How About It Republicans?
E.J. Dionne has a question for 2nd amendment-loving politicians: (h/t Washington Monthly)
I’ve been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.
If they believe that, why don’t they live by it?
Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn’t NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy?
Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps. It voted this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn’t Congress set an example in its own workplace?
Yes, if carrying concealed weapons everywhere makes you safer, why wouldn’t the Senate want to be the safest workplace in the world? So, who’s going to sponsor the bill? We wouldn’t want our politicians to be hypocrites would we?
Tags: guns, Republican Hypocrisy
Gotta love logic. It’s just like the members of Congress who are against “socialized” health care… except when it’s their “socialized” health care.
Awesome idea. No metal detectors in the 2nd amendment should mean no metal detectors in the Capital.
There are quite a few Democrats who also “express their undying loyalty to the NRA.”
I’d love to see them try to sponsor a bill allowing CCW in Congress just to watch the childish hysterics of Feinstein, Schumer, McCarthy & others. Maybe some of you anti-gun folks can explain to me how such a bill would work when you cannot legally carry a firearm anywhere in DC.
Also, with all the loosening of restriction where’s all the “blood in the streets” wild west shootouts, and general criminality & lawlessness of CCW holders. We always here the irrational hysterics anytime there’s a push to loosen gun laws, yet none of it ever actually comes true.
Get on it, Mike. Call the NRA.
I think the NRA has enough battles to fight without pushing for legislation that
1. has little to no chance of passing.
2. would not impact most Americans. Why would they push for a law allowing members of Congress to CCW in DC when you average American cannot do so?
the NRA doesn’t push for legislation that has no chance of passing? didn’t they just have a nut job try to pass a concealed weapons thing about a week ago.
who is the Mike W?
2. Is he trying to use reason in that statement?
I think that proposal will be proposed when the same reasoning goes for carrying at the White House and Air Force One. Obama hates guns except for the ones the Secret Service carries. My guess is the way he throws a baseball how would not what end of a rifle or handgun does what.
Nice try but you miss the point again and again. CCW is a means of assuring personal safety if you choose to do so. It is not a requirement every citizen must maintain a CCW permit.
There should be no laws restricting gun rights for law abiding citizens.
You seem riled up about people who support a defined and written right in the Constitution yet you castigate those who question a right to abortion not contained anywhere in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had no idea anyone would want to destroy unborn children and treat them as a random choice.
Nice try, but you fall way shott on the CCW post.
Mike Protack
Is it just me or is that Protack comment completely incoherent? What does this sentence mean:
‘My guess is the way he throws a baseball how would not what end of a rifle or handgun does what.’
And he used the phase ‘nice try’ twice in six sentences, invokes the founders and mischaracterizes the entire pro choice platform. This guy is a heavy hitter intellectually…
..and to think he will run again (I mean, we all know he will be Perennal Protack) – it’s like the annoying neighbour that keeps coming over to ask for a cup of sugar.
the NRA doesn’t push for legislation that has no chance of passing? didn’t they just have a nut job try to pass a concealed weapons thing about a week ago.
Yup, and that legislation fell 2 votes short of passing. Maybe at DE Liberal that’s considered something with “no chance of passing.” In the real world 2 votes short is closer to passing than not passing. I’d say it’s pretty surprising given a Democratically controlled Congress with leadership that is vehemently anti-gun.
NRA, SchmenRA. I take it that Mike W thinks the gun ban within the Capital should be abolished.
“Yes Mr. Bin Laden, thank you for being so patient and becoming a citizen. You can now carry concealed weapons. Automatic ones. Hell, conceal a nuke if you want, there are people in the NRA who would support you. I mean, it does say you have the right to bear arms, not what kind of arms. A man must defend himself, after all, right?”
Good luck carrying an automatic pistol (I’ve never even SEEN one) and why the hell would you even if you could find one and had the money to buy it?
My response should probably be something like “Dur Dur Dur, what an idiot” since we all know Anonone’s comment was not the least bit serious.
Jason – Have you been living under a rock? DC’s ban has been abolished. That’s settled law. There’s more work to do to get them to comply fully with Heller and to restore carry rights to the district. (the 2A does clearly say “keep and BEAR” but the bearing of arms in DC was not presented in Heller.)
anon, you’re just a moron.
What ever happened to common sense?
Mike W, Zealots don’t dodge simple questions. Do you think that gun ban within the US Capital should be abolished or not? You either believe guns make people safer or you don’t. Which is it?
The DC gun ban should be abolished. Only law abiding citizens follow bans.
They banned drugs years ago, and now there isn’t a single illegal drug in the US! Banning works wonders!
I already answered, but I keep forgetting I have to dumb it down so you’ll understand. The ban has already been abolished. There is still a carry ban, and members of Congress could not carry in the Capital building without simultaneously breaking the law prohibiting carry in the District.
Also, guns do not and cannot “make” you safer. They’re inanimate objects, tools. They can be employed as a means of self-defense, but there presence alone does not make you safer. Depending upon the person who’s hands the gun is in and that persons actions it is quite possible the gun could make him/her less safe.
Answer the question: Should guns be allowed in the US Capitol? Yes or no? It is a simple question.
I already did, twice. I’m sorry that you are unable to understand complex answers. Read the 2nd sentence of my above comment.
The right to bear arms is currently 100% violated in the District. As such, no one except LEO’s can legally carry in the District, which INCLUDES the Capital.
Yes or no?
Should guns be allowed in the US Capitol? Yes or no?
Here is the thing. You can’t answer the question with a simple yes or no without exposing ludicrous nature of your belief system.
One thing you can count on here. Personal attacks because Liberals have no logic. You can’t counter any arguments with facts so you lay out petty attacks, how sad.
Has Obama ever fired a weapon? I doubt it.
As always, you guys lose.
Mike Protack
Yes, by properly licensed people. Will they allow it? A lot of buildings including military ones do not allow weapons in them so No they won’t.
As members of a criminal organization it is unlikely that anyone in congress would qualify for a concealed carry permit.
“One thing you can count on here. Personal attacks because Liberals have no logic.”
Quite the contrary, and I’ve laid it out for you: You want to be elected as a Republican. You continually fall short. Yet you spend your time not among Republicans, whose votes you would need to win a primary, but among Democrats, thereby reminding them that you are a worse alternative than all the electable Republicans out there and causing them to undermine you. If you were smart, you’d be trying to convince Democrats to fund you, the better to undermine the Republican Party. Yet you’re too stupid (deluded, deranged, fill in your own adjective) to even leverage your own pain-in-the-assitude to your advantage.
I don’t know what figure you think you’re cutting in this community, but you couldn’t be more convincing at your actual role if you wore big, floppy shoes, greasepaint makeup and arrived with 12 other people in an itty bitty car.
“As members of a criminal organization it is unlikely that anyone in congress would qualify for a concealed carry permit.”
Oh, my aching belly! You must crack them up at the bath house.
LOL Geezer!
Personally, I believe that there should be no public property (jails and prisons excepted) where the American people are not free to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
And for what it is worth, i also don’t believe in licenses to carry — any more than I believe in licenses to speak, print a newspaper, or attend a church service.
Personally, who cares what you think? Show of hands — progressives only, please.
Here’s my standing response to you, Geezer.
Contrary to nonsense, my earlier post was simply an example of “slippery slope” logic that those on the right love to employ, the point being that such an argument is useless because we all know common sense must ultimatly prevail. The USA will never allow all “arms,” nor will it ever ban them all. The slippery slope is a bunch of hogwash. I’d just like to see the “common sense” arguments win over a bit more. No, the founding fathers didn’t desire to guarentee the right to bear AK47s and M16s; that’s fucking retarded. Things like background checks, wait periods, and permits are necessary precautions for public safety that in now way infringe on the right to own a gun. This is why the NRA comes across as a bunch of gun wielding nut jobs instead of the valuable Constitution-protecting organization that they could be. And yes, I’d say the same about the ACLU in some of their more infamous cases.
Things like background checks, wait periods, and permits are necessary precautions for public safety that in now way infringe on the right to speak freely in public.
Things like background checks, wait periods, and permits are necessary precautions for public safety that in now way infringe on the right to publish an opinion piece or blog.
Things like background checks, wait periods, and permits are necessary precautions for public safety that in now way infringe on the right to preach a sermon.
Things like background checks, wait periods, and permits are necessary precautions for public safety that in now way infringe on the right to attend a church service.
Yeah, I just read an article where a 8 year old girl was killed by a stray verb in an argument two people were having…pity those people didn’t have background checks before their verbal spar.
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. It’s like people say “common sense….screw it, I BELIEVE what I BELIEVE.”
One thing to about Rhymes is that he is not shy about exposing ludicrous nature of his belief system.
I guess you believe that all rights protected by the Bill of Rights are negotiable. I don’t.
Jason. Our elected representatives should not be allowed to carry a firearm anywhere where their constituents are prohibited from doing so.
Yes or no Mike?
Amazing, Jason. Look at how many ways they’ll avoid answering the question.
RwR,
I believe you are a crazy absolutist nut bag. Luckily, as a society we mange to live life on the slippery slope that strikes such drread into your heart.
Invoking rule 16. b comments are now closed on this gun thread. I suggest you take breather Rymes. You seem like you need to get out and walk around a bit. I’d hate to hear about you taking to a bell tower.
Mike – the answer you want to give but can’t is “no.”