Sen. Ted Cruz invites Chicago banks, gun manufacturers to move to Texas

Following Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s pressure on banking institutions to cut off lines of credit to gun manufacturers, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized the politician — and invited the banks and gun manufacturers to come to Texas instead.

Cruz wrote a letter to the CEOs of TD Bank, Bank of America, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., outlining the reasons Chicago is not a friendly place for their companies and welcoming them to move to Texas instead.

“In light of the reception you have received in the Windy City, please know that Texas would certainly welcome more of your business and the jobs you create,” Cruz wrote to the financial institutions.

Cruz also thanked the firearms manufacturers for their support of the Second Amendment, and offered to introduce them to financial leaders in Texas should they desire to relocate.

“Should Mayor Emanuel’s bullying campaign prove successful, I am confident that there are numerous financial institutions in Texas that would be eager to earn your business,” the Senator wrote.

The Texan also had harsh words for the Chicago Mayor, pointing out the high Windy City crime rates and asking him if the citizens of his city are being sacrificed for a partisan agenda. He told Emanuel to stop infringing on the Second Amendment rights of Texans by bullying gun manufacturers and their banks.

“In the future, I would ask that you might keep your efforts to diminish the Bill of Rights north of the Red River,” Cruz wrote.

This isn’t the first time Texas has welcomed gun advocates with open arms. In the wake of new gun legislation passed earlier this year, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott also invited New York gun owners to move to the Lonestar State.

For those who hold the Second Amendment — or limited government — dear, Texas is apparently the place to be.

Comments

Comments

  1. ckehoss says:

    the fact that Tom Cruz is making an invite makes point an case very easy.

    1. mbecker908 says:

      ckehoss, you’re obviously a low information voter, a product of public schools every bit as bad as Chicago’s.

      Just for starters, you can’t read and your understanding of civics and current news is pathetic. The article was about US Senator TED Cruz.

      Senator Cruz would have no problem with any “mental” exam, you on the other hand, are not capable of owning a squirt gun.

    2. DocMerlin says:

      Ted Cruz, not Tom. Ted is the genius lawyer, Tom is the actor/scientologist.

    3. Matt says:

      “Tom Cruz”? “point an case”?

      Good lord.

  2. ckehoss says:

    the fact that Tom Cruz is making an invite makes point an case very easy. A perfect example of someone that would not pass a mental exam to own a gun. LOL and he is going to live with the rest of the mislead assault rifles. Let’s see now, we have all the gangs with guns, assault rifle owners, people wanting to evade background checks, etc. LOL ALL MOVING TEXAS! THEY CAN NOW STOP LEANING ON THE USA TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR BORDER AND DRUG CARTEL ISSUES. I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING.

    1. Craig says:

      Try writing when you’re sober next time.

    2. NYCmike says:

      You sound like a dumb blonde. Scratch that, you sound like a blonde from a Democrat-controlled state.

    3. ni says:

      Your picture doesn’t do you justice.

      I mean that you don’t look blonde enough to be that stupid. I won’t bother explaining since that never works on invincible ignorance such as yours. Suffice it to say that if they can have all the guns they want and have a free hand to deal with it, Texas is quite capable of dealing with their immigrant problem without your help.

    4. poppa india says:

      When Arizona tried to deal with their border issues because the Feds wouldn’t, the Federal government stopped them from doing so! BTW, what’s a “mislead assault rifle”?

    5. Rich K says:

      Get an F in Grammar and vocabulary sweetheart?BTW, if the day comes when a burglar,stalker or rapist starts banging on your door remember, the Police are just Minutes away,and you only have seconds before you die or get raped.Good luck with that.

      1. QED says:

        Grammar is the least of it: “Tom Cruz” \= Tom Cruise \= Ted Cruz. She fails the TMZ test for basic cultural literacy. LOL

      2. Capsu78 says:

        No time to take english composition classes when running up $40K a year in Ivy League education… She is obviously one of Gods “unique snowflakes”.

      3. ckehoss says:

        not for me, hubby is a cop and sharp shooter, oh and teacher. LOL Not good at spelling, but I can shoot the nuts off a squirrel from 75 ft

        1. Ron from Texas says:

          Stop drinking the hooch, you sound as goofy as a three peckered billygoat.

        2. onlyabill says:

          So you have access to a gun? Nice for you. What about everyone else?

          Also, on your prior comment, the boarder is federal not state though I am sure Texas would love to take ownership of boarder management. Also, non-FFLs are NOT allowed to run background checks. Your so called “gun show loop hole” is citizens engaging in legal commerce, following all of the laws they are able. If citizens were able to have access to the instant background check system, I am sure most would love to use it. Lawful gun owners don’t want “bad guys” to have guns either.

          Finally, what is so bad about “assault rifles”? LOEs carry them. If they are good enough for cops, why not for citizens? As Rick K. points out, when seconds count, cops are minutes away.

        3. teapartydoc says:

          Sounds like that’s about all you are good for.

    6. MattinChicago says:

      ckehoss – Neither of your posts makes a damn bit of sense. The fact that Senator Cruz is inviting companies to flee Illinois for a state with a better business environment is something that you find funny?

      Do you also find it funny that there were over 500 murders in Chicago last year while at the same time having a virtual ban on all weapons? In other words, it’s almost impossible to own a handgun or rifle in Cook County but in spite of that 500 people have been shot and killed. Given all of that, you find it funny that companies might leave, taking more revenue away from the state while leaving the gangs to kill each other and innocent residents of Illinois? Seriously, this is funny to you?

      As for the US helping with the borders and drug cartel issues, many would say that TX AND AZ would be better off without the ATF arming the cartels and refusing to police our southern border.

      ckehoss, your sense of humor needs work. Lots and lots of work.

    7. Randy says:

      You wrote your first sentence twice and it still makes no sense, neither does the third. And we would love for the federal government to stop “helping ” with our border, they’ve done nothing but make things worse.

    8. onlyabill says:

      The boarder is a federal matter and I am sure that Texas would LOVE to have federal permission to take care of it themselves! As to your other comments, out of all of that, only the “gangs” are possible criminals. Law abiding gun owners are “evading background checks”, that is simply a liberal talking-point. Today is it IMPOSSIBLE for a private citizen to run a background check on another citizen as part of a private sell of a fire-arm. Do a little independent reading and thinking for a change, you might actually learn a thing or two…

    9. Bob says:

      “Cruz wrote a letter to the CEOs of TD Bank, Bank of America, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., outlining the reasons Chicago is not a friendly place for their companies and welcoming them to move to Texas instead.” – Wow, its not just grammar, apparently you have problems with reading comprehension as well. I mean come on its the second sentence in the article (did you even read it?). Feel free to explain how you read that as an invitation to “all the gangs with guns”.

    10. mbecker908 says:

      The bleach you’re using on your hair soaked in and burned out whatever small brain you once had.

    11. Noacutedistress says:

      Gives blondes a bad name.

    12. AlinTx says:

      Bobblehead, you manage to cram a whole lot of stupid into only a few sentences. Congratulations. LMAO! OMG! IMHO!

    13. Many people seem to think that just because it’s illegal to own a gun in Chicago, somehow criminals will not own guns. Criminals, by definition, have very little respect for the law. They also need guns to conduct their business. As long as it is possible to obtain, or manufacturer yourself, a gun or magazines, you will see criminals still having guns.

      Chicago’s criminals are not going to suddenly move down to Texas because then they are much more likely to get shot while conducting their business. Instead, they will stay right where they are. As crime statistics show, criminals are very happy with gun control as it is.

      I think Ted Cruz is smart. Gun manufacturers have a profitable, sustainable business with high demand. He’s telling them to go where they are wanted and appreciated. Seems like a sound plan to me.

      D

      (The author lives in Florida, another gun-friendly state. He knows and likes many gun owners and their friends. He does not personally own a gun because he is too inept to shoot one :) ).

    14. jdkchem says:

      You should have stopped bleaching years ago sweetie. It’s obviously had a negative effect on your cognitive abilities.

    15. Bil M says:

      It’s a shame she’s proving the sterotype true.

