Gov. Ed Rendell seeks mandate for more gun control in Pennsylvania
The governor tells public radio that gun regulation is a touchy subject beyond Philadelphia and its suburbs.
"This is a state with a lot of gun ownership. But I do think the legislators mistake that for thinking that for believing that gun owners don’t want reasonable gun laws that would affect criminals," Rendell said. "So we’re going to try again. But it’s an uphill fight in Harrisburg."
But he said he’ll continue to push for additional local control for the city.
"What I’m going to try mostly to do is convince the legislature to let Philadelphia have the right to pass its own gun laws. We had that, when I was mayor, up until 1996 – then they took it away from us. I’d like them to give us that right back," Rendell said. . . .
I am not sure what one officer being killed in a decade shows regarding gun control, but the officer was apparently killed with a shotgun (see below). I don't recall any laws specifically addressing the ownership of shotguns that was in effect in Philadelphia before 1995 or is currently being proposed if local regulatory control was granted. I hope that Rendell isn't allowed to view a win in the gubernatorial race this fall as a mandate for more gun laws. He was able to use his previous win as a mandate for higher income and other taxes in the state. Here is some info on the shooting:
"This officer didn't appear like he even had an opportunity to pull his weapon," Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson said.. . .
Labels: Rendell
posted by John Lott at 11:31 AM
10 Comments:
People die everyday on the job; when they do there is this reaction for more rules; they want to save every beating heart - we should all live our lives in air filtered cocoons sheltered from every possible threat to our lives.
Today's politician wants control to allow him to create his legacy; a disarmed public is a compliant one. Once the public cannot threaten politicians with harm or force then they can do as they please. A nazi wants control. What kind of politician wants to disregard the Bill or Rights - the set of rules that defines freedom and makes freedom the law? For his anti-gun rhetoric he has no right to govern.
John Lott has it right: gun control is an excuse to get citizens to vote for him.
saturdaynightspecial
Rendell is nothing more than a liberal anti-gunner who wants to negate the constitutional and God given right to protect one's self. He wants to punish the law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals. He is using the shooting of an officer to attempt to remove guns from good people. I hope the gun owners and hunters of PA are able to get rid of this liberal at the next election. He's a threat to the security of individuals and this nation. "From our cold dead hands" governor!
I hope we can vote this bum out of office. I am a Pennsylvania gun owner and I am voting for Lynn Swann.
I am a Kalifornia gun owner. There are so many little nit-picky laws to keep track of. I have to review my CA Gun Owners digest every couple of months to make sure I'm legally transporting my legally bought firearms. My strong suggestion to Pennsylvania gun owners is: Make gun rights your single issue to decide who you vote for. If a politician is an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, I can guarantee you that he supports all the rest of the amendments, and the Founder's Constitution, not the socialist's version. God Bless America
You're an idiot. Violent gun crime is one of the largest problems facing our cities and communities today. It's the ignorance of rural hicks like you that continue to keep our cities unsafe. Guns kill. Period.
Maybe you'll change your mind when someone in your family gets blown away.
Dear last Anonymous:
I personally think that one of the marks of intelligence is to understand the arguments being made by the otherside. You might not agree, but at least be able to debate them. In this case, sure guns kill. They also make it easier for people to kill. But guns also make it easier for people to defend themselves and prevent bad things from happening. While the media very rarely covers defensive gun use, people use guns much more frequently to protect themselves and stop crime than they are used to commit crime. The question that we all should ask is what is the net effect. For your interest, both of my books that are noted on the front page of this web site deal with both the net effect question as well as the issue of media bias.
Why should the law abiding loose there rights because of one criminal. In this day and age, when we are at war with terroist, to restrict gun ownership is suicide. More guns less crime!
Read the story for Christ's sake!
The cop was shot with a shotgun, not a handgun.
If Ed is going to use this cop as an excuse to ban handguns he is making a bad mistake.
There are nearly a million hunters in this state plus their families that he is about to piss off.
I say enforce the laws we already have on the books first, and stop trying to draw attention to yourself for political purposes with any new laws.
Hey Slick Eddie keep your hands off my guns you fat Cheese Steak eating, peguin walking liberal. Check your facts. Not one person with a permitt to carry a gun has shot anyone. What happened to the mandatory 5 years for any crime comitted with a gun that you and your cronies bargin away down to aggrivated assult?? We don't need more laws WE NEED MORE PRISONS to put these scumb bags away. But you don't want that because then they won't vote for you will they????
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I am a proud gun owner and hunter, and think that to many people worry about the "minority" of incidents and not the "majority". There are thousands of times more gun owners than there are gun related crimes or deaths!
Rendell is a money taking, back stabbing, uber liberal. So lets kick his fat butt out of office and put someone in there who actually cares!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home