Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Texas Congressman Says Legislators Should Be Able To Carry Firearms In Chamber

January 17, 2011 by  

Texas congressman says legislators should be able to carry firearms in chamberIn response to the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in Tucson, Ariz., Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) plans to introduce legislation that would allow lawmakers to carry weapons on the House floor as well as in the District of Columbia.

Gohmert told The Hill that he does not plan on carrying firearms, but he believes that members of Congress have the right, as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, to protect themselves. A spokesperson for Gohmert told the media outlet that the law will only apply in DC and it will not affect any state laws.

"There is a rash of legislation further infringing on 2nd Amendment rights that has been unwisely proffered in the wake of events in Tucson,” Gohmert said in a written statement. “If members of Congress wish to carry a weapon in the Federal District of Columbia, it should be permissible."

GOP members of the House convened for a security briefing on Jan. 12. Following the closed-door session, Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) addressed the 2nd Amendment, which is being debated among politicians and many Americans following the Arizona shooting.

Franks said that he wished there was one more gun present at the Tucson shopping mall, and that it was "in the hands of a responsible person," quoted by USA Today

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Texas Congressman Says Legislators Should Be Able To Carry Firearms In Chamber”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Michael J.

    Legislators should pass no laws granting priviliges to Congressman that are not also enjoyed by lawful citizens.

    • Michael J.

      Make that, law abiding citizens.

      • castaway

        What difference does it make? A criminal or someone in a gang can get a gun, no matter what the law is.

        • 45caliber

          I agree. That’s because a gun, to a criminal or gang member (actually in many cases the same thing), is necessary “work” equipment. On the other hand, I doubt if they would be paying big money for a table saw or a work truck.

      • http://deleted Claire

        Michael J— I agree.

        • Bus

          Would Congress be considered a gang?

      • Dogma-Free

        “In response to the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in Tucson, Ariz., Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) plans to introduce legislation that would allow lawmakers to carry weapons on the House floor as well as in the District of Columbia.”

        …and now, more from the files of the *people that just don’t get it*!

        Soon, young children will carry handguns to school with them…you know…*just in case*…cuz that’s how the NRA would want it.

        • 45caliber

          Doggy:

          You seem to have something against the NRA. All it is is a group of people who agree that the Constitution recognizes (not gives) them the right to own and carry a gun. Not any different than those of the Handgun Control group who believes no one should have one regardless of what the Constitution recognizes. Except there are more of them.

          In any case, SOMEONE at school needs to be carrying. We need someone there who can defend our young children when someone does show up with a gun intending to kill them. A young child shouldn’t since they don’t know how and don’t have the maturity to decide when they need to defend and when they don’t. But an adult should be allowed. In fact, most adults there should carry.

        • JUKEBOX

          Back in the 40′s, while I was in grammar school, we did carry guns and knives to school with us. We thought that only the sissies didn’t carry, and that included the girls.

          • JUKEBOX

            By the way, we didn’t know about the NRA back then.

          • 45caliber

            I’ve carried a knife since I was five. It isn’t a weapon; it is a tool.

          • independant thinker

            So true 45. I did not start carrying one until I was 6 or 8 but, depending on what I am doing, have carried one or more every day since then.

        • Al Sieber

          Hey Dog, if you’re taught gun safety at a young age they’ll be less problems, I took a hunters safety course in the mid-60′s through the NRA, and never had any problems, I only shot at people that shot at me first. I would take my gun on the school bus, no problem, now you couldn’t even take a squirt gun on the school bus. you forgot our rights, or you’re too young.

          • Al Sieber

            By the way Dog if you feel that way, you should’t be allowed to carry a pea shooter, or a sling shot. or be allowed to throw rocks, I could go on………….. the NRA helped me to shoot straight and my dad.

          • Dan az

            Hey Al
            I think it would be cool to see a pervert try to get a little girl into the car when she pulls her 357 and points it at him and says I dont think so jerk!lol

          • skip

            Al – why did you shoot your Dad?

    • HFlashman

      LOL … think throughtis grandstanding play proposing allowing member of Congress to walk the halls of the capital armed.
      1. There is so much security around the place you have better odds winning the lottery than getting close packing anything remotely dangerous to self or others.
      2. Who would the gun totin’ member be protecting themselves from? Yep … another mmber. Actually, I guess if the esteemed member from Texas is afraid of being attacked by Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi and like most Texans couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag … I can see where he might be worried for his skin ..
      3. It’s a con job to get everyone to concentrate on a non-issue instead of the real issue. There is no push for any gun control measures. A few bills which won’t see the light of day, and a few folks on the Left making the usual calls…but there is no debate about further gun control.

      What is being debated is the course of civility in our national dialogue and the irresponsibility of the extremists in using violence, or the threat and implications thereof, if they don’t get thier way. Like spoiled brats, they threaten temper tantrums and pouting and refuse to accept the majority of the people’s views and desires. Or…like all toothless braggarts and cowards, they huff and puff and threaten and, in some cases, may actually carry out, lunatic acts against those who dare disagree with their insane ideas calculated to bring this nation down.

      • independant thinker

        The south end of the north bound mule has spoken.

        • skip

          I assume you are referring to yourself!

          • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

            Now, now folks. We must keep it civil. Remember, “uncivil” words (as defined by the losers) make people do bad things that they are in turn not responsible for doing.

      • 45caliber

        flashy:

        If you check, all members in Congress who are against guns either already carry one at all times or have body guards who do. What this guy is saying is that he wants to do the same thing. Of course, what he is also saying is that he has the right to defend himself – but you don’t since he isn’t giving you the right to carry one yourself in his bill.

      • Al Sieber

        Well Flashman, I know judges in Ariz. that have a gun under the bench, where do you live? Mass., N.Y., or R.I.?

        • HFlashman

          Al..why do you suppose that is? Have we devolved as a society to the point where Judges having to be armed while sitting on the bench causes us no pause to reflect where the dangers are coming from? Why there are criminals who find it easy to buy guns?

          You find it accepted now that judges have to be armed? What’s your proposed solution? More armed citizenry?

          Low standards as a society eh Al?

          • Al Sieber

            Flashmam, this goes back 30 years or more. Az. was the last state in the lower 48, to become a state. our society has been screwed up for at least 60 years.

          • JC

            You think you’re advocating some sort of progress Flashman?
            Quite the opposite, forcing people into disarmament couldn’t be more devoid of morality.
            Armed citizens maintain and enforce the highest possible standards of morality.
            Now you will jump straight to crazies with guns as your platform…
            not the same thing. I’m talking about main street USA where people are decent and hopefully never a shot is fired in anger or even self defense.
            But with no guns…we’re at the mercy of the criminals and the crazies…and worse, the Government.

      • Dan az

        The Heller case challenged several laws in Washington DC that constituted a complete ban on the Second Amendment rights for D.C. residents with no exception given for self-defense. In the Heller case, the Supreme court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental individual right to have functional firearms in the home that are commonly owned without being connected to any service of the state or military organization. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the bill of rights, which guarantees citizen’s individual rights. Lastly, In this 5 to 4 decision with Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia writing for the majority, The Supreme Court affirmed that Washington DC gun laws violated the Second Amendment Civil Rights of DC residents and to positively restore those rights.

        • http://keylawk.blogspot.com Tom Key

          Dan Az, thanks for summarizing Heller. It does appear that Justice Scalia made “new law”, completely re-writing the Second Amendment: “the people”, and “State Militia”.

          • independant thinker

            Care to expalin how you think he re-wrote the Second Amendment.

    • Carol

      I don’t think firearms should be carried anywhere that so many people gather because everyone has to remember “Bullets have no eyes” and if any of these people don’t know how to aim properly in the heat of the moment a lot of innocent people could be killed or injured and that is a fact.

