PDA

View Full Version : Congress to be able to carry firearms, I SAY HELL NO


ocspeedracer
01-14-2011, 9:20 AM
Not until they are successfull at letting us defend ourselves. Rant off, this comes from an article I saw on fox news about congress republicans wanting to carry in the capitol.

Please discuss. Should they have more rights then us, are they more equal or should I be happy anyone's getting more rights?

Untamed1972
01-14-2011, 9:25 AM
why should they have anymore right to carry a gun in a gov't building then any other gov't employee or citizen?

If they expect us to farm out our personal protection to LE, then they can do the same...that's what the have the Secret Service and the Federal Protective Service for.

loather
01-14-2011, 9:26 AM
There are really two schools of thought here: incrementalism with regards to rights (which is a good thing) and the creation of a more protected class (which is a bad thing).

I'm not sure how to think about it, but my gut is telling me that more freedoms are a good thing.

maddoggie13
01-14-2011, 9:27 AM
Equal treatment for all people...if they can carry, so such we.

marshaul
01-14-2011, 9:28 AM
Not until they are successfull at letting us defend ourselves. Rant off, this comes from an article I saw on fox news about congress republicans wanting to carry in the capitol.

Please discuss. Should they have more rights then us, are they more equal or should I be happy anyone's getting more rights?

All public servants, as servants, ought to be "less equal" than the average citizen -- at least where directly relevant to their servitude. This may be viewed as simple conditional employment, if you wish -- a basic right of every employer, including We the People.

Now, as to the carrying of firearms by public servants: in an intelligently-run country I would have no problem with it (except for beat cops. Experience shows they should never be armed).

In this country, I wouldn't stop at preventing congresspersons from carrying on the job -- I would disarm the overwhelming majority of police too. And I wouldn't consider changing that until our rights were properly restored. Even then, I would be cautious which public servants were afforded the privilege, and likely not return it to the majority of police.

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 9:29 AM
Let them exercise their congressional oversight to end the districts extreme laws for the betterment of all and not just for 535 special citizens.

yellowfin
01-14-2011, 9:29 AM
Strip them of all other special status they have THEN allow them along with everyone else equal access to 50 state carry.

Ed_in_Sac
01-14-2011, 9:30 AM
Hell yes, then point out that we should have the same right!!!

rp55
01-14-2011, 9:30 AM
So what happens if the Congresscritter is a a prohibited person? There's more than a few there with that distinction.

rivraton
01-14-2011, 9:31 AM
If passed wouldn't extend to everyone under equal protection?

yellowfin
01-14-2011, 9:32 AM
So what happens if the Congresscritter is a a prohibited person? There's more than a few there with that distinction.That's their problem. Their total immunity from consequences needs to be brought to a swift, immediate, and permanent end.

DannyInSoCal
01-14-2011, 9:35 AM
Let's take it one step further and require they pass CCW certification including even more strict range requirements.

Those with criminal records or under investigation would have to step down...

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

Stonewalker
01-14-2011, 9:43 AM
So what happens if the Congresscritter is a a prohibited person? There's more than a few there with that distinction.

Could be good grounds for making the case that once you've served your prison term you've paid for you crime. If you want to argue that a felon is truly too dangerous to have a gun then I would hazard to guess that a congressional seat is far more dangerous under the @ss of a "prohibited person" than a gun in their hand.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 9:46 AM
I'm all in favor of a bill that allows any congressperson or a proper constituent thereof to pack heat - either open carry or concealed.

Let them carry if we can. I've had enough of elitism.

SwissFluCase
01-14-2011, 9:50 AM
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

This is a good idea, but it does need to be expanded, to cover laws and regulations enacted by any governmental agency, and it needs to apply to all government offices and employees. No more protected classes period.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

rabagley
01-14-2011, 9:54 AM
Hell yes, then point out that we should have the same right!!!

This.

Untamed1972
01-14-2011, 10:44 AM
Hell yes, then point out that we should have the same right!!!

In that context I agree.....they should have the right to bear arms because they are citizens of the United States, as all citizens should have.....not because of their positions as elected reps.

PsychGuy274
01-14-2011, 11:48 AM
I think it's a great idea so long as we also get the right. I think anyone should be able to carry wherever they want as far as I'm concerned.

Who knows though...maybe if it's just them; the anti-gun congresspeople might realize that, "Hey! I'm in a room with a bunch of people carrying guns and no one's dying! I change my mind! Guns for everyone!" Not likely for all, but maybe for some. Then again it could backfire and just reinforce "Us v. Them" in their own minds.

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 11:50 AM
You all forget that there was a time (I think that law was never recinded) that all members of Congress were REQUIRED to appear ARMED.

cmichini
01-14-2011, 11:53 AM
If passed wouldn't extend to everyone under equal protection?


:rofl2:

You're kidding right? Equal protection? For regular citizens? You realize this is America in 2011, don't you?

I think you can be arrested, and stripped of your citizenship, for such scandalous, treasonous statements to even infer that regular citizens may have equal rights and protections as congresscritters, LEOs, local politicians, the wealthy or celebrities.

ap3572001
01-14-2011, 11:57 AM
Not until they are successfull at letting us defend ourselves. Rant off, this comes from an article I saw on fox news about congress republicans wanting to carry in the capitol.

Please discuss. Should they have more rights then us, are they more equal or should I be happy anyone's getting more rights?
As a LEO, I would feel MUCH , MUCH better if there were many folks who were trained and armed out there.

The CCW is the way to go .

Cokebottle
01-14-2011, 12:02 PM
Not until they are successfull at letting us defend ourselves. Rant off, this comes from an article I saw on fox news about congress republicans wanting to carry in the capitol.

Please discuss. Should they have more rights then us, are they more equal or should I be happy anyone's getting more rights?
Like Gene says.

Chess, not checkers


Let them have it.

Once they do, it becomes easier for us under equal protection (or due process).

Patrick-2
01-14-2011, 12:13 PM
Not until they are successfull at letting us defend ourselves. Rant off, this comes from an article I saw on fox news about congress republicans wanting to carry in the capitol.

Please discuss. Should they have more rights then us, are they more equal or should I be happy anyone's getting more rights?

Without a link I cannot say what the story said, but there has been a move the last few years to reform the DC Home Rule clause that let's them (supposedly) regulate guns the way they do.

If this is from the Republicans, chances are the story is reporting info out of context.

Home Rule is a complex topic and frankly you would be bored with it and the implications of a 1973 law granting it. Know that the Heller II case challenging new DC anti-gun laws is almost surely going to be decided using the Home Rule clause instead of the Second Amendment (the Court asked for briefs to be re-written to address home rule instead of 2A and openly admitted they are avoiding the whole 2A issue when possible).

While DC Home Rule is murky, you are probably aware of that DC residents - while paying full federal taxes - do not have any voting representation in Congress.

DC has tried to get this representation for a long time, but has failed. Last year they were offered the chance: they would get a full House representative and Utah would also get one (they were considered "safe" political balances for both sides of the aisle). As negotiations went on, it got closer to really passing. But then a condition was tacked on: DC would have to give up control of gun regulation in the city and follow rules set by the Congress. It would have made DC shall-issue (and some argue one step short of the mythical "constitutional carry").

The DC Council was going to swallow the pill. So was Delegate Norton (DC's rep to Congress - she has no real voting power). But at the last minute things changed. For some reason, they went from "tough pill but we will swallow it and fight to change it later" to an outright "no". Rumors of pressure from the left are abundant and probably on the mark.

So DC asked the bill to be pulled by the House and Steny Hoyer (D) complied. That was the best shot DC residents have had to get the vote in...ever.

Now the census is giving Utah extra seats anyway, so no more room to bargain there. And...(finally getting to the guns)...the House is almost surely going to liberalize DC gun laws in the immediate future.

The story you saw left out this subtext, but I am betting that it is there all the same.

So in terms of negotiating tactics, DC screwed up badly. They gave up full representation in the House to protest gun liberalization that is going to imposed on them anyway. And due to the vagaries of the census, the other "balancing option" that made Republicans kinda-sorta OK with DC representation is gone.

They knew this when they made the choice. But they made it anyway. DC residents got upset, but the Washington Post came to everyone's defense and squashed the complaints. Even online forums at their paper were closed and censored when residents wrote overwhelmingly opposing viewpoints.


Sorry for the detail, but the palace intrigue gets complex out here. I doubt the Republicans in that story are creating a superior class of citizen, they are making a point of turning recent events in favor of the movement.

Probably.

RobG
01-14-2011, 12:20 PM
I want to see their good cause for needing to ccw:D

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 12:23 PM
I want to see their good cause for needing to ccw:D

I congressman so and so have run roughshod over the constitution and peoples rights for my own gain and now the people are out for my blood. I need a CCW to enable me to stay in power and solidify my unconstitutional laws.

tonelar
01-14-2011, 12:27 PM
a foot in the door is still a foot in the door

i say let 'em pass it. if more gun owners = a good thing then more gun carrying = a better thing

RobG
01-14-2011, 12:36 PM
I congressman so and so have run roughshod over the constitution and peoples rights for my own gain and now the people are out for my blood. I need a CCW to enable me to stay in power and solidify my unconstitutional laws.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u155/RobG5538/denied.gif

mif_slim
01-14-2011, 12:39 PM
I think they should, that way... they'll open their eyes(hopefully) that law abiding citizens should be able to carry too and lessen the gun control laws!

AJAX22
01-14-2011, 12:53 PM
It is a step towards normalizing firearms..... Even if it is creating a protected class.

It could create some VERRY interesting equal protection cases, as well as present a serious challenge to 'fellon in posession, and sensitive places' arguments.

Untamed1972
01-14-2011, 1:02 PM
I think they should, that way... they'll open their eyes(hopefully) that law abiding citizens should be able to carry too and lessen the gun control laws!

Except that most of them already see themselves as a superior class of citizens compared to the rest of us regular folks, so one more perk for them isn't going to make them think one iota about giving out those perks to the masses.

ironpegasus
01-14-2011, 1:06 PM
:rofl2:

You're kidding right? Equal protection? For regular citizens? You realize this is America in 2011, don't you?

I think you can be arrested, and stripped of your citizenship, for such scandalous, treasonous statements to even infer that regular citizens may have equal rights and protections as congresscritters, LEOs, local politicians, the wealthy or celebrities.

You seem to forget - non-citizens seem to often get more protections than the average citizen these days - so they'd let you keep the citizenship to better their chances of getting a conviction for something truly heinous - like daring to believe the constitution means what it says.

BluNorthern
01-14-2011, 1:18 PM
They want to be able to carry, sure, as long as we are FIRST granted the same privilege. Shall issue and reciprocity across the country. To those who say give let them carry and "hopefully" they'll come around to us later....you've got to be kidding.

Untamed1972
01-14-2011, 1:41 PM
They want to be able to carry, sure, as long as we are FIRST granted the same privilege. Shall issue and reciprocity across the country. To those who say give let them carry and "hopefully" they'll come around to us later....you've got to be kidding.


Or perhaps have them pass a law that says they can carry in the capitol with a CCW permit issued from their home state and then include a national reciprocity clause too.

So for those Reps from a no or may issue states, they'd hafta pressure their state .leg to pass CCW, and then they'd hafta pass a national reciprocity bill so their permit would be good in DC.

although in may issue states like CA they're local sheriff would give them one w/o blinking an eye.

infamous209
01-14-2011, 1:54 PM
Oh darn I seem to see there are some fees and rules involved. You were anti-gun, mmmm seems that is on the list of things that you need to visit a "health" facility for. DENIED but we will keep your fees. Thank you and come back anytime.

mikaarce
01-14-2011, 2:26 PM
I want to see their good cause for needing to ccw:D

"The Chosen one"