Sunday, February 17, 2013

Ex-State Sen. Welch's Post-Newtown Remark Keeps Reverberating

More compassionate conservatism:

Prolific Wisconsin lobbyist, hunting enthusiast and former Red Granite (WI)  GOP State Sen. Bob Welch is still taking heat for his advice to the recent state NRA Convention that pro-gun forces under political pressure should wait out "the Connecticut effect."

9 comments:

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

At this point, any state can be used in the middle of that phrase, between "The" and "Effect"

How many gun killings since "The Connecticut Effect", now? 2000? 2500?

Reagan's Disciple said...

We are not banning guns. Get over it.

Your side is so misguided they can't even get Harry Reid on board with your position.

3 kelyzede

Gary Ott said...

No-one is suggesting that guns be banned. There is a discussion about a Constitutionally acceptable means of curbing gun violence. You are not contributing to this discussion.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Actually, we don't even need new gun regulations.

All we need to do is expand the currently existing regulation of Class A weapons to cover a bit wider range.

I also would like to see a respectable increase on taxes of weapons and most particularly, ammunition.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

The "not banning guns" refrain is so much whistling past the graveyard; Colorado has put four smart gun regulation measures on the track to passage, and in Illinois, a Democrat with an NRA "A" rating has been forced to drop out of the primary because of the gun-lobby support, while a second "A" rating candidate is backpedaling the same rating as fast as possible. While the candidate with the NRA's "F" rating and proud of it, is rising.

Perhaps the blood-soaked gun lobby's time is fading. Perhaps.

Gary Ott said...

There'll always be a critical mass of people who are untroubled by assaults on the Constitution like the Patriot Act but screech like harpies when half the Second Article of the Bill of Rights is, according to their flawed understanding, under assault. At some point, either their ox must be gored, or we must simply accept that the much bruited-about "price of freedom" is the lives of innocents.

Reagan's Disciple said...

Again, you make claims that have absolutely no factual basis. You keep making statements, like .. "how many killings..." that offer nothing.

Please explain how banning a weapon because of how it looks will prevent violence. The difference between an AR-15 and another semi auto weapon is how it looks, not how it functions.

How will taxing ammunition curb violence? Will gang members not purchase ammo for their weapons because the tax is too high?

How will taxing weapons, curb violence? Do you think the thug on the corner isn't going to buy a 9mm because of a sales tax? Does the owner of the stolen firearm need to report the sales tax?

Seems more and more obvious that you don't really care about the violence, rather you are looking for new tax revenue programs.

Taxes do not stop murder and nothing you put forward will do ANYTHING to prevent further violence.







Gary Ott said...

Were you responding to the voices in your head? No-one mentioned any of the things you railed about, nor did anyone make any unsupported claims,
A worthy "Reagan Disciple" indeed; in the throes of Alzheimer's.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Seems more and more obvious that you don't really care about the violence,

As opposed to your belief that the violence is impossible to stem? And I'm the one who doesn't care about the violence?

You can go to hell. I've never said anything that says that, and you are bad at reading comprehension.