Another Republican Impeachment Threat

Here’s Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL):

“It is one of those times in our history, we are at this breaking point. We have completely lost our checks and balances in this country, the Congress needs to hold the president accountable for the decisions that he’s making right now, and that why again, I would say that all options should be on the table.”

The president will need a pile of Republican votes in the House to pass the assault weapons ban. I doubt Congressman Radel will be one of them. But here’s to hoping some of those people will ignore the NRA and recognize the urgency and necessity of the legislation.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Guns and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Draxiar

    “Civics 101 lessons shouldn’t be necessary for sitting senators, but just because a president — any president — issues an executive order under existing legal authority doesn’t mean the president is “frustrated with our republic and ignoring the Constitution.” Every president since Washington has issued these orders. This isn’t scandalous; it’s routine.” –Steve Benen

    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/17/16565663-executive-orders-are-routine-not-scandalous?lite

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      It drives me crazy when our leaders don’t understand or at least pretend not to understand how our Government works. And by saying such incredibly stupid things, Radel and his ilk, end up misleading the yokels (of which, there are apparently, far too many of in the U.S.)

    • D_C_Wilson

      Nuh-Uh! Anything Obama does is completely unprecedented! No one issued any executive orders before him and the fact that Bush issued more executive orders in his first term than Obama did is completely untrue!

      OT: Is anyone else having trouble with the comments in some of the blog posts?

  • Victor_the_Crab

    Oh do go take a bath with a plugged in toaster, Trey Radel you fucking knob!

  • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

    I’m admittedly ignorant to specific guns and my right-wing friends have their talking points ready:

    1. Assault ban did nothing the first time
    2. “Assault weapon” is a misnomer and purely cosmetic
    3. An “assault rifle” is just as dangerous as any semiautomatic handgun

    Your rebuttal?

    • trgahan

      I doubt I could change any minds, but my rebuttal would be:

      1. Though the original law was watered down and had huge loopholes, I think the mass shooting body count pre- to post-assault weapon ban speaks for itself.

      2. Military history shows a clear strategic shift in infantry tactics from low rate fire, high marksmanship to low marksmanship, high rate of fire. Pre-WWII the idea of having a solider concentrate fire on a given location to keep the enemy down and cover the advance or “assault” if you will of other members of unit was unheard of or at least considered “ungentlemanly/unsporting.” It developed in response to the disastrous marches on machine gun nests of WWI. The gun changed to support the tactic.

      3. Yes, in the last 15 years gun manufactures have made great strides in turning hand guns into concealable assault rifles, but I’d say accuracy, velocity, capacity, and compatable ammo types still differentiate the two weapons significantly.

      • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

        Good stuff, cheers.

    • muselet

      I know next to nothing about firearms, too, but here’s my rebuttal:

      1) The assault weapon ban reduced the number of shootings with assault weapons. That’s not nothing.

      2) TPM commenter “NCSteve” recently provided a useful definition:

      An assault rifle is a gas operated, rapid-fire weapon fed from a detachable magazine designed for military use that uses an “intermediate” round–that is, a round that is more powerful than pistol ammunition but less powerful than the .30 caliber range rifle rounds that were the usual military round from the late 19th to the mid-20th century.

      The point of an assault rifle is to allow a soldier to carry more ammunition by making both the ammo and the gun lighter, put a lot of fire onto an enemy position, and to align the power of the round with the discovery in World War II that almost all combat engagements occur at much closer ranges than the maximum range of the .30(ish) rifles then in use. The “intermediate” power (and thus weight) of the round and gas operation are the main defining characteristics.

      This definition has nothing to do with the appearance of the weapon.

      3) A round from a semiautomatic handgun does substantially less damage than a round from an assault rifle. That’s the obvious difference.

      Good luck debating the Righties.

      –alopecia