    16. Anthony F says:

      Ckehoss, kitten, I’ll concede grammar and prose standards are more relaxed on the Internet, especially in the comments. That said, yours is among the most atrociously written I have encountered this side of the Democratic Underground. By all means keep laughing if you can’t stop, even in all-caps, but for God’s sake have pity on us and stop writing!

    17. Lanceman says:

      Heh. Some would call you a typical ‘low-information voter’, hoss. I call you a freakin’ idiot. Probably an obama/’rat voter. Limited intelligence. If a ‘rat says the Republicans did it (or didn’t do it), that’s good enough for you, right?

      By the way, his name is Ted Cruz, not Tom Cruz. (he’s one of those brown-skinned people Republicans hate, doncha know)

    18. ez says:

      You aint from around here are ya! or you could be a product of Chicago public edumacation!

    19. JustSomeGuy says:

      As far as I can parse your comment (not very far), you seem to be saying criminals are moving to Texas? Entirely possible, they tend to follow the productive class and those folks are moving to Texas in ever increasing numbers. I suspect they’ll find life less hospitable to their criminal enterprise, though. Leaning on the USA to help them? With their border and drug issues? Really? The border and drug issues are resultant from federal, not state, policies. Given the opportunity, with such a clear incentive, I’m sure Texans could propose some solutions. And Texas has a budget surplus. Anybody in Washington remember what that is??

      As to whether or not TED Cruz could pass your mental exam…the fact that you posit his failure based on a philosophical disagreement illuminates precisely why many oppose such a requirement to exercise a constitutional right.

      Please keep laughing ckehoss, the cackles of the crazy serve as fine warning buoys…

      JSG

    20. Orson says:

      The only good self-defense is defense by ME! Romney states RULE!

    21. teapartydoc says:

      You are an idiot.

  3. Bill S says:

    I live in Illinois (Chicago) and taxpayers are fleeing the state in droves. Rahm Emmanuel and Gov. Ryan are providing the country with a lab that shows how well big government, high taxes and union-friendly politics work. If I could sell my home, I would leave too.

    1. Jeffersonian says:

      I work in Illinois, and I’d happily do my job elsewhere if I could.

    2. Annie says:

      I’m in IL, western suburbs of Chicago. I can’t wait to flee this state, I’ve lived here all my life, all 58 years. Family is here, but my brother is also considering relocation. My kids are willing to visit and they too may be willing to move in a few years.

  4. Doug Jones says:

    ckehoss, I think you’re projecting a bit- Cruz sent invitations to productive manufacturers, not to random gangbangers. How you get from there to evasion of background checks is also a bit murky, and your use of all caps is just so *very* impressive and intellectual .

  5. not ckehoss says:

    omg yeah it’s like so OBvious! lmao!!1!111!! if busnessses move from Chicago to Texas than OBviously all the gangs and guns would move with them!!!eleventy1!! i cant beleve that this dummy is so dumb that he doesnt not even get that point! DUH!!!

  6. bobmark says:

    Farther north than the Red River please.

    Thanks, all us Okies

    ckehoss, lets note the drug and cartel problems stem from national policies, not state policies.

  7. BigRed says:

    ckehoss
    It’s not Tom Cruz. It’s US Senator TED Cruz. I guess you read as well as you write. And please stay the f away from Texas!!

  8. askeptic says:

    Same here in CA with Gov. Moonbeam.

  9. Jj says:

    Tom Cruz?? The mission impossible scientologist guy? I thought we were talking about Ted Cruz, the republican senator from Texas.

  10. Kathy Kinsley says:

    @Bill S: If I could sell my home, I would leave too.”

    Keep trying.

  11. kidobutai says:

    hey honey! its TED CRUZ, not tom cruise. to help you in your hour of stupidity, followsthese simple suggestions. First remove rubber device from keister, second take as many narcotic pills as you have on hand, third drink heavily.