      • JC

        And just how do you propose to keep criminals and nut jobs from carrying guns into crowds?

        • JC

          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crickets <<<<<<<<<<<<<

          No way to work that one out eh Carol?

      • 45caliber

        Yes it is a fact. Most bullets go astray. BUT … you are also advocating that there be no defense when some crazy person carries a gun into a crowd and opens up with it. Then he can take his time and aim at whomever he wishes to kill without any worries. That is exactly what Loughner did. I’d much rather be killed by an accidently miss by someone trying to stop such a murderer than to be killed by him because he is perfectly safe doing it.

      • 45caliber

        Carol:

        Another thing. If you look at the accounts of those who were at the site, the one thing most say as the moment the criminal started shooting, they dove to the ground. That would get most of them out of the way of any stray bullets – but not out of the way of the criminal who would be shooting them in the back as they lay there. And the moment they hit the ground, the criminal will be standing there all alone … Stray bullets wouldn’t likely hit any innocent people then.

        • HFlashman

          45…are you telling me if there would have been shots flying evrywhere as people opened up, once the shooter went down you’d be on the ground feeling totally safe? C’mon…..even drugs aren’t that good…

        • Dan az

          Gun control means you hit what you aim at!

          • HFlashman

            And so speaks the modern day version of Daniel Boone I suppose? I’d trust a 3 year old having better marksmanship than the majority of gun owners. Ya ever hunt Dan? Ever hear the stories year after year of a “city hunter” who shot the first thing he saw moving..be it man or beast? And you’d trust a “city hunter’ with a frippin’ handgun ???

            You’re crazier than anyone thought if that’s your stance…

          • JC

            Liberal vs. Conservative

            Scenario: You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock 45 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

            Liberal Answer:

            Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?

            Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

            Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

            This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

            Conservative’s Answer:

            BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

            Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips??

            And we’d have one less criminal in society…everytime.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            JC,
            I’d have to ask you one question afterwards. Why’d you waste so much ammo?????

      • JUKEBOX

        There already been a lot of innocent people killed because qualified people were not allowed to bring their weapons into the venue. Examples: Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Luby’s Restaurant in Texas are three that readily come to mind.

      • Al Sieber

        Carol, I think everyone should be armed so they have a even chance. don’t get emotionally involved on what happened in Tucson. that isn’t a reason to take our firearms. if you believe that you shouldn’t visit this site.

    • Judy

      I agree! What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander!

      • Judy

        My comment, “I agree” was intended to mean that we need to leave our 2nd Amendment completely alone. In fact, from what I have read, Congresswoman Gifford was pro-2nd Amendment. No change should be made. As Mike Pence said, we need to keep it the “People’s” House, as such it is. They represent us.

        • skip

          If they represent us, then don’t shoot them, don’t try to bring them down. What kind of circular logic are you involved with?

    • 45caliber

      Michael:

      I agree. Further, as you stated in your comment, it means ALL laws a Congressman passes should equally cover him as it does all others, whether it is a gun law or not.

  • chris

    They all ready have the right to carry. the 2nd amendment gives them that right allong with every law obiding citzen. It’s only in Dc thats the issue. work it out with DC not other states. No new Laws are needed for this perpose other than DC. Congress needs to play by the same rules as the rest of us Law obiding cetizens.

    • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

      “The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon”.

      ANY firearms regulations are an infringement. ALL gun laws should be erased from the books as it is no dirt-bag politician’s business who owns guns, how many, or what kind.

      Dirt-bag, is that uncivil, or just the truth?

      • Thom

        AZ has an open carry law with no permit. Don’t understand why folks just don’t carry,
        The more people who are willing to do what is right… with or without the firearm is what we need. We all speak about law abiding citizens but refuse to be brave enough to stand up for the ones who need us. we all talk big how many of us are just as complacent as the libs we rail against.
        I don’t live in AZ, But with the way things are going …wouldn’t mind

        • Dogma-Free

          Actually, that Loughner guy carried – legally – so I guess he was just standing up for his rights too, hey? And innocent human lives be damned, I guess.

          Also, where were all the gun-toting heroes when the real sh!t went down??

          I guess they were either stroking their pistolas in their dodge vans, or were cowering in fear in the frozen foods aisle.

          You know who ended up taking him out? Women. Housewives. UNARMED Housewives. Not these so-called ‘men’ with their guns to protect them, but rather Women. Without guns.

          Kinda makes you feel a little pathetic now, doesn’t it? (and if not, it should) Plus, it also defeats all your arguments how you need to carry a GUN to save the lives of others, since we all now know that’s total and utter horse-sh!t.

          Say it with me now:

          No more guns = no more mass gun slayings!

          • JUKEBOX

            Tell that to the good thousands of Mexican citizens that have been kiled since guns were outlawed down there. Stupid is as Stupid does, “FORREST GUMP”.

          • JC

            Dogma Fed says:

            “Actually, that Loughner guy carried – legally – so I guess he was just standing up for his rights too, hey? And innocent human lives be damned, I guess.”

            You have to be one seriously sick, twisted piece of…
            to pull that out of what he was saying.
            You are a revolting human being, and as long as there are rabid, little Nazi’s such as yourself that I will never relinquish my guns.

          • JC

            Tell it to the Jews, The Ukranians, The Cambodians, The Rwandans, The Ugandans, The Tibetans…I’ll bet they’re all really glad they didn’t have any guns when the soldiers came.

          • Dan az

            Doggy doo
            She leaned to the left and the people there where like you lefty!

          • Al Sieber

            I live in Ariz. DogFace, and if I was there I would of shot the MF right off, and so would a lot of people I know, that’s your duty as a citizen. but Tucson is full of liberals like you.

          • JIBBS

            Hey dogma, I think it was two people who returned fire, and I believe both were men. A country with no guns is a ciuntry easily subdued and taken over. Back in the 60′s, I belive that Kruchev( not sure of spelling) from the then USSR, said the only reason he did not invade the USA was the fact that almost all American’s had guns. On average it would take the Sheriff about 45 minutes to get to my home, if my home was invaded, and a baseball bat won’t save you if they come armed. I love life, so I’ll keep the guns. That being said, I wish you goodluck. Remember this, YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID !

    • JUKEBOX

      I always thought Congress had jurisdiction over DC.

  • http://awsht.com Abe Hall

    There is no need of any law to control the carry of firearms in the United States of America if Congress and the Senate uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The second amendment gives us the undeniable right to keep and bear arms and does not descriminate as to where, when or even what type. All laws to the contrary are unconstitutional and should therefore be stricken, cut, repealed from the books as one would cut away a cancer that if left would consume the rest of the body.

    • http://awsht.com Abe Hall

      One additional thought for consideration. AS it is illegal for convicted felons to carry or even possess a handgun, and as members of congress have a propensity to write bills which are unconstitutional and in doing so have commited treason, which is in and of itself a felonious act, perhaps the one group that should be excluded from the carrying of handguns would be the members of congress.

      • Teresa

        well put…

        • skip

          It seems the main reason those wishing to carry arms and Glock 19s with a 31 bullet magazine is to rise up against the government that they don’t like. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment, according to them, is for this specific reason – not hunting or Olympic competition. This being the case, they are going to have to come up with a lot of money and a lot of space if they wish to have their own air force, stealth fighters, tanks, anti-tank weaponry, and the like. This is going to be expensive, to say the least, and perhaps will require the purchase of land for a base close to but outside the borders of the United States. The US armed forces are the most powerful in the world, and to take them on will not be a piece of cake. Perhaps China could be persuaded to form some sort of alliance with those Americans not on the left wing who distrust our current government and want to bring it down, but that would require some heavy duty diplomacy. The northern-most states of Mexico would be possible sites for such a base as well, and being controlled by the drug cartels and acquiring their guns and ammo from our side, might be more sympathetic negotiating partners.

          • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

            There were those who told our Founders the same thing about the British military.

            Northern states of Mexico? How about the far western state of Mexico also known as California.

            Texas will be a good place after their cession.

            You are a good thinker, “civil”!

          • 45caliber

            skip:

            You kind of left out self defense as a reason to have one of those guns and large magazines. Accidently or on purpose? I’ve been in firefights as gun battles are called in the military. I want the most ammo I can get when someone is shooting at me. Pistols aren’t the weapon of choice for battle. You only use them until you can get to something better. But they are certainly easier to carry than those better things. That’s why so many of us keep them for self defense. But shooting for sport is also a good use for the large magazines. It keeps you shooting instead of reloading all the time. You can reload at home when you aren’t tying up a lane at the local gun range.

          • HFlashman

            Skip…hate to be the one to break tis to you…and I am a Moderate…which means on this board I’m considered left of communist…but your first sentence is exactly what i beieve the 2nd was written for.

            I’m not advocating overthrow of the government, nor am I stating any support for violence or rhetoric above that of debate…but I do believe that was the reason for the 2nd.

            Now do I believe it bans control, purchase restricitons or registration for the good of society? Not by a long shot. And do i believe unpermitted concealed weapons to be inviolate? no way. And…to further rile those who hold the 2nd to mean they have a right to pack guns…I believe there can and should be restrictions on carrying in a public place, forum or meeting. I mean…you’re crazy enough to go packing in a Starbucks? You should be tossed into jail for endangering people.

            They say/claim they need it for self defense. I’ll grant them that. And when they can tell me how to separate the lunatics from the “good guys”, then I’ll refrain from saying toss ‘em all in jail for packing in a public place, forum, or meeting/event.

            You’re crazy enough to pack in public? In my opinion, you’re crazy enough to be put into jail …

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Flash,
            In most all states if you have a CCW, you can carry anywhere you want as long as that place has no objections! Some of the Starbucks have come out and publically stated that they would go along with the local laws! Therefore I would be perfectly within my rights to carry there! If you don’t like people exercising their rights in this country, then i suggest you move!!

          • HFlashman

            Joe….if I saw anyone packing a gun in any Starbucks anywher, i’d be calling the cops. If that didn’t get any action, I’d likely stand aside, then retain legal counsel and sue the holy crap outta the ones packin’ for assault.

            If anything, I’d break ‘em with legal fees so they would have to hock the damn things to pay their attorneys.

            Only an insane maniac would think it’s OK to pack a gun in a public forum or meeting.

          • http://myronjpoltroonian.blogspot.com Myron J. Poltroonian

            Some dead, old “White Guy” noted some time ago: “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson (However, I’m beginning to believe he may’ve had more than just the use of the second amendment in it’s own defense in mind.)

            “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1787

            Writing to Madison from Paris in January 1787, about Revolutionary War Capt. Daniel Shay’s anti-tax rebellion in Massachusetts, Jefferson said, “I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

            “A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”. Thomas Jefferson (1801)

            “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not,” warned Thomas Jefferson.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Flash,
            Then I suggest you start suing all licenced private detectives in your state!! Also, If you sued me for something that was perfectly within my rights, I would sue you for frivolous suit and take enough money from you to buy several MORE guns!!! You are very childish in your thinking. first there wouldn’t be a lawyer to take your case as there wouldn’t be one! Second if the local laws say I can carry open or consealed then there wouldn’t be any law broken nor any “assault”! actually even if it was against the law to carry, there still wouldn’t be any “assault”!

      • JIBBS

        Again I say, do your homework before you speak

      • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

        I like your, ah, convoluted thinking, for lack of a better way of putting it. Bravo!

        • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

          Oops. The above was for Abe.

    • HFlashman

      Abe…sit back and think for a second (I know it may be difficult to have that amount of attention span, but do try).

      In Arizona, one doe not require to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon almost anywhere. Right? And Loughner was able not only to walk into a Wal Mart to buy ammo in the morning of the shooting, earlier he was able to buy a frippin’ Glock fer chrissake with the barest of “background” checks. ID and fill out a short simple questionairre…no waiting period for full a full screening.

      A hairdresser has to go through a more rigorous background check in Arizona. Yes…amongst many other professions there, a hairdresser is considered more dangerous than someone buying a gun.

      That’s sane?

      • independant thinker

        “earlier he was able to buy a frippin’ Glock fer chrissake with the barest of “background” checks. ID and fill out a short simple questionairre”

        The Glock is fundamentaly no different than any other semi-auto pistol. It is not some super weapon like some would have us believe judging by the tone of their posts.

        It appears you know nothing about the process of purchasing a firearm from a dealer. Not only do you have to fill out the “simple form” you have to wait for FBI approval before you can purchase the firearm. The FBI can take up to 5 working days to deny your purchase.

        • HFlashman

          Criminey…not only irrational at times, but uninformed. Unless they’ve changed the law since last fall when I bought a 20 gauge single shot for varmints around my cabin… There is no “federal waiting period’. It’s a five minute telephonic hook up checking to see if you have been convicted of a crime of more than one year in jail. You can buy from a private dealer without any check.

          Criminey…and you expect to be taken seriously?

          • Al Sieber

            HF, in Ariz. it only takes 5-10 minutes in Ariz. also. and Dog$hit move to Cuba if you don’t like our God given rights.

        • HFlashman

          BTW…it’s three days for the FBI to give clearance if it takes that long. Not five days. The dealer I purchased that 20 gauge aid he’s never had to wait more than 10 minutes…which involved a few tries to get the hook up connection.

          • Dogma-Free

            Yeah, but Flash…it only took 10 minutes for you, because you’re not a deranged lunatic looking to go on a shooting/killing spree.

            If you were, it would have taken 3 days to get the okay.

            Wow…a whole 3 days, huh? Man, is that ever some strict legislation…gosh, you’d think they were almost trying to hurt our feelings by making us wait that long. Gee willakers.

          • HFlashman

            it only took 10 minutes for you, because you’re not a deranged lunatic <—Dogma

            Errrr…depends upon if you're asking the ex as to whether I'm a deranged lunatic or not…

            Look…I'm not saying we should ban private ownership of guns. Nor should we restrict many of the types available. I do believe there is a reason for the 2nd and I do believe it is for a worthy purpose…packing armor outside a home is not one of them (unless headed to the range or hunting).

            I fail to see why someone needs to pack a gun anywhere outside the home. This 'self defense" crap is for guys to get a rise in their Levi's and cover their insecurities of manlihood. Truth be told, most would pee their pants if they got into a situation where they may get a stitch or two or bloody nose than anything else.

            And all this faked up cries about "liberals and gun control'… Just hyped rhetoric bordering on lies. Face it, there hasn't been any substative move towards gun control for over a decade.

            When the Moderate Democrats wrested back control from the liberal wing in the early to mid 90s, that talk went away. The GOP is now facing the same struggle…can the moderates wrest back control from the lunatics who have been in charge of the GOP the past 10 years? That's the reason the Dems are still being labelled as 'gun control" advocates. Because it's a conveneient lie for the lunatic Right to use against the moderate Republicans.

            Outside the NE part of the US, there are very few Democratic office holders in support of gun control measures other than what is currently on the books (with a little tweaking maybe being agreed to).

            But it's a conveneient lie for the lunatics.

