search
top

More Politicians Using Coffins as Soapboxes

Diana DeGette (D-CO) is busy joining Bob Costas, because clearly what House Democrats need in the middle of fiscal cliff negotiations is to refocus the Costas firestorm on them. She’s joined here by Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) who goes farther and notes:

“Unfortunately, it’s tragedies like [the Kansas City shooting] that brings people’s attention back to the issue,” she said.

Perlmutter’s primary concerns center on renewing an assault weapons ban and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. There is some speculation that Belcher may have been suffering from head injuries incurred while playing football, as well as abusing painkillers and alcohol.

So how is it not using coffins as soapboxes to have people like DeGette and Perlmutter advocating for laws, like an assault weapons ban, that have exactly nothing at all to do with this recent murder-suicide? Belcher didn’t use an assault weapon, and in this country, where owning a gun is a fundamental constitutional right, under what grounds can we remove someone’s rights based on “some speculation?” Maybe I’m crazy here, but I’m pretty sure the Constitution that both Representatives DeGette and Perlmutter swore to uphold says that “due process of law” is what is required to deny someone fundamental constitutional rights.

6 Responses to “More Politicians Using Coffins as Soapboxes”

  1. Bubblehead Les says:

    Can’t figure out why everyone is getting so upset about this. How many Women are Killed every single week by their Boyfriends, Spouses or Exes? Not saying it’s a Good Thing, not at all, but it’s a “National Tragedy” when a NFL Player does it? Gimme a Break.

  2. Harold says:

    Errr, latest I could find on Google is that Belcher used two guns, and wouldn’t you say there’s a good chance one of them was an “assault weapon”? I mean, not all of us worship at the shrine of John Moses Browning, PBUH.

    • Windy Wilson says:

      Considering that there is what you term a “good chance” that the woman this man killed was placed in fear for her life, then yes, whatever firearm he used was a weapon with which he committed an assault, so ipso facto, it was an “assault weapon.”
      Logically a preeminently true statement; however, it does not advance the argument of any side in this debate, so no points.

      All this discussion about the tool used, when only a few months ago there was lots of reports in the news about how football players frequently played concussed, and later in life had impulse and anger problems and a statistically significant larger record of assaults and similar crimes. Costas was only trying to head off the discussion from where it might actually impact HIS income and career, and in so doing Zumboed himself big time. “The Costas-Zumbo Effect.”

    • jerry says:

      Why a good chance one of them was an assault weapon? Those types of weapons are not commonly used in crimes of any type.

      • Harold says:

        Any handgun with a normal magazine capacity > 10 rounds is an “assault weapon”, especially if it had such a magazine when he used it.

        The Browning reference is to single stack 1911s, which don’t normally have magazines with > 8 rounds. I use single stack 1911s because they fit my hand perfectly, along with all the other usual reasons.

  3. Rob Crawford says:

    I dunno. There’s a certain appeal to declaring jocks second-class citizens. The only time I’ve ever been threatened with murder it was for the horrible offense of asking a jock to turn his stereo down to a level which allowed me to hear the TV in my room.

top