  12. ckehoss says:

    Missing the association that I made between Tom and Ted slipped by most of you numb nuts. Indicative of people who take everything literally, twist it, make it fit into the square peg that is your brain and there you have it! You have folks that miss the obvious, another reason for mental exams to all the hillbillies that think we are back in 1787 when the constitution was written. We now have military personnel that we pay dearly as well as homeland security, police departments in every town. Wow, we are paying people to do what we could do already cause we can all posses our very own Bushmaster. It is becoming apparent that we are paying our law enforcement to protect us from ourselves. BTW, I PACK A GLOCK, CAN SHOOT THE NUTS OFF YOUR BACKYARD SQUIRREL AND STILL WATCH HOW YOU GUYS WITH GUNS CANNOT GET WITH THE NEW PROGRAM. HELLLOOOOOOO, IS ANYBODY HOME?

    1. onlyabill says:

      I noticed that you had time to post another snide comment or two but completely ignored my prior replies to your earlier comments. Typical…

      I will endeavor to preserver though and try again.

      You apparently think guns are OK (cause you claim to have one) and your husband uses them as part of his job (a LEO). So what has your panties is a twist? Is it the fact that others have guns too? What program do you want us to get with? The sheeple disarmament program? In one of your prior comments you mention shooting a rapist if attacked so you clearly expect to be able to use the weapon of your choice for self defense and don’t expect your LEO husband to be there 24/7 to protect you. Do not other lawful citizens have that same right?

      What is so “evil” about AR style rifles that scares you so? They work in a similar fashion to other semi-automatic rifles like 10/22s, mini-14s, etc. Is it that they look “wrong” to you? Or is the core of your problem that Texas is more inviting to individuals and businesses than where you currently reside?

      You also seem to have issues with your southern up bringing and seem to be hoping that your current northern liberal education and lifestyle can help you shed your southern roots. Good luck with that and have a nice day.

      1. ckehoss says:

        Dear onlyabill:
        I got your message but have a job and support myself so I try to keep things simple. No rapist is going to give me the time of day to let me know he is sneaking up on me to rape me. (LOL) I mentioned your comment to hubby and he laughed too. By the time you or I know that a rapist is at hand, there is no time to assemble, load and aim. Who are you kidding with panties comment? Get your cookies off somewhere else, perhaps, Texas? LMFAO As far as others protecting themselves with an M16 type of weapon, please do not insult their intelligence either. EVERYONE knows that if you pack one of those puppies into a mall here, you are not going to get very far. Most educated folks know that they will be mistaken for a “bad guy” and there you have it! Shot down for being an idiot. However, there is something to your banter and that is poetic justice.

        1. onlyabill says:

          Wow, sounds like I touched a few nerves there! Again, you did not address any of my points; border rights, background checks, self defense choices, etc.

          Who said anything about packing an AR to the mall? No wonder you did not have time to answer any direct replies, you are too busy building strawmen!

          1. ckehoss says:

            Wow, touched a few nerves? What part of 20 dead children do you not understand?

          2. onlyabill says:

            chehoss @ January 31, 2013 at 10.38 am

            What, so all of your prior comments, jabs, jests put downs are because you are upset about Sandy Hook? That is quite understandable. Sandy Hook is a tragedy and should not have happened. So what is your reasonable, common sense, legal and constitutional approach to try and reduce such incidents in the future? While you ponder that, I will tell you what could have worked and don’t stop reading just because you will not like what I will be writing and then, please respond with real alternatives if my idea is not to your liking.

            I would revoke all gun free zones. In part, the tragedy at Sandy Hook occurred because the person that killed those people and children KNEW there would be a very low likelihood of any armed adults there. It was a gun free zone with the exception of a nut with a gun. If any of the teachers there were concealed permit holders and had their weapons with them the outcome of that day could have been very different. What would have happened? No one can say but there are a number of documented cases where people with guns have attempted mass shootings and have been stopped by others with guns. When was the last time you heard of a nut intent on a mass shooting trying to perform their act at a police station or gun range or turkey shoot? If something like that were to be attempted, the fatality count would be pretty low. Someone armed would stop the aggressor much sooner that a group of unarmed people. Notice (like others) I did not same “make” teachers carry guns, I said “let”. That would be a personal choice and I would even support a requirement for a specific level of incident training for any teachers that wanted to carry in school. Also, please note, more unintended people are shot by the police than by CCW holders.