          • independant thinker

            It is 5 working days. I sold firearms for several years. We had numerous instances where the FBI made the customer wait for 3-5 days before replying. Some were approved some denied just like those that were answered sooner.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            flash,
            i suggest you learn the difference between a long gun and a handgun!! I can go into any sporting goods store and buy a shotgun without a background check in Ohio! try that with a Glock and there is a background check for criminal activity, convictions, military service, among others. This check can take anywheres from fifteen minutes to five days!! mine took about 15 to 20 minutes as I have never been convicted, never been under the care of a shrink, never taken shrink meds, and had a variety of clearances in service. I have also been bonded three times as a manager of apartment bldgs!

          • HFlashman

            Joe…tell it to Independent Thinker. He’s the one stating it takes five business days (I just checked…the law states max is three business days to wait. Max)

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Flash,
            first you say you asked the guy you bought your 20 guage from, then you say you just looked up the law. Which is it? Perhaps the whole story is a line of bull$hit!!!

        • JUKEBOX

          I saw some of the pseudo intellectual news reporters refer to the Glock as a semi automatic rifle. Showed their smarts, didn’t they?

      • JIBBS

        And you still running your mouth before doing your homework…

    • JC

      Americans are entitled to carry firearms in America period.
      “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

  • http://freshbrewedconservatism.blogspot.com/ Sheila

    So they think the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the citizens? They need to reread it. It’s to protect US from a tyrannical government.

    • Bill

      VERY WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • 45caliber

      But, Sheila! They aren’t tyranical; they just want to have their way all the time and stay safe too! They are looking out for you! Just ask one; they will tell you the same thing.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        45caliber,
        yeah, they will tell you that as they try to wrestle the very right to live from your hands!!

  • Mick

    Sheila says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:37 am
    So they think the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the citizens? They need to reread it. It’s to protect US from a tyrannical government.
    ****************************
    Sheila….Many liberals seem to conveniently forget about tyrannical government , possibly because they’re part of it……………….

    • HFlashman

      LOL …

      Uh huh … I note that most of the so-called “patriot” and anti-terrorism laws restricting our Rights and freedoms were proposed and supported by the vast majorty of the conservative movement.

      • JC

        And it’s wrong no matter how you cut it….
        so what’s your point?

      • independant thinker

        And the un-patriot” act was renewed and expanded with the support of the majority of the liberals.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Yeah, and it was originally drawn up by your second hero joe Biden!

    • 45caliber

      I agree.

    • skip

      Check my reply to Theresa

  • SteveB

    Well,well….Now the spotlight of safety is on Congress. The bulb that has been burned out for so long on the American public has now been replaced and focused on the politicians….and,as usual,leaves the rest of us standing in the shadows.As if the second amendment all of a sudden has become a beacon in the House Chamber. What arrogance to think the second amendment should only be enforced for them instead of the people of this country that it was intended for. Self-serving to sat the least!

    • 45caliber

      If you notice, his bill is ONLY for Congress. All gun control nuts in Congress carry or have full time body guards. He doesn’t need to legalize it but even then it’s just for Congress.

  • http://freshbrewedconservatism.blogspot.com/ Sheila

    Agreed Mick!

  • eddie47d

    Okay,Defenders of Insanity! It certainly isn’t common sense. As volatile as Congress can be and with tempers flying all the time who in the heck wants guns in the House chamber. Also this would make it easier for a 3rd person to sneak in with a weapon and take care of “his business”. Besides no one debating an issue is going to realize a gun is pointed at them and wouldn’t be able to react anyways.More smoke and mirrors from the whatever makes you feel good crowd.

    • wanda murline

      Actually, it might be a really good thing…they could take each other out and save us a lot of trouble in the ballot box. I’ll be the first one that would get snuffed would be Pelosi…this could be a good thing.

      • HFlashman

        Errrr…what was that that’s the right is saying? They don’t insinuate that violence is good? They would be as quick to castigate anyone from the right should they imply or insinuate violent acts are needed or would be good?

        Jeesh…note the number who are telling Wanda here she’s a nutty as grandma’s fruitcake and off-base. Just lies and lies and lies. Denial in the face of reality and fact. Complete disassociation with social mores and seeking marginalism from true patriotic Americans…that’s the TP and it’s members.

        • 45caliber

          flashy:

          If you are insisting that all violence is wrong, you are wrong. Some violence is needed.

          For instance, several African countries have or are in the act of trying to exterminate part of their own population because they happen to belong to a different tribe or religion. Are you saying that because they are the ligitamate government (since they are in power) that they should have the right to murder? I would say that the tribe they are trying to exterminate should have the support (at least in words) to try to remain alive by fighting back. They would be fighting – violence – but I would believe their violence would be a preferred thing to watching their families be murdered (violence) by someone else. Do you agree? Or do you believe they should not resort to violence and simply stand there?

          To some extent we are to that point here. The ones who are causing violence to us (criminals and to some extent Congress) need to be stopped to prevent violence. And in many cases, the only way to do that is to be violent in turn. Or you can stand there and let them do as they wish. Is that what you insist we should do?

          • HFlashman

            Not saying that 45. Wanda stated quite clearly ” I’ll be the first one that would get snuffed would be Pelosi…this could be a good thing.”

            And all i’ve read on this board the past week is denial after denial violence was ever called for or insiuated from the acked right against politicians or liberals. So…what would you call Wanda’s statement? An invitation to an ice cream social? And how many have demounced her? Yet..again, denial after denial that anyone here implicitly or openly supported lunatic statements such as hers (may the gawds forbid!).

            Jeesh….people on this forum are exaclty like the profile of the wacked extremist right…either you can’t remember the lies or you conveneiently forget past statements and actions. (not including you 45…but I also think while you may not lie, you certainly have a few light bulbs not burning correctly…)

          • 45caliber

            flashy:

            She said “… it could be a good thing …”

            And it could be. Particularly when Nancy was so busy depriving us of any right to see or stop any of her bad ideas that were becoming law. To me, that makes Nancy a criminal just like anyone who tried to murder me. Or it could not. We will never know, will we?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Hey Flash,
            “If they bring a knife we will bring a gun”! Sound familliar????

          • eddie47d

            Flash; They(Wanda’s) won’t defend violence unless it suits their purpose which seems to be a little too often.

      • skip

        Looks like you just set yourself up for an FBI check with that threat to a member of government, Wanda

      • JIBBS

        LOOK OUT !!!!, loose cannon !

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Jibbs,
          such intellectual posts from you!!!

        • Al Sieber

          Jibbs, if the Govt. did it’s job and represented the people they wouldn’t have to worry. I’m not condoning anything.

  • Dave

    Perhaps this might impose some gravity to the proceedings knowing that the member you’re going off at might be carrying a weapon – each of us needs to consider the effects of what he or she says – words can kill as surely as any other weapon. Consider the garbage some parents tell their kids – most imprisoned will tell you that their parents told them “you’ll never amount to anything, you’ll go to jail just like your Dad, why aren’t you like your brother/sister; you’re worthless!”
    The Articles of the Bill of Rights hinge on each other; freedoms of speech, religion, the press, assembly precede the right to keep and bear arms – if we would have others respect them; we should do the same for them.

    • Richard

      Dave: It sounds like you are in favor of controlling free speech. Speech of DISSENTION is exactly what the First Amendment protects, including, and especially, dissention WITH the government and WITHIN the government. If all speech were agreeable, we wouldn’t have a forum for change, now would we.

      • Denniso

        If more guns in the hands of citizens was the answer to all the killing we have then we would be the safest country in the world…we have more guns than any other country and yet we have some of the highest rates of violent crime among first world countries. This has been an ongoing muti decades social ‘experiment’,and the outcome is pretty clear by now. Not only do guns not create a safer society,but they can’t even prevent the slaughters like what ocurred in Tucson. People have been conned by the NRA and gun/ammo manufacturers into believing the lie.

