Go Home

Dick Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing DC Gun Ban

About Nicole Belle
Nicole Belle's picture
Mom, Wife, Media Critic/Political Analyst, Blogger, Austen Fanatic, Unapologetic Liberal NicoleBelle@crooksandliars.com
Share This Post

Link To This Post


56 Comments
jason's picture

Moooo. first

I apologize for getting my face in the way of your shotgun blast.

mike's picture

wow he actually did something decent for once. People, banning guns for law abiding citizens is 100% unconstitutional. Cheney did nothing wrong here. We need the guns to fight off future opressors

Shag's picture

This slimeball can't go away fast enough for me.

Truth B Told's picture

If you don't think you are going to need guns in the near future, think again.

An armed populace can do lots of damage to a superiorly armed military.

The Revolutionaries were at a significant disadvantage militarily against the British. For a while.

The Reality's picture

Now that little Dick has a new toy he should go play with little George.

Pechorin's picture

I've never seen a draft-dodger so in love with guns.

KansasCityFaGt's picture

What a warped idea of freedom some people have. They'll fight tooth and nail to make sure DC residents don't have a real voice in congress but bend over backwards to guarantee their right to own all the god-damned weaponry they want.

Ruthless People's picture

Don't those guys with Cheney know if a small pen raised bird got loose in the room they could loose a face? I'd get the hell out of there!

ysbaddaden's picture

Does chainey have some more elderly friends he wants to pick off?

Ruthless People's picture

Pechorin @ 7:

I've never seen a draft-dodger so in love with guns.

That's because small pen raised quail can't shoot back. Cheney wouldn't have taken 5 deferrments to avoid shooting at defenseless animals.

RobertD's picture

I think this is the only photo in which I've actually seen Cheney smile. A real smile, I mean, not an evil grimace.

Ruthless People's picture

Pechorin @ 7:

I've never seen a draft-dodger so in love with guns.

Try the GOP side of the aisle in Congress, you'll find plenty of draft-dodging gun lovers there.

CD's picture

If there's one person that you don't want to see holding a gun it's Dick Cheney.

firend and foe both stand a chance of being shot.

screech's picture

If you don’t think you are going to need guns in the near future, think again.

An armed populace can do lots of damage to a superiorly armed military.

No need to explain this one to our soldiers in Iraq. They know this is true all too well.

Ruthless People's picture

CD @ 14:

If there's one person that you don't want to see holding a gun it's Dick Cheney.

firend and foe both stand a chance of being shot.

No, not foe, just friend in danger. Chickenhawks don't get near foes because they have guns to shoot back.

motorfingaz's picture

Boy, those three are looking at that rifle as if it is a big penis!

They only wish!

Thing Fish's picture

There's one detail about the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from oppression.

Those who will be doing the oppression will be armed with significantly more deadly weapons than today's hunter or match shooter.

For example the MOVE conflict in Philly. Having guns didn't do much in the face of aerial bombardment. I know Philly cops have a reputation for being ruthless. But considering the likes of guys that hire on with organizations like Blackwater; they're more like boy scouts.

Any fight against an oppressor this day and age would be a tad one sided don't you think?

(Now knowing how to use and fire weapons, I'd encourage everybody to know how to handle themselves. Problem is the only place I know you can legally train using automatic weapons is in Nevada. And I'll still take a Thompson over those 9mm assualt rifles.)

P.D.'s picture

Just looking at Cheny holding a rifle gives me chills. Well I hope there aren't any senoir citizens lurking about.

CD's picture

P.D. @ 19:

Just looking at Cheny holding a rifle gives me chills. Well I hope there aren't any senoir citizens lurking about.

We're talking DC about 1/4 of them are senoir citizens. lol

Terrible's picture

Thing Fish @ 18:

There's one detail about the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from oppression.

Those who will be doing the oppression will be armed with significantly more deadly weapons than today's hunter or match shooter.

For example the MOVE conflict in Philly. Having guns didn't do much in the face of aerial bombardment. I know Philly cops have a reputation for being ruthless. But considering the likes of guys that hire on with organizations like Blackwater; they're more like boy scouts.

Any fight against an oppressor this day and age would be a tad one sided don't you think?

(Now knowing how to use and fire weapons, I'd encourage everybody to know how to handle themselves. Problem is the only place I know you can legally train using automatic weapons is in Nevada. And I'll still take a Thompson over those 9mm assualt rifles.)

I will admit they lost in the end but take some time and read up on the Soviet invasion of Budapest. See also the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, America invasion of Afghanistan, American invasion of Iraq. A dedicated group of citizens can and have done quite a lot against heavily armed oppressors. Also in the case of America I believe we can count on the majority of the Marine Corps and the Army to side with Americans over this lame fascist dictatorship.

