On Face the Nation this morning:
I think Wayne did a reasonable job articulating the issue, though no doubt some will be upset over the reference to Project Exile. But the point was that Ed Rendell won’t really address the fact that the City of Philadelphia does not use the gun laws it already has to lock up violent people who misuse guns. Rendell tries to deflect that by arguing we’ve grown the State’s prison population. Maybe it’s not enough? If you only have room for rapists, armed robbers, and murderers, what good is passing more gun laws going to do if there’s no room in prisons for them?
Ed has an idea though. He wants to make the entire Commonwealth a low grade prison, where he gets to decide which sharp and dangerous objects you “need” and which ones you don’t.
Ummmm… ok…. ASS-hat…
I’ll believe that lawyer, ‘I can drive 100 mph on the Turnpike if I want to’ Fast Eddie is serious about fighting crime when he Fries Mumia.
Really Ed? Enforcing the laws? Ask the families of the Phila Police officers who have been killed in the last 2 years how well your laws are enforeced… You make me sick.
How can pro-gun people live with themselves as members of the Democratic Party? I know there are plenty of pro-gun democratic politicians, but people like Rendell fill the party leadership while the pro-gun politicians sometimes give them cover, like they did for Clinton and more recently for Obama. Where are the pro-gun Democrats on meet the press or sixty minutes? Why are they so invisible? Instead we see people like Rendell as the voice of the party.
It makes as much sense for a pro-gun person to support Democrats as it does for a pro-abortion person to support Republicans.
It’s a reasonable question Brad. I would always advocate standing behind a pro-gun Democrat, from a “single issue” point of view. But there’s plenty of soft Democrats out there who can be targeted. Democrats who are not particularly pro-gun, but who aren’t particularly anti-gun either. Chris Carney is an example that comes to mind.
Err, is it just me, or did Rendell say more officers would have died in Pittsburgh if there was an AWB because AKs jam too easily?
Has he finally gone totally insane? Or was this some sort of Freudian slip indicating that he knows an AWB won’t work, and perhaps even wants crime to go up as an excuse to ban more stuff?
Rendell’s problem is that he’s speaking on a topic he knows nothing about. He was born in New York City, and lived most of his professional life in Philadelphia. He does not know guns.