the Democrats should amend the motion to allow concealed weapons in the chambers of the supreme court and then pass it. that should lead to clarity real quick.
Ok, let them carry as long as every other citizen of age in this country is able to carry also. Make them go through a background check also, then that would eliminate half of them anyway.
hakori is what is wrong with this country. He/she thinks everything is okay as long as fascist democrats are controlling everyone EXCEPT him/her. Where in the Constitution is that power delegated to Congress, the President, the courts, or ANY agency of government (state of Fed)? hakori can't find it, probably because it didn't read the US Constitution or any state constitution in the first place, preferring, I can only imagine, to be the b***h of someone else, at someone else's time and on that someone else's terms! Self-defense is a prime directive of ALL life forms on earth. Which means it SHOULD be supported by everyone adhering to the great "environmentalist" dogmae: reality. No government that I support will ever deny me (or, despite its fear, hakori) the right to use whatever is necessary to complete that self-defense - the greater the threat, the greater the deterrent needed to thwart that threat. If hakori wishes NOT to defend him/her self, so be it. But stay away from curtailing MY right to do so. hakori (and those like it) have no right or authority to deny it to the rest of us. They can move to some enslaved enclave if they are so f***ing afraid of those of us who will even defend them! Morons.
If congress wants to be able to carry a concealed handgun to work I believe they should be able to do so. Self-defense is an inalienable right that all of us as humans have. How we do it should be left up to the individual. Those of us LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who happen to do so by carrying legally owned and legally carried firearms don't go looking for trouble. Just the opposite. We hide from it wherever possible. We also understand that carrying a firearm carries with it the utmost in responsibility.
Have you been to the capital building in the last 10 years. Unless you are part of the armed capital guard, you couldn't get a gun within 50 yards of the building.
There is no credible threat for legislators in the the Capitol Building. None.
Besides, an idiot like Gohmert ismore likley to misplace his fire arm, or have it accidentally go off than ANY risk of him being threatened.
If I recall correctly, the bill includes carrying in D.C. and not just the capitol building. Which makes the bill a great idea. Unless they are a high ranking official, they don't get security details. Which is really troublesome to me because, in case you didn't know, D.C. has a horrible crime rate. Oh, and by the way, with that horrible crime rate they also have some of the worst gun restrictions. Funny.... that always seems to be the case. New York.....Chicago.....Detroit.....I could go on and on.
Don't you mean LAWFULLY "kept and borne"? Legalisms come and go. The US Constitution is the Supreme LAW of the Land, and what it spells out are our LAWS, not legislation, not codes, not policies, not dictats from petty tyrants.
Outstanding point! And, because he prefers to cater to corporate America, as do his peers, America's problems are rapidly increasing! The result is, citizens are getting angry at members of Congress, they know it, but don't want to do their jobs and perform the public's business, hence, they want to 'go armed' to protect themselves from the attacks they expect to happen against them! The solution: DO THEIR JOBS and ENACT THE PUBLIC'S AGENDA! It's really that simple! If they did, they'd be safe, respected, AND admired...but, they prefer the 'perks' over the latter! So, let them live dangerously, it's truly up to them!
Key word there is to "replace" the corporate agenda with public agenda--unfortunately for us this will never happen. They put power and money so far above respect and admiration, they don't really care what the public opinion is.
As grandma used to say "can't change the spots on a leopard".
If you mean passing legislation that over 50% of the population opposes, that is patently UNconstitutional, is going to crush jobs, cause massive inflation, unemployment, food and fuel shortages and could reduce this country to third world status for standard of living, I'm quite happy having the GOP not pass the socialist agenda. It's failed everywhere it's been tried. We simply can't tax people who produce to provide a living for those who refuse to. Because when it becomes more personally productive to collect a welfare check than to get an entry level job, why would take an entry level job? I'm sure that doesn't fit with your liberal world view, but I've had multi generational welfare mothers tell me that they made more on welfare, food stamps and section 8 than they could earn working. What's the incentive to work in that situation? The problem isn't that wages are too low, it's that the welfare system rewards people with that attitude. Now the government is worried about the dignity of the parasites who live off the backs of others. Why? They should be ashamed that they aren't working to better their lot in life instead of finding some other dumb schmuck to knock them up with another illegitimate child for the taxpayers to care for. The woman in question had 3 children by different fathers. All of them being supported by our tax dollars until they reach the age of 18. At 23, she had been on welfare her entire life, and had been encouraged by her welfare mother to have kids of her own in order to not have to get a job.
100,000,000+ gun owners don't kill anyone every single year. That means that your odds of being killed by a law abiding gun owner is lower than by a non law abiding drunk driver. Perhaps it would be a greater service to the safety of the citizens of this country to prevent Democrat lawmakers from having cars since there are at least two from the same family who have had accidents while driving drunk, one of which ended in the death of an innocent victim.
Actually, your comment proves the point of those you disagree with. Cars don't kill people anymore than guns do. It's people who do irresponsible and/or illegal things with them that do. Shooting people with a gun, except in self defense, is already illegal in this country. Why does anyone think that the people who aren't going to obey that law, are suddenly going to obey a law saying they can't own a gun? The law abiding citizens of Mexico are almost universally forbidden to own guns, but tens of thousands of guns (most of which aren't even legal in this country so they aren't coming from here) are smuggled into Mexico from other countries every year. Has that working out for the LAW abiding citizens there?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
I respect your right to be a defenseless victim.
Please respect my equal right to decline joining you.
Have you been to the capital building in the last 10 years. Unless you are part of the armed capital guard, you couldn't get a gun within 50 yards of the building.
There is no credible threat for legislators in the the Capitol Building. None.
Besides, an idiot like Gohmert ismore likley to misplace his fire arm, or have it accidentally go off than ANY risk of him being threatened.
Really a deranged idea.
Unless they are a high ranking official, they don't get security details. Which is really troublesome to me because, in case you didn't know, D.C. has a horrible crime rate. Oh, and by the way, with that horrible crime rate they also have some of the worst gun restrictions. Funny.... that always seems to be the case. New York.....Chicago.....Detroit.....I could go on and on.
"When seconds count, Cops are only minutes away!!!!"
http://******/gOiEPp
He is the key reason why noone has disclose sponsors in the new rules.
Nice of him to weigh in though.
They put power and money so far above respect and admiration, they don't really care what the public opinion is.
As grandma used to say "can't change the spots on a leopard".
With that type of reasoning, everyone should be able to drive their car any way they want, after all cars don't kill people.... blah, blah.
Gohmert is functionally insane, in my opinion, and actually stupid. It shows in this last paragraph. He is daring someone to try and shoot him.