            If this solution is not to your liking, what specifically would you propose instead?

            Thank you.

  13. ckehoss says:

    oh YEAH, I forgot to mention that I was born in Corpus Christi, TEXAS, went to high school at Sam Houston, have 10 hillbilly siblings, moved out of a state that thinks the world is still revolving around them. What good do the colleges do if you do not apply what you freaking learned? You don’t believe your own guns are the ones the hoodlums are getting their hands on? You think you are above having an illegal alien or drug induced depressed gilipollas steal your gun to reek havoc upon 20 little Texas first graders? Does it actually have to happen to your own babies for you to see the damage you have caused yourselves? Very sad and I feel very sorry for you children.

  14. ckehoss says:

    Like the young Adam Lanza is not going to try to get his hands on the teacher’s weapon too? You think the teacher should now serve as our police too? Are you going to flip the bill for this? Right. Sometimes I wonder how these kinds of answers instead of banning the freaking Bushmaster gets through a board like this. I bet you believe that you can actually control the minds of the mentally ill too. My oldest daughter teaches history in high school. She is trying to figure out how she is going to keep her hand on her gun whilst she puts the kids homework on the chalk board. Do you here yourself or do you just want to be annoying?

    1. onlyabill says:

      I will assume you are responding to me from my comment above @ January 31, 2013 at 10:58 am

      Yet again, you simply indicate that you do not agree with me but fail to respond with anything other than emotions and straw-men.

      If your daughter does not wish to have or carry a gun and instead would rather place her safety in the hands of others, that is her right. I am simply suggestion that others who may wish to be more in control of their own safety should have that right.

      Going back to your example, do you believe that if a principle, teacher or other trained individual in that school, at that time, was armed, that things would have been worst? The only person in the building with a gun was the nut. He had the freedom and time to move about the school at will and shoot anyone he wanted. He could have just as easily had (your choice) a Glock with 8 or 9 magazines and done as much damage or more. So, again, what is your point about the ARs and how does having or not having them in citizen hands affect anything?

      Again, how would you have prevented Sandy Hook as it appears you don’t like my idea?

      1. ckehoss says:

        How did you know I did not like your idea? I will be giving you some time to reflect on your posts here. I do hope the the less armed individuals that can relate actually start having a voice instead of the loud mouth NRA bullies.

        1. onlyabill says:

          Sorry if I took your totality of responses as an indicate that you would not support my idea. It is true that you have not specifically said yes or no but your comment would indicate (to me at least) that you do not support it. Do you?

          I really don’t need additional time to reflect on my posts here as they are opinions that are either in line with my core beliefs or are specific opinions that I have had for sometime and have withstood ongoing reassessment.

          What is with the “less armed individuals” comment? You indicate that you yourself are armed or at least have access to a gun. You are (rightfully) concerned about the incident at Sandy Hook and made a number of generalizations in your prior comments about (specific types of) guns and other commenters (which does not excuse harsh comments directed at you in return). What specifically are your opinions on the various items covered in the comments between you and me? I responded to your comments with specifics and am looking for your specific responses. What about what I said about the boarder, about instant background checks, about what makes ARs so bad/scary, and about gun free zones?

          How can I better understand your perspective if you do not clearly articulate it?

          Thank you.

          1. ckehoss says:

            I believe you really want to understand, it was just the panties comment that got me going. I don’t even own any. lol. I am a child advocate, mother of twins, hubby a cop and son a cop that helped Sandy Hook cops go to funerals. I cried all day and then realized that I don’t have to sit a cry. The insensitive, hypocritical NRA is a lobbying money sucking organization to whom we have given way too much credit. They stand in the way of sensible gun control. Many have guns but not for hunting or even protection. They have them because they make one feel powerful. That is all and nothing more. That is why Adam Lanza wanted to use the Bushmaster and I am sure there are more that are waiting for someone to put one in their sights. It needs to go. Tyranny is something that could be achieved if the government wanted to “get our guns”, they could do in a heart beat as our guns are nothing compared to the arsenal that we have provided to them. Fortunately for us, we have put the right people in charge of running things by way of majority. I would love to preserve this and also make it safer on our streets safer by keeping our gun crazy society from wanting to advance into even more powerful weapons as this is where we are headed if someone does not draw the line.

