Monday, March 15, 2010

“If you want to keep your guns, don’t beat your wife"

From the flippant quote that state Sen. Tom Reilly gave Saturday, to the dishonest:
“I have no interest in taking your guns,” [Rep. Eric] Palmer said.
Which is exactly what S.F. 2357 does.
The only persons who would give up their gun rights would be convicted domestic abusers, he said.
Wrong again, a person only has to have a restraining order against them. Where's the "convicted" part of that?
Also, this law does nothing new — it just takes a federal law and makes it a state law, which will allow for better enforcement of the measure, he added.
Since there are two lawsuits running at the federal appeals courts right now that could overturn the federal law in this matter, let's just put it granite at the state level. High court looks at state, local gun control laws Then we have to go through the courts all over again.

Thanks, NRA:
Palmer said there was a bipartisan effort on the bill, and the National Rifle Association also weighed in on the bill.

“The NRA registered ‘neutral’ on the bill. They think it’s a good bill too,” Palmer said.
Read more from the comedy team of Reilly and Palmer: Public safety issues takes stage at Eggs & Issues


Jeffersonian said...

Lemme guess... the Only Ones are exempt.


strandediniowa said...

When on duty and with their state supplied weapons. The should still be forced to get rid of personal weapons, just like the rest of us.

But like the guy says: "Wanna keep your guns, then don't smack yer wife"

straightarrow said...

Flippant? Want flippant? If you want to keep your life don't beat my rights.

strandediniowa said...

Reilly is an idiot and he proved it with his mouth.

Neither one is worth spit right now.