Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley has amassed a large Twitter following for his often weird and sometimes nearly indecipherable tweets, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t wisdom to be found within for those willing to accept it. Grassley’s tweet was perfectly clear to us, but maybe his critics are right, and he’s actually suggesting the repeal of all laws.

  • CatHerder

    The point is not that difficult to comprehend: we have a sufficiency of feel-good laws regulating firearms, their ownership, their use and so forth. More are not needed. This all bears a striking resemblance to the periodic campaigns waged against drunk driving. More laws are passed with ever more stringent penalties, resulting in…nothing. Some people will still drive drunk.

  • NRPax

    Liberals like these people are convinced that laws will magically change human behavior. And when it fails,they are convinced that the problem was that the law was written incorrectly.

    I’d call them adorable but they keep infringing on my rights.

    • mike_in_kosovo

      It’s magical thinking – they *still* can’t grasp that laws are punitive, not preventative.

    • Neil Leininger

      That’s because Liberals don’t believe that some people are just evil.

      • NRPax

        “Nuance at all costs.” -:-)

  • mike_in_kosovo

    Criminal follow laws (including gun control ones) like liberal politicians follow their oaths of office – not at all.

  • Steve_J

    I don’t think murder, rape, robbery, etc., etc. are Constitutional rights.

  • CO2 Producer

    When the restraints of control are drawn tighter, will those same citizens still be virtuous if they refuse to comply?

  • KansasGirl

    Second amendment.

  • TugboatPhil

    I would be satisfied if our representatives went to DC for a few weeks a year, discharged their Constitutional duties and set up a balanced, workable budget, got rid of programs that were no longer needed and did nothing else.

    But to put it into perspective, I also think it would be great if I could float like a blimp too.

    • NRPax

      If I were in control, Congress would be run like this:

      1. They meet at the beginning of the fiscal year to draw up a budget. And they are not allowed to conduct any other business (Except in emergencies)

      2. They meet at the end of the year.

      The rest of the time, they are in their home state. And the only time they would converge on D.C. is confirmation hearings, impeachment hearings or voting on declarations of war. Beyond that, they deal with us little people.

    • John Kerry’s Forehead

      I’ve been saying this for years. No need to pay them enough to have lavish homes in two places, just build a Congressional Dormitory for them to bunk during sessions, buy them coach airfare to & from DC. Problem of going into politics to get rich solved. Only an America-loving patriot who wishes to SERVE their constituency would likely keep running for reelection.

  • $29561723

    Liberals and their straw men. Murder its intrinsically evil. Owning a gun is not. How is that so hard to understand?

  • disqus_e2F2oUH6C7

    I might be wrong, but I think the Sen. is saying that there are enough laws in place and more would still not be followed by criminals. The only ones that do follow laws are law abiding citizens.

  • Michelle

    What the fools who questioned his comment fail to understand is…gun ownership is a right protected by the Second Amendment. They suggest repealing laws on murder and speeding? Could they be any more stupid? There are no Constitutional protections giving someone the right to kill another or speed down the street.

  • jmz

    no it means laws are not obeyed by criminals or govt so you shouldn’t take self defense from people

  • Maxx

    The senator grasps that which reactionary, gun-grabbing, magazine-banning liberals fail to. They’re not called criminals because they obey the law, so piling on 200 more laws only punishes those who haven’t committed a crime at all.

    Hey clueless libs….why chase the tools of the gardener if he screws up your lawn? You blame the person, not the rake. Do you not?

  • Pocono Shooting Range

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

  • Guest

    Way to go Grassley! When those creating gun laws today don’t even know WTF they are talking about, it CLEARLY shows they are just functioning on a gun grabbing agenda and don’t give a crap who it effects because they want ALL guns gone if possible.

    I love that idiot above talking about how it sucks that his mind is already made up… OK… Do you think Feinstine, Bloomberg, Piglosi are OPEN for conversation and their minds aren’t also made up?


  • R.C.

    When thousands of felons are attempting to purchase firearms and less than 50 of them prosecuted (’10-’11?) we could logically conclude that enforcement should precede any new regulation. Simply, the numbers of felon applicants vs. prosecutions give us no data to even begin to understand if current laws are effective in stopping felons from felonious activities.

  • John Kerry’s Forehead

    Wow, people can really go ‘tard and closed minded when they disagree. Obvious Chuck’s tweet is referring to Constitutional issues around 2nd Amendment but these idiots swing it in direction of absurdity. Typical liberal argument.