming like a Winchester model 94, correct?
Well, at least you understand each other! I swear, somebody says maybe some regulations are in order, what you hear is “Let’s grab all the guns!” Or somebody says “Maybe some restrictions on sales?” you hear the dreaded crunch of liberal jackboots, coming to take all the guns!
Hell, if someone says good morning, you think he’s saying “Today is a good morning…to grab all the guns!”
What’s weird is all you gun control advocates telling us how much you love guns. And how you think “we just want to grab some of your guns, at least for now” is anything we should welcome. Who do you think you are fooling?
And let’s not forget elucidator that you don’t have any higher principles that you are acting from. Risk of death as consequence of certain actions is just fine by you so long as you enjoy those actions yourself. So which is it, are you a real hypocrite, or just a lockstep liberal who can’t think outside his ideology?
That would be nice but the NRA opposes anything that impedes the transfer of weapons to criminals, kids and mental patients. Their only purpose is to move guns. They protect the rights of mass shooters over innocent children. They ensure criminals can always purchase weapons at gun shows, flea markets and online without background checks. As long as the NRA is around, criminals will have unfettered access to guns.
I don’t think it’s worthwhile to ban specific guns based on their shape or how they look. Bad guys will use what’s available. If they can’t get gun X, they’ll use gun Y. I think instead we could set limits on gun capabilities such as how powerful the ammunition can be, how quickly bullets can be shot, and how many shots before reload (although I don’t think that’s really important). This way we can try to limit how much damage a bad guy can do rather than what the gun looks like.
… But at least all of Kable’s “see guns are not stupid” have kept this thread visible for weeks longer than I thought it would last. This has let the rest of us see it and remember to continue to post the stupid news about guns.
Michelle Bachmann proposed concentration camps for anybody who spoke out against the United States for being un-American, but that would include people other than gay people who are advocating change.