          2. onlyabill says:

            ckehoss says @ January 31, 2013 at 1:06 pm

            I get that you hurt for the slain children. Who doesn’t? But making sweeping decisions based on hot running emotions is not where good legislation comes from. The pressing need to “do something” often results in the wrong things being done.

            You say: “The insensitive, hypocritical NRA is a lobbying money sucking organization to whom we have given way too much credit. They stand in the way of sensible gun control.”

            What do you consider “sensible gun control”? You never really say. That phrase is like “assault weapon” in that it is a meaningless phrase. It really means “more rules than we have now” but does not require the effort of laying out any plans and justifying them, just more rules and control.

            You also say: “Many have guns but not for hunting or even protection. They have them because they make one feel powerful. That is all and nothing more.”

            So? Would you have everyone pass a litmus test for the proper reason for having a gun? You do not require/request a “valid” reason to exercise a constitutional right. It already is yours. Reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights is permitted but the right should remain as clean and clear of incumbrance as possible. Should the first amendment only be permitted after someone has proven they need or deserve to speak their opinion?

            You say: “That is why Adam Lanza wanted to use the Bushmaster and I am sure there are more that are waiting for someone to put one in their sights.”

            Do you really know this? Or did Adam use that rifle because that was the rifle that was available to him? He stole it from his mother. It could have just as easily been a Glock he used instead of an AR. The tool is not the problem. More children are killed every year with clubs and knifes than with ARs. No one is trying to limit baseball bats.

            You say: “Fortunately for us, we have put the right people in charge of running things by way of majority. I would love to preserve this and also make it safer on our streets safer by keeping our gun crazy society from wanting to advance into even more powerful weapons as this is where we are headed if someone does not draw the line.”

            As to the right people, do you mean the same ones that ran “Fast and Furious”? The same ones that stymie all attempts at boarder control? The same ones that refuse to prosecute gun criminals at the federal level? The same ones that refuse to deport criminal illegal aliens? Those right people?

            The line you refer to was drawn over 80 years ago. It is and has been legal but very difficult to own a fully automatic rifle since 1943(?) and as a result no murders have been committed with legal automatic weapons in recent history. Hand guns kill more people than rifles (of which ARs are a small sub-set). Any mass murder is a tragedy but mass murders are down in this country and they have been going down for years. All this despite more states removing restrictions on gun ownership and allows CCW. Guns have NEVER been the problem, people have been and instead of focusing on people, many want to focus on guns. I get that. Guns are easy. You have a few meetings and write a law making a bunch illegal. That is much simpler than trying to address why nutty people are walking around without treatment. You will continue to have tragedies like Sandy Hook until we start to seriously address that problem. Everything else is window dressing designed to give the illusion of “doing something”. The saddest part of all of this is that nothing I have written here is unknown to politicians but for them, it has never been directly about the guns. It is and has always been about control. Doing away with guns is just another step in the direction of getting more control over us.

          3. ckehoss says:

            1. A Glock does not emit 16 shots per second.
            2. I will not remove my feelings regarding the safety of our children.
            3. Had Mommy not had the gun in the first place, Adam could not have stolen it.
            4. I do not share your sentiments that the government is just “out to get me”.
            5. You will NEVER be able to know exactly who will want to watch little children explode, NEVER
            6. Get some feeling, dude and get off of yourself, this is not about you and your M16
            7. A lot has changed in 80 years
            8. The NRA has way more control over your desire for your gun than the government
            9. You can own a gun and not be part of the politically and monetarily motivated NRA
            10.Drawing the line was important, changing it to fit the times is MORE important

            I think my feelings are in check, my point being, you do not know me, you do not know Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Jacob Tyler, and the list goes on. This is because the sick person usually does not know or tell anyone he is sick. Now, how do you think you are going to keep them from finding these bushmasters?

            How has our attitude about owning these types of guns been working for us so far?

          4. onlyabill says:

            @ ckehoss says: February 1, 2013 at 6:23 am
            1. A Glock does not emit 16 shots per second.

            No but it can fire a lot of bullets really fast too, as fast as I can pull the trigger until it is empty (just like an AR) and I can quickly load another magazine as well as get high capacity magazines for it. In your perfect world how many bullets per second are enough? Once you decide what that is, should not all non-military arms follow that standard even those used by the police? Fair is fair.

            2. I will not remove my feelings regarding the safety of our children.

            Not only have I never said you should, I stated repeatedly that you have a right to those feelings. I have just continually pointed out that my rights should not be curtailed due to your feelings just like your rights should not be curtailed by mine. This is a straw-man.

            3. Had Mommy not had the gun in the first place, Adam could not have stolen it.

            That is correct but that also does not mean that he might not have stolen someone else’s or driven a car full of explosives into the school instead or a hundred other possible ways he could have killed a lot if innocent people and children. Look at the damage Timothy M. did without a Bushmaster.

            4. I do not share your sentiments that the government is just “out to get me”.

            I never said that it was. What I implied is that the government is not your friend.

            5. You will NEVER be able to know exactly who will want to watch little children explode, NEVER

            Agreed. What is your point and what of my comments does this have anything to do with?

            6. Get some feeling, dude and get off of yourself, this is not about you and your M16

            Wow. For the record, I do not own any AR rifles. It is not about ARs though I have tried and tried to get you to acknowledge that. Let us play pretend and have the government waive a magic wand and make all of the ARs go away. Then what? The same people that were screaming about the evil ARs will turn their attention to AKs, SKSs, SUs, etc. There will ALWAYS be the next evil gun because it has NEVER been about the evil gun. It has ALWAYS been about the gun and your right to have it. Everyone could be carrying single shot, .22 long rifles and there would still be positions and groups trying to get those too. Look at England as an example.

            7. A lot has changed in 80 years

            Again, what is your point. No one has been able to legally possess a fully automatic weapon without government approval for 80 years. No civilian has been allowed to possess a fully automatic weapon manufactured after 84(?) since 84. They are “assault weapons”, they are what the Army has, they are what SWAT has and they are not used by legal owners in crimes. This is a straw-man.

            8. The NRA has way more control over your desire for your gun than the government

            Really? And you were able to reach that conclusion how? How much influence has the NRA had on YOUR desire to have and own a gun? My wife has a gun which was given to her by her father when she started off to her first job over 35 years ago. I doubt either of them had heard of the NRA at that time. My desire for my gun is likely very similar to yours. My desire to protect myself from others. Others that may be stronger, younger, more plentiful and/or dangerous.

            9. You can own a gun and not be part of the politically and monetarily motivated NRA

            Right. I agree. Where have I ever said or indicated differently? Another straw-man.

            10.Drawing the line was important, changing it to fit the times is MORE important

            - I think my feelings are in check, my point being, you do not know me, you do not know Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Jacob Tyler, and the list goes on. This is because the sick person usually does not know or tell anyone he is sick. Now, how do you think you are going to keep them from finding these bushmasters?

            I am not. There is not one darn thing I can do to keep a nut from finding a way to kill lots of people. The government can do some things to reduce these incidents but not even they can eliminate the possibility. That is because we have things like civil rights and the bill of rights, etc. What I can do is be prepared for when bad things happen regardless of what those bad things are. Do you only carry your gun when you think that you might be going somewhere where they might be rapists or do you always carry because there is no areas marked as rape zones? Same thing here. You or me or the government can not prevent every act of evil but if enough people are willing and able, we as a society can minimize the damage caused by evil.

            - How has our attitude about owning these types of guns been working for us so far?

            Again, you are focusing on one class of guns and one class of behavior. How many times have guns been used to allow women to protect themselves against abusers? How many times have guns been used to allow old people to protect themselves against thugs? Singling out one class of weapon and calling it illegitimate because of how it looks when its operation is the same as the majority of other available weapons even while they are all perfectly legal for citizens to own is a step on the slope to confiscation. Look at England and Australia as recent examples. Crime is up in both places as gun ownership has gone down.