        As to words and rhetoric being connected to killings. If rhetoric and language and vitriol has no connection at all to violence and societal thinking, then how did it work in Nazi Germany w/ Hitler and others demonizing and villifying the Jews,Poles,Gypsies? The language and hate/fear directed toward Native Americans for centuries created the perception that they were ‘savages’,inhuman, and in need of extermination by the majority whites, and it worked. The same applies to blacks being enslaved,sold like cattle and tortured…they were only considered as being 3/5 the worth of a whiteman,and were also deemed subhuman,threatening and too dumb to be allowed freedom.

        Words,language,hate,scapegoating and demonizing DO MATTER. They create the tone and environment for inhuman behavior against the ‘enemy’,’savage’,’traitor’…

        Do any of the rightwing who are so outraged at the idea that vitriol can effect violence,especially from the mentally ill,believe that we should extend ‘free speech’ to include shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre?

        • marvin

          Denniso
          just look to your south ,the citizen of mexico have no guns, have gave up their right to own guns,and have no gun crimes [right],only cops and criminals have gun ,and of course they are the reponsible one,s ,so why would a average citizen need a gun,when they have so much protection from crooked cops and gang members

          • HFlashman

            Just out of curiousity Marv…where are those illegal guns being smuggled into Mexico from?

          • independant thinker

            Most are coming either directly or indirectly from China, Russia, and other countries that make full auto AK’s.

          • HFlashman

            Most are coming either directly or indirectly from China, Russia, and other countries that make full auto AK’s. <— Independent thinker 9as log as his programming is correct)

            you have got to be kidding. You really dont think that …'cause if you do, you are a candidate for a full fledged membership to the nearest lunatic asylum.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Flash,
            FACT! only 17% of those weapons come from the US!! One other fact as well. If this animal lied or falsified ANYTHIG on his application, then the weapon was NOT legally obtained!!!

          • Dan az

            Flash
            Hillary lied to you when she said the number of guns they where getting was coming from here or didnt you read that part?The guns that our govt. sent to there military was the ones that didnt have serial numbers and they came from the military that went to work for the drug cartels. prove me wrong!

          • HFlashman

            17% Joe/ Ya sure/ Let me see if I have this correct. you’re stating that there is a 1400 mile border with the most hevily armed nation on earth…where buying a gun in Arizona is easir than buying a quart of milk…

            And youd have us believe that there is an active smuggling pan going on where ships come in from….where? The Caribbean or the Pacific Coast…from somewhere (can’t quite figure out what country would be smuggling weaponry in…but that’s another issue altogether)

            And in all ths, not one ship has been caught smuggling (despite the US navy cruising the waters0 and not one news report has been done about these ‘ship from somewhere’ smuggling in arms to mexico.

            Hokayyyyyy

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Flash,
            hate to tell ya bubba, but that was reported on the alphabets the other day!!!

        • 45caliber

          Actually some of those statistics are bent a little. Well, a whole lot. As Mark Twain wrote (I think it was him), there are three types of lies: little lies, big lies, and statistics.

          Actually if you compare apples to apples, Russia has more crime than anywhere else in the world. England has up to 16 times more than the US per population. (They aren’t really sure since the police don’t have the time – or at least don’t take the time – to write up lesser offences. They are certainly far more than our crime rate is.) England doesn’t allow any guns except single barrel shotguns meant only for farmers to keep down the rabbit population in their fields and can only be acquired IF the local sheriff agrees. So your idea of guns-cause-crime is wrong. Even murders are far down the list if you compare murder with murder or all gun deaths with all gun deaths. The problem is that most “statistics” uses ALL gun deaths in the US vs. just murders elsewhere.

          Besides, if the number of guns was the cause, Switzerland and Israel would be the top crime spots in the world rather than the lowest. Every male in Switzerland has a fully automatic rifle at home – by law. In Israel it is illegal to hold any gathering of people without at least one gun per every eight people. When students go to a museum, this is also true.

          So your argument that guns cause crime is meaningless – and wrong.

          • skip

            We have 44 times the murder rate per capita than England.

          • JC

            Back that up Skip.
            And thank God we don’t live in the same
            Big Brother Police State that the English do.

          • eddie47d

            Gun deaths in England per 100,000; 0.15% or 11,another source said 8 plus .02% suicides Gun deaths in America 4% homicides and 6% suicides or 10% per 100,000. That’s about 100 and another source said it equals 1 murder every 22 minutes.

          • JC

            Back that up eddie.

          • JC

            Crime up Down Under
            Since Australia’s gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

            ——————————————————————————–
            Posted: March 03, 2000
            1:00 am Eastern

            By Jon E. Dougherty
            © 2010 WorldNetDaily.com

            Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
            After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

            The bans were not limited to so-called “assault” weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

            Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation’s crime statistics tell a different story:

            Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

            Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

            Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

            In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

            In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

            There has been a reported “dramatic increase” in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

            At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, “a safe society by any standards,” said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.
            Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 — a 200 percent increase.

            http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=1933

      • wanda murline

        Actually, our forefathers said that it was “our duty” to fight a tyranical government…they knew how governments worked as they were fighting England, and they knew that someday, the patriots might again have to stand against their own government…I think we’re getting there.

        • HFlashman

          I think you need to seek professional help …

          • skip

            I couldn’t agree more

          • JC

            Oh Look….A pair of statist parasites willing to trade off all of our freedoms…”agreeing” with each other. Isn’t that cute?
            You two sewer rats need to find a new home.

            This is America where we hold liberty above all things.

          • eddie47d

            There doesn’t seem to be much difference if liberty equals all deaths,murder,killings or self defense. It’s all blurred together to the point where the meaning has been diluted. It’s all like a sport to some of you .

          • JC

            eddie, it’s not a sport. It’s the right…the absolute right to defend my life, my family’s lives and my property. And i will not have you or anybody else screwing around with that.

          • denniso

            Nobody is talking about banning guns…we need to address the problem of guns being to easily accessed by the mentally ill or obviously violent people. We’ll let you keep your pretty litle guns as long you aren’t crazy or locked up.

          • JC

            Hey Denniso…this just in! We already have laws barring the mentally ill and criminals from buying guns. Now what? What exactly are you proposing?

          • eddie47d

            Your right to defend your family should be firmly entrenched,(or business). Beyond that gun owners shouldn’t be poking their nose in everyone’s face with their arrogant masochism and bravado.

          • JC

            Thanks eddie for your agreement.
            I don’t see having a gun as a reason to be arrogant either.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            eddie,
            remember those words if you and the family are ever threatened by a criminal and don’t ask for help from a neighbor or friend as I’m sure you wouldn’t want them to stick their nose in your business!!!

  • http://www.patriotsroundtable.com offgrid7

    Congresscritters have the privilege to wear a necktie made from Indian Hemp also for future Grand Jury`s.

    • castaway

      I hope you mean the long necktie, where you throw the other end over a large tree limb and attach it to your truck, so you can hoist them into the air.

      • HFlashman

        Offgrid and Castaway…congratulations. You’ve shown with your statements that children have better comprehension of what the dialogue is in this country right now and why the far right is being marginalized and viewed as having the make up of a breakfast cereal. A few fruits, a few nuts, and a large amount of flakes.

        • marvin

          HFlashman
          i would take a few nuts and a few flakes over a morron any day stuped is as stuped does and saz,you would make a good poster boy for a good reason for abortion not that i am for abortion ,but i would make an acception in your case,if you can not have a discussion with out name calling don,t post

          • HFlashman

            Then don’t expect to say stupid or insane things without being called on it.