Terrible's picture

Oh! And I hope they took the flint out before they handed it to him!

tyree's picture

Thing Fish @ 18:

There's one detail about the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from oppression.

Those who will be doing the oppression will be armed with significantly more deadly weapons than today's hunter or match shooter.

For example the MOVE conflict in Philly. Having guns didn't do much in the face of aerial bombardment. I know Philly cops have a reputation for being ruthless. But considering the likes of guys that hire on with organizations like Blackwater; they're more like boy scouts.

Any fight against an oppressor this day and age would be a tad one sided don't you think?

(Now knowing how to use and fire weapons, I'd encourage everybody to know how to handle themselves. Problem is the only place I know you can legally train using automatic weapons is in Nevada. And I'll still take a Thompson over those 9mm assualt rifles.)

what you got against the bar?

Art Pufkin's picture

Not my face!

Not my face!

oh dear god my face!

I've always found it odd that handguns were banned in D.C. - which is in reality kinda dopey, that just means that no law abiding citizens carry handguns, just police....and criminals who use them on law abiding citizens and police. Ban or no ban, in my experience you're probably not going to see a difference in crime level.

For the most part, really restrictive gun control laws are ineffective and usually pointless. But the one set of laws that makes sense is the assault weapons bans - except that the way they're written means a guy can have an AK 47 but as long as it's stuck in automatic (not selective) he can bring it in and blow all our heads off, but it's not an "assault weapon" (in New York State anyway)

charles's picture
gmsingh's picture

Another gun in search of a face!

ysbaddaden's picture

I like it better the way Democrats enjoy banging than publicans.

naturlized's picture

Lewis Black on Dick Cheney and Hunting.... really funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ene75RM3w

forget about about what Dick Cheney is doing just have a laugh...

Marge's picture

Hell give em all guns, tell em it's ok to shoot dems and turn em loose.

They would be in seventh Heaven wouldn't they...and seriously, and I really mean this I bet some of them really would. If they knew they could get away with it.

Canadian Observer's picture

Since gun ownership in an urban setting is obviously not meant to facilitate a means of bringing food to the table, why do Americans want to arm themselves?

If your society is so violent that each citizen feels the need to carry weapons, wouldn't it be more productive to examine and address the causes instead of perpetuating the problem by adding more ammunition?

Thing Fish's picture

tyree @ 23:

what you got against the bar?

1918 BAR? Never fired one of those. But would still take the Thomspon. The BAR is too long, making it clumsy to use in confined spaces. There's a reason Thompson is also called the trench broom.

9mm, AR-15, just don't have the kick. A Thompson, like a big block Mustang, has that oomph that makes you feel you've got some real power. (Can't deny it, there something about big loud dangerous toys.)

As long as we're fantasizing, what I'd really would want would be Reason described in Snow Crash, ULTIMA RATIO REGUM.

andy's picture

with a government which contains Cheney i'd want a gun to protect myself from them.

CoIntelPro's picture

Marge @ 30:

Hell give em all guns, tell em it's ok to shoot dems and turn em loose.

They would be in seventh Heaven wouldn't they...and seriously, and I really mean this I bet some of them really would. If they knew they could get away with it.

busch WOULD pardon each and every one of them and praise them for killing the supporters of terrorists

CoIntelPro's picture

Canadian Observer @ 31:

Since gun ownership in an urban setting is obviously not meant to facilitate a means of bringing food to the table, why do Americans want to arm themselves?

If your society is so violent that each citizen feels the need to carry weapons, wouldn't it be more productive to examine and address the causes instead of perpetuating the problem by adding more ammunition?

what if the cause is someone in your government?

Thing Fish's picture

Terrible @ 21:

I will admit they lost in the end but take some time and read up on the Soviet invasion of Budapest. See also the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, America invasion of Afghanistan, American invasion of Iraq. A dedicated group of citizens can and have done quite a lot against heavily armed oppressors. Also in the case of America I believe we can count on the majority of the Marine Corps and the Army to side with Americans over this lame fascist dictatorship.

Hungarian uprising couldn't do much against the Soviet tanks. And Afghanistan was, and still is, an open weapons market.

The guns currently allowed to own legally are no match for what the military and pinkertons have. If push came to shove we couldn't rely on the weapons used by sportsmen. Even those legal owned machine guns currently out there would confiscated very quickly.

We would have to rely on the military for support. But one historical example I can point to is how Sherman dealt with some citizens in San Francisco before the Civil War who wanted to raid the local Armory. There's also how MacArthur treated the bonus marchers. I wouldn't anticipate immediate or full military support of civilians versus any "occupiers." Especially if they came from inside the established government.

Thing Fish's picture

Terrible @ 21:

Almost forgot. There was also the Whiskey Rebellion shortly after the war for independence.

Caption: "If I'd had this sucker on that hunting trip, I'd have blown the son-of-a-bitch to smithereens."

Van's picture

Well...even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. Cheney is no exception to the rule.

www.liberalswithguns.com

Van's picture

with a government which contains Cheney i’d want a gun to protect myself from them.

That's for sure! The Second Amendment was a citizen's tool against tyrannical government.

Nowonmai's picture

Not surprising. Guess he is hoping he can shoot another old man in the face and get away with it.

Thing Fish's picture

Of course the real story here is Cheney usurping power, again. Only thing that will stop him is the vote come November.

Remember folks, the vote is your revolution.

Sherri's picture

I lived in dc most of my life and I never really had a problem with the hand gun bans. We could still buy other guns so it wasn't that big of the deal and the majority of DC residents like the law just fine. What gets on my nerves is Cheney, the House and Senate constantly butting into our buisness. You don't live here so who are you to decide what's best for us?

Peter G's picture
Timmy_D11's picture

mike @ 3:

wow he actually did something decent for once. People, banning guns for law abiding citizens is 100% unconstitutional. Cheney did nothing wrong here. We need the guns to fight off future opressors

That's SOOO 300 years ago - and assinine.

chaos4700's picture

I have to wonder... Do you suppose if Cheney shot Nancy Pelosi in the face, she would apologize too?

motorfingaz's picture

chaos4700 @ 46:

I have to wonder... Do you suppose if Cheney shot Nancy Pelosi in the face, she would apologize too?


Im sure she would.

glennser's picture

Why do we keep pushing votes from gun owners over to the republicans? You do realize that this "stand" will secure hundreds of thousands of votes for Cheney and the more we whine and gloat about it the more he'll get? (the face shooting does deserve critiscism as most gun owners were disgusted by what he did, however instead of picking them up as supporters we continue to mock and sneer, pushing them away from us)
Gun control is a serious issue but it's a big winner for Republicans and a loss for us, of course they'd be the first to round them up when the SHTF (as in New Orleans) but we have more to lose in this fight by alienating gun owners and making them feel like criminals and giving the Repubs the field.
Glennser

BAC's picture

The residents in the District of Columbia don't want the ban on guns lifted. Too bad that Congress doesn't care about the will of the people in DC.

BAC

Bill in Balto's picture

What a Dick

odanny's picture

I think a ban of handguns in the city limits is essential in high crime areas, so what if criminals are still going to have them, it stops the flow of handguns into an area for sale. This in turn lowers both the opportunity to purchase them legally and makes everyone aware that you are not to have them there. If you can still legally own a firearm for home protection than the law is perfectly sane and helps reduce violence.

When cities wish to combat violence, getting guns off the street is a no brainer

pickles's picture

BIG dick cheney is a sick and disturbed man--one of the top three most hateful human beings walking the earth.

Caption for your photo:

"Damn! I just can't wait to get this thing out on a bird shoot in South Texas. Hit me another San Antonio lawyer."

Thing Fish's picture

The man in the crowd
   with the multi-coloured mirrors
      On his hobnail boots
Lying with his eyes while
   his hands are busy
      Working overtime

John Six's picture

odanny @ 51:

I think a ban of handguns in the city limits is essential in high crime areas, so what if criminals are still going to have them, it stops the flow of handguns into an area for sale. This in turn lowers both the opportunity to purchase them legally and makes everyone aware that you are not to have them there. If you can still legally own a firearm for home protection than the law is perfectly sane and helps reduce violence.

When cities wish to combat violence, getting guns off the street is a no brainer

Come on, the only way you could stop the import of banned guns is to search everyone going into a city.
For those who do not believe armed citizens can hold off an oppressor you need to look at the present war and past wars. Sure, citizens are no match for the professional army but the solders can't be everywhere all the time.
If everyone served in the military right after high school there would be no gun debate.
Look up the true stats, people die everyday, if that is your reasoning outlaw cars.

Snikhris's picture

BAC @ 49:

The residents in the District of Columbia don't want the ban on guns lifted. Too bad that Congress doesn't care about the will of the people in DC.

BAC

The white citizens of Southern States didn't want to desegregate the schools. Too bad the Supreme Court and Congress forced them to obey the Constitution and didn't care about the will of the Southern States. /sarcasm

Dick Cheney is once again proving to be the 4th branch of the government as IIRC the DoJ came out in support of the DC gun ban.

Comments are closed on this entry