            Your emotions and feelings are valid, legitimate reactions to Sandy Hook. No one has said otherwise but making legislative decisions based on hot running emotions is not how good legislation is created. Bowing to the immediate pressure to “do something” (other wise known as “good intentions”) is what the road to Hell is paved with.

  15. richard40 says:

    I am getting very impressed with Ted Cruz. He is standing for all the right issues, fighting hard, and doing it in a way that sounds very sensible. And hispanic as well. No wonder the dems hate him.

  16. Kym in Texas says:

    I’m very impressed by TED Cruz, and super Impressed
    by onlyabill above and how well they have handled the emotional, illogical, irrational arguments and ranting by ckehoss. Congrats on keeping sane when dealing with knee jerk emotional reactions. Sandy hook was a tragedy, I’ll always believe if that principal had had a gun, those children would be alive today. Gun free zones are stupid and shown to be nothing but magnets for the nut jobs. Glad to see so many school districts Rethinking this ludicrous policy!!! Protect our children.

Polititainment

WH responds to 'Deport Justin Bieber' petition

Despite the pleas of more than 270,000 Americans to deport Justin Bieber, the White House has chosen not to weigh in on the issue. However, the Obama administration did use a petition calling on the White House to revoke the pop artist's green card to plug President Barack Obama's plan for immigration reform.

Secret Service once threatened Mr. Met's life

Mr. Met sure has a lot of fans in New York. But the larger-than-life mascot definitely doesn't have one in the Secret Service, who threatened to shoot and kill him if he approached President Bill Clinton, according to a firsthand account.

Jill Biden on Joe: "I fell in love with the boys first"

Second Lady of the United States Dr. Jill Biden didn't marry Vice President Joe Biden for his sense of humor -- instead, she "fell in love" with his two sons first.

Joe Biden's first Instagram photo

Ladies and gentlemen of this great nation, rejoice! Vice President Joe Biden has joined Instagram -- and his first post is everything you ever dreamed it would be.

Celebrate Tax Day with this ditty

What better way to celebrate curse Tax Day than with a little toe-tapping, finger-snapping ditty that perfectly describes how we all feel about the Internal Revenue Service?

White House

PETA is peeved with Michelle Obama and used little girls to tell her about it

First Lady Michelle Obama has earned the ire of three young girls. But they're not upset with her less-than-filling "Let's Move!" school lunches. Instead, these youngins are upset about the real eggs used in the White House Easter Egg Roll.

Jay Carney: “Never been a more transparent administration”

Despite consistent objections by journalists that the White House overly restricts press access, Press Secretary Jay Carney believes that there has "never been a more transparent administration."

Jay Carney: Toughest interview for Obama in 2012 was with Jon Stewart

Give comedian Jon Stewart a gold star sticker. The host of The Daily Show was President Barack Obama's toughest interviewer during the 2012 election cycle, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Thursday.

The most powerful selfie in the world

Joe Biden — he's just like you, and he takes selfies, too.

Obama: Republicans a threat to the right to vote

President Barack Obama slammed Republicans on Friday for supporting voter identification law and labeled the GOP as a threat to the right to vote.

Congress

Rep Black: GOP budget makes a path to a bright future

Our nation is $17.4 trillion in debt and out of control Washington spending has no end in sight. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that on our current trajectory we will return to $1 trillion annual budget deficits by the year 2022.

Cruz: Impeach Holder

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pulled no punches when criticizing Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, as he called on Congress to impeach the Department of Justice head.

Pelosi: GOP not acting on immigration because of race

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pulled the race card when speaking about Republicans' inaction in passing comprehensive immigration reform and said "race has something to do" with the GOP not bringing such legislation to the House floor.

House passes Ryan's budget plan

The House on Thursday passed a 10-year Republican spending plan drafted by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Read more at The Washington Examiner.

Harry Reid's Koch-fueled meltdown

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been in a Koch-fueled rage, seizing moments left and right (mostly from the left) to bash Charles and David Koch.