          • JC

            Saying insane things is a privelege reserved only for liberals, right Flash? ;)

        • JIBBS

          I still can’t believe what come’s out of your mouth, on the other hand, you just might be the first person in the history of earth to fall off the edge. With all the name calling you do, I’d say you are between 16 & 23 years old.

          • HFlashman

            Jibbs…you would be wrong if that’s what you’re guessing. Fact is…I’ve seen enough in this life breathing air on this rock to realize there are folks who are on the edge of lunacy and out of touch with reality. With that, they need to be margianilized from society by society … people need to be held accountable ad to learn that there are ramifications both short term and long term.

            Take the rants about Tucson not occurring if people had been packing guns. Mind you, this is in a state which has lunatics n charge when it comes to firearms. Think it through before ranting ..

            1. There were people there packing armor.
            2. Arizona has one of the highest ratio’s of gun killings in the nation.
            3. Had anyone..and i do mean anyone … pulled out a gun to “help’ against the shooter…what do you think the odds would be that someone else would have thought there was a second shooter, and starting firing lead without thinking it through? And then someone else would have started their own shooting..soon it would have been ‘Last person standing” with more dead from ‘accident” than from the shooter.
            4. The fact the #3 above didn’t happen is that people didn’t use the guns they supposedly carried for ‘safety’. Thus, why do they need to pack iron? Heck…there are cops every single day who fire off a round or two, or kill smeone, by mistake…and these are highly trained professionals ! Do you actually think Bubba has his act together to be trusted packing indiscrimanety just because it gives him a rise in his Levi’s?
            5. As to #4 above…just what is a good reason for someone to have a concealed weapon in a Starbuck, a Safeway, a park, or walking along a sidewalk? I’m not talking about the home…I’m talking about in public and at public forums. How many who pack actuallyare in danger or even close to being in danger from a criminal element? How many actually have been the victim of a crime where they were held at gunpoint?

            Jeesh…think it through.

          • eddie47d

            Flash; It’s all “friendly fire” to them.Shoot and then see what is left standing.

          • Al Sieber

            Well Flash, you best stay out of Ariz. then, if you believe that.

  • Richard

    Why do we need special legislation to “allow” us to do something which is already GUARANTEED in the Bill Of Rights? Answer: Because Congress and the White House have been operating OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION for decades and have enacted ILLEGAL regulations on everything we do. It’s time to get our federal government bodies back within their CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS!

  • Raggs

    Ironic that now the congressmen and women feel the need to protect themselves while they feel they need to disarm everyday citizens.

    • Mick

      Raggs says:
      January 17, 2011 at 8:23 am
      Ironic that now the congressmen and women feel the need to protect themselves while they feel they need to disarm everyday citizens.

      ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
      Raggs …One party certainly is out to disarm the citizens……We all know who they are………..

      • eddie47d

        Gohmert, R-Tx comes up with an idea and you think that is a consensus and even when he says he won’t do it.

  • http://freshbrewedconservatism.blogspot.com/ Sheila

    Somebody tell Peter King what the 2nd Amendment is for!

  • Wallace

    All law abiding citizens should be able to carry a firearm anywhere, anytime!

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      Yes, but we’re talking about congresspeople here.

  • Flynn

    Is the next step to allow our Congress people the right of public duelling? If all Congress people carried a firearm, I wonder how many public duel challenges there would be after the first debate. Let’s just forget the firearms until its time to go hunt for meat to place on the table and go about the process of peaceably asembling and governing ourselves without killing our neighbor.

    • 45caliber

      Oh, please, please, please! That’s why dueling was declared illegal in the first place. The politicians were trying to protect themselves.

  • Bob C.

    Just one more law that would say they are a special class, above the rest.
    Congress should pass no law that doesn’t apply to all, to do so is against the constitution they swore an oath to protect and uphold.

    Voting yes for such a law would make that congressman a treasons liar, as it would be a breaking of their oath.
    It will be interesting to see who votes yes on this bill.

    • HFlashman

      I agree. Congress should abide by the same laws as we do. Thus, they shouldn’t be allowed to pack guns in the workplace…and neither should we.

  • Mick

    Flynn says:
    January 17, 2011 at 8:40 am
    Is the next step to allow our Congress people the right of public duelling? If all Congress people carried a firearm, I wonder how many public duel challenges there would be after the first debate. Let’s just forget the firearms until its time to go hunt for meat to place on the table and go about the process of peaceably asembling and governing ourselves without killing our neighbor****************
    (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
    Flynn,,,,,,This peaceably assembling sounds really good but haven’t you noticed that we’ve been there and done that for many decades and look where it got us.!
    I am not advocating the use of guns for the purpose you’ve mentioned above but it would be nice to and least try to defend myself just in case some criminal or nut comes after me……….

  • bob wire

    hmm? well hmm??

    Well wasn’t this armed population threat the 2nd amendment provides citizens intended to instill caution and fear into our elected representatives?

    I think so! and that now this loud saber rattling on the part of a few , far,far right wing nuts has bore fruit ~ we need new laws and liberties for elected officials?

    I think we are walking on a slippery slope with all this inflammatory talk and now wanting to make mid games changes in the rules.

    Somebody better stop ! and stop it now, ~ and we should all know who I’m talking about. And if you don’t ~ I’m talking about you.

  • http://gmail.com tony porta

    Make mine a COLT 45…

    • Denniso

      If the killer hadn’t had an extended clip and semi auto he couldn’t have killed 6 and wounded 14. For the constitutional literalists,who want no interpretation or modernozing of it,an ‘arm’ back then was a muzzle loaded,single shot pistol or rifle. How do we make the constitutional jump to modern,high power,fast shooting guns? If we can’t update or interpret the constitution,then the only right to gun ownership has to be what an ‘arm’ was considered to be 200 yrs ago. Or, the constitution is a ‘living’ document.

      • bobwire

        valid point! Denniso

        While I think most of us feel that we understand the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment, how it might have applied on it’s creating and how it might be applied today. For ~ as you say, ~ somethings have changed and some have not.

        A good healthy 2nd Amendment discussion would offer us all, added insights, no matter where each one of us might presently stand on the issue. I have little doubt it would be very lengthy and heated.

        States rights, would come into play somewhere,~ would it not?

        • skip

          I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution provision for stoplights, gasoline taxes, the interstate highway system, gas mileage targets, exhaust emission standards, the FAA, earthquake safety requirements, requirements for rabies vaccination for our pets, cleanliness and hand washing standards for restaurants, checks in our operating rooms to be sure the right operation is being performed on the right side of the right patient, speed limits, penalties for driving drunk, and so forth. How did all of our personal freedoms to not have to adhere to these ridiculous guidelines/laws get taken away? Who did this to us?

          • denniso

            There’s also nothing in the constitution about free speech stopping w/ slander and libel, and not being able to yell ‘fire’ in a theatre. There’s not a whole lot that goes on in a modern society that is included in the constitution.

            Bob Wire, you’re right,we should have a national discussion about the 2nd ammendment,but we can’t have it because most elected officials are afraid of bucking the NRA,whose only interest is really only getting people to spend more money buying guns. W/ most leaders and even the media fearful of the NRA it’s pretty difficult to have a lengthy and in depth discussion…guns in the hands of mentally ill,or violent people…enough power and speed to slaughter many in seconds…large clips that enable a slaughter. We can’t have a serious discussion,so we just continue to have these periodic murders like everything’s fine,while 9 yr old girls are shot in the chest.

      • http://personalliberty.com Rusty

        The box toys has been spilled. Every nut has a collection. Extended clip, vs two loaded guns, or simiauto vs single or double action, only make a difference in the media. Go to the range and see there is no argument here. A gun beat a knife most of the time. An IED takes out a crowd. McViegh and Oswald proved my points.

      • 45caliber

        Denniso:

        The citizens back them were armed with weapons more modern and more accurate than those used by the military or police. Even until the early 1900′s this continued although the police and military sometimes had as good weapons.

        The first “gun laws” were created to deprive people of the ability to kill multiple people with a single shot (with the exception of a shotgun). Now there is an attempt to restrict our citizens to what is far less than what the military and the police carry. Why is that?

        • denniso

          Because cops trying to protect society from killers are often outgunned by criminals, and modern guns w/ large clips are used too often by people who want to murder dozzens of people or kids,as in Columbine or Virginia Tech.
          You want to believe that the gov’t is out to enslave you so they want you to have less firepower than they do…paranoia. With that paranoia we will never get past having people mowed down in seconds by one wacko.

          • 45caliber

            It isn’t paranoia if it is true.

      • marvin

        Denniso
        your post modern guns what about just shucking a bomb guess that would kill just one, the whole point is sick people will find a way to do their dirty deeds husain used posion gas to kill 2 or 300,000 of his people at one time

      • JIBBS

        What if he carried a revolver, or two, maybe three, there was no security detail there to stop him. Our forefathers build the foundation of our country, do you change the foundation of your house after it’s built ?…..no, for the simple fact that if you did, your house would no longrer be supported.

      • Al Sieber

        Right Denniso, he could of ran them over in his pickkup and killed 20.

  • http://personalliberty.com Rusty

    Weren’t the amendments and the constitution to protect the people from goverment? Remove the rules that starngle the rights given to the people. Congress, Washington, plain politics, have proven they are not as responsible as the general public. Make no exceptions for government that do not apply to all legal citizens.

  • jopa

    I think Louie Goober with a gun is kinda scary.There are plenty of lawmakers way up in the years and if they start trying to shoot something in a room full of people what are the odds of them hitting what they are shooting at.Not only that but lately some of the senators and congressman have shown they cannot control their actions in house chamber with drunken outbursts of things like “you lie” and “hell no we won’t”We sure don’t want to hear on the news Shots Fired.This one should be thought through.

    • Fed Up

      jo-pa: when he shouted YOU LIE!! he was not drunk but merely stating a fact! the resident WAS LIEING!! HEY!! AT LEAST HIS LIPS WUZ MOVIN!

    • 45caliber

      Yeah, they might be bad shots and miss. But consider who exactly is in that chamber! I don’t think the country would be seriously harmed if they all shot each other.

      • eddie47d

        Darn, Caliber I thought they stopped selling fruitcakes before Christmas. I guess you got away.

        • 45caliber

          Oh? Then you believe that we need to save all those politicians in Washington from shooting each other?

          • eddie47d

            You’re too eager for shooting and killing. Give it a rest.

    • marvin

      jopa
      control you lie and the truth is told obama is a lar and you are stuped to even make that a point,if you don,t like it change it move back to mexico or where ever you came from to me gun control is hitting what you are shooting at

  • http://PersonalLiberty Bud

    I guess Rep Gohmert is saying the senate and house floors are not safe for them. Isn’t that interesting. I don’t think we need the law makers to make new laws concerning this, but instead enforce the laws that are already there. Plus, uphold our Constitution, instead of trying to destroy it. I think they have forgotten how to do that. Maybe if they would listen to the people you voted them to be there ,just maybe they would not have to be so worried,about what other people might want to do to them

    • 45caliber

      Exactly. That’s why they want to disarm all the honest citizens. They are worried about us not liking the laws they pass to take away our freedom.

      • HFlashman

        45…the fact is, since the Dems shook off the liberal wing and relegated it to advisory status…most Democrats outside the NE US do not advocate anything but minor tweaking of existing gun laws. To say blandly that Democrats are pro gun control is to act and talk like Independent Thinker, Time, JC and others…i.e. either lyin’ or not knowing what they are saying.

        • http://GOGGLE vaksal

          WELL hello HFashman couldnt help but read your post on how democrats only want to tweak the gun laws a little bit,my reply is state the truth or stay informed on feb 1st of this year,no more ammuntion sales from out of state to caifornia,thanks to your communist liberal buddies,but yet the state of california is releasing over 20.000 prisoners,because the prisons are over populated,makes sense,talk about the lunatics running the nut house they created,THE NEW WORLD ORDER,i have to say this frankly,you truly didnt post the truth this time,but in your case why change? you anti-american neo-zoinist liberals are all the same,when it comes to facts,no wonder this republic is in the state it is in,total collaspe and chaos.talk about hype,but no sale here.

  • john

    Unless I missed something I don’t believe the shooting in Arizona took place on the House floor. So this law would seem irrelevant to what happened. More than likely just another knee jerk reaction from DC. It’s already illegal to kill someone!

    • JIBBS

      Very good point !

  • Fed Up

    there has only been one time a legally reg. machine gun was used in the commission of a crime AND THAT WAS BY AN OFF DUTY COP! so get off my back about guns! guns dont kill people

  • Fed Up

    PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

    • skip

      Usually with guns, but sometimes with knives, nooses, or just bare-hand choking. Which technique can take out 20 in 7 seconds?

      • http://?? Joe H.

        A bomb!! That could take out hundreds and they are already illegal and they are still showing up around the US!!!!

    • HFlashman

      Correct. People kill people. So why give them something to kill with and then allow them to walk around with it?

      • 45caliber

        The point is that you need something to defend yourself with when people do try to kill people – you. And you CAN’T take every weapon away from them. If nothing else they can beat or kick you to death.

      • http://GOGGLE vaksal

        WELL,the answer is gangs,murderers,rapist,and any would be criminals,would think twice about hurting granny for her purse,if she had a 357 magnum in her purse,only kidding,a small 38 caliber with dum dums would do the job,its sad but things are so bad in the real world,here in the U.S.A. that everyone has no trust what so ever in our fearless leaders,who by the way live in heavly protected gated communities,while the rest of us have to live in fear,i have owned fire arms all my life,and have no regret about having them on hand,at least if the time comes to defend myself or anyone that is victimized,guess what? i will be the last one standing,and noone,but the criminal will regret their discourse.get the point.

      • Al Sieber

        HF, my greatgrandmother has a .38, .22 mag., and a .357, and born on the 4th of July, tell her she can’t protect herself. also she voted for Obama, I think she was drunk that day. try breaking in her house.

  • 45caliber

    “…Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) plans to introduce legislation that would allow lawmakers to carry weapons on the House floor as well as in the District of Columbia.

    Gohmert told The Hill that he does not plan on carrying firearms, but he believes that members of Congress have the right, …”

    As to what he says – those in Congress now who wish to already carry weapons. In fact, I understand ALL gun control advocates either carry guns or have bodyguards who even go to the potty with them.

    In the second comment above, I think EVERYONE should be allowed to carry, not just Congressmen. All of us have the equal right to be able to protect ourselves from attack. He simply wants to protect himself while leaving it illegal for the rest of us.

  • Daniel from TN

    Finally, someone gets it!!!! These tragedies almost always occur where law abiding people are not allowed guns. When is the last time a gunman started shooting at a police convention, or a gun show, or a target range? There’s a bumper sticker that says “WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.” Countries that have banned or severely restricted gun ownership have seen a tremendous increase in crime; crimes commited with guns. Australia banned gun ownership several years ago. Crime has increased so much there that it cannot be measured. Only the criminals now have guns; guns that were purchased illegally in the first place. Gun laws do not stop criminals, but they do stop law abiding citizens.
    Here’s a side note the news media refuse to report. The person who stopped Giffords shooter in Arizona was an armed civilian, not the police. Releasing that information will not help the crusade for gun control.

  • Carol

    Guns just like smoking kill and wound innocent people that aren’t even involved and that is a fact.

    • independant thinker

      Guns just like autos kill and injure innocents and thats a fact.

      Guns just like swimming pools kill and injure innocents thats a fact.

    • marvin

      Carol
      people kill people not guns not amo not cars or knifes sick people do sick things if someone wants to do you harm they will find away

      • 45caliber

        And those sick people are the main reason all of us needs a gun at home for defense.

    • JC

      If that’s true, the the prisons must be full of guns.

    • JIBBS

      If guns kill, spoons made Michael Moore fat.

    • 45caliber

      Guns are a piece of equipment that works exactly as it is supposed to work. They are meant to kill something.

      If they are used to kill a person, then they are not the problem, just as a car is not the problem when it runs over someone. The person in control of that piece of equipment is the problem.

      So instead of insisting that we should get rid of guns to get rid of deaths, perhaps you should come up with a way to insist that the person who controls that gun be stopped. One method we no longer really use is to insist that the person who does misuse the equipment be fully punished. Most sentences are farces any more. (fifteen years for deliberately killing someone?)

      • eddie47d

        Most murderers are given life without parole since 1993.

        • 45caliber

          Right. And the moon is made of green cheese.

          It doesn’t matter if they get life in prison or not. Most are out again on parole within thirty years or less. Judges rule that too many people are in prison and some must be released. But some do get 15 to 20 years for murder even now. Why?

          • eddie47d

            Why not? Besides Life without parole means just that. Back in the 60′s and earlier murderers did get 10-20 for a killing. Now we have gone to the other extreme,but hey, it’s your tax money that keeps them in for many more years.

        • http://GOGGLE vaksal

          instead of life imprisonment without parole,you should have posted life imprisonment with free food,medical care,and lodging without parole,no wonder there are so many repeat offenders,three strikes your in.and who payed for it,the victim they killed.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            vaksal,
            that is one of the biggest reasons there are so many repeat offenders!! I have talked to cons that said that they were going to offend again cause they have it better INSIDE!!

    • JC

      Injury from second hand smoke is assumed…but that
      has never been proven either,

  • s c

    You’re talking about the cream of the crop, folks. They’re the best and the brightest. How can any of you think that someone in Congress would do something strange? And, if a terrorist shows up, there won’t be any reason to call for outside help.
    No one would be allowed to surrender (especially to a terrorist).
    Weapons would be handed out at the front door [45s, rifles, grenades, rpg(s), whips, machetes, etc.]. That way, not everyone in Congress woud have the same weapon(s.
    How can any of you doubt this group of geniuses? If tempers flare, sobeit. If they get along, that’s fine, too. Give it a chance. Think like a progressive, people. Remember, we have to pass this to see what’s gonna happen! Let’s see what they’ve got.
    This is the best government money can buy. They should have done this 100 years ago!

    • 45caliber

      A hundred years ago in some areas (like Louisiana) dueling was still legal. And most duels were fought over women or politicial causes.

      I wish we could bring that back. Just think how much nicer and more polite people would be!

      • 45caliber

        And more careful Congress would be!

      • Daniel from TN

        People would be nicer, but we would see an increase in funerals for politicians, and others.

        • 45caliber

          And that is bad?

          • eddie47d

            Still loving that killing?

  • http://com i41

    Happy Robert E. Lee Day an American hero, not a socialist agitator who surrounded himself with radical smuck. A great orator who spouted feel good crap and could n’t walk the walk with the phony “Rev” title. Think of any other agitators?

    • 45caliber

      A journalist some years ago said that holidays, etc. should wait until the person had been dead for at least 50 years.

      When a person first dies, no matter how bad he really was, you could only say good things about him. After about 25 years someone will decide that the person has been dead long enough for those who would be offended to die and would write a book/article showing how bad he was – which wasn’t any more correct than the all-good thing. After about another 25 years, someone would research everything and then write a book that actually was as close to the truth as possible, good and bad. And you needed to wait until the truth came out to decide whether he was a good enough person to name a holiday after him.

      Unfortunately they made King a hero too early. So they can’t allow anything remotely like the truth about him now.

      I still think he was an outstanding stregist and politician – but he certainly wasn’t good all the time. Or even part of the time. Yet no one can really print the real truth. One of his ex-lieutenants tried and the government banned the book.

      • HFlashman

        Two comments. One is the holiday isn’t as much to hoor the man as it is to honor his ideas and what he stood for. peace and intelligent dialogue under the umbrella of violent free atmosphere and that all people, no matter what race creed or color are equal.

        The other is…I agree we rush t “immortalize’ undeserving people before history has a chance to put the acts and deeds in perspective. Which is why these monuments etc to reagan should be rversed…as history is now revealing..his was a disaster for this nation…and we should not in any way give honor to the second worst president this nation suffered from…

        • 45caliber

          I have no problem with some of his ideas. And I certainly like his political move of creating violence and then withholding it IF his opponents will listen and agree to his wishes.

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          2nd worst pres.? Would that be Clinton or peanut man?

          • HFlashman

            Worse than reagan…and i had hoped we wouldn’t go to such levels lower than reagan…but George (Mr. ‘AWOL druggie during time of war running as the coward he is when 9’11 hit) Bush II beats Reagan as the worst.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            flash,
            not that I think Bush2 was a good president, he wasn’t, but would you please back up that AWOL statement with some proof??? Remember, a reporter lost his job over his doctored up “Proof” on that!!!

  • marvin

    i would say gun laws don,t work and a well armed citizentry is the best deturent to crime,cops kill alot of inocent people as well as criminal,only differance is cops cover it up better

  • Bruce

    If you want to be able to take on the US miltary you will need more then a gun. By you alls logic we should be able to own tanks, sholder lanched anti-aircraft weponds, H-bombs,chain guns,gernades,Fighter aircraft, 155mm howeztiers, mines just to name a few.

    • 45caliber

      Any single-kill weapon should be allowed. H-bombs, no way. You kill a lot of innocent people that way. That is the reason we don’t use them all the time in war.

      • Bruce

        Dont get me wrong i am a gun owner and i like to hunt and teaget shoot but there should be some common sense rules. I was just tring to make a point.

        • 45caliber

          I see your point. BUT … when you start making rules, there are people who don’t seem to ever stop making them – and many of them are in Washington. Since it is generally beyond the paycheck of 99.99% of the population to have more than a rifle or so, why have any rules? So some rich man does buy a tank? A bottle of gasoline can take it out as many Russians have proved during WWII.

          • skip

            Loughner’s Glock19 was not a single kill weapon was it? Where do you suggest the line be drawn – at single shot/single kills, AK 47s, Gatling guns, bazookas, etc.?

            It wouldn’t be great sport to hunt an antelope with a bazooka would it? Or a Glock 19? But is is quite alright, as it seems to many, to hunt our fellow humans – not in the theatre of war – but in Safeway parking lots, schools, and the like, or on the streets of Chicago, or in Ciudad Juarez Mexico. Glocks and AK 47s are made to hunt and kill humans, period.

            We really define what civilization is and what it isn’t, what we want for our lives and those of our children, and I hope it isn’t Dodge City or Tombstone and the OK Corral.

            I would submit that our real enemies are those whose unbelievable greed wrecked our economy – they are wealthy enough to have their own security personnel, they make tens to hundreds of millions of dollars a year, if not a few billion, don’t create any meaningful jobs, made a fortune this past quarter. I am of course referring to the major Wall Street banks, hedge funds, AIG insurance, and the Texas oil barons who make a fortune from their own reserves as they make sure that the price of oil skyrockets and most of our oil purchases support our enemies. Why are most of you who respond to this website on
            the economically losing side of this equation? Sure we need a lot of work done in the House, the Senate,
            theSupreme Court, and the Executive – we can’t let our politