DISQUS Doodlings: Peter “Choo-Choo” Burling – Rules? I don’t care about no stinkin’s rules

by Skip

FILE - In this Feb. 1, 2013, file photo, an employee of North Raleigh Guns demonstrates how a "bump" stock works at the Raleigh, N.C., shop. The gunman who unleashed hundreds of rounds of gunfire on a crowd of concertgoers in Las Vegas on Monday, Oct. 2, 2017, attached what is called a "bump-stock" to two of his weapons, in effect converting semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic ones. (AP Photo/Allen Breed, File)

(AP Photo/Allen Breed, File)

Over at the Concord Monitor is a piece on House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff’s extra-rules attempt to put in a new bill to ban “bump stocks” AFTER the cutoff date (Sept. 22) for doing so had passed. By rights, he shouldn’t have bothered – after all, both Republicans and Democrats in the House agreed to that rule. But of course, what are rules to Democrats when “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!” intersects with more gun control?

Thankfully, the 6 Republicans outvoted the 3 Democrats in denying it under Rule 35(c) of the New Hampshire House Rules.  Go ahead and read it.

Peter Hoe Burling, former Democrat State Senator and about the chief-iest of the Choo-Choo Train backers here in NH, decided to leave a comment:

Whatever position one takes on “bump stocks”, the Republicans were wrong to bar the introduction of legislation banning them. The events in Las Vegas were clearly the first time most people even knew that bump stocks existed. The legislation requested by Leader Steve Shurtleff would have begun the process of discussing whether or not we want those things in our state. The GOP said “no” to the discussion, and thereby served the interests of the gun extremists, not the people of NH. In so doing, the GOP also demonstrated their complete unwillingness to face a tough but important issue.

Our Republic depends on transparency and that means having known and straightforward rules that are obeyed all the time by all participants. It doesn’t matter whether bump stocks were a known entity outside the gun community or not.  My response:

Rules mean nothing at all because: PROGRESSIVES! How DARE you not agree to our civilian disarmament “progress”! DC Dems first said “only bump stocks” – and then lied by almost immediately filing legislation to disallow online ammo sales and imposing a slowdown in firearm purchases. And I’m seeing even more of the decades-old Democrat ideas coming out of the swamp once again.

No, the GOP didn’t oppose the Democrat Leader in the House. They said,”The jointly agreed to rules shall be enforced”. As a gun owner, [I say] you should be ashamed of yourself in “Othering” people who are law-abiding citizens who simply are exercising their Article 2-A rights. Hate the NH Constitution much?

Leave a Comment

  • Guest

    Let’s play by their (Alinsky’s) rules and put in a new bill to restrict one of the Dems pet giveaways. While we are at it, make sure we can say about the proposed legislation that “if it saves only one child …”

  • Radical Moderate

    “The GOP said “no” to the discussion, and thereby served the interests of the gun extremists, not the people of NH.”
    – I’m sure its going to come as a surprise to 30% of the New Hampshire population that this pacifier sucking Leftist doesn’t consider NH gun owners “people of NH”. Typical Harvard limousine liberal mindset. Why the heck do these Moonbats decide to move to NH in the first place? Why don’t they just go live in a state that fits their philosophy and stop trying to hammer NH into something else?
    https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners-percentage-of-state-populations-3325153

Previous post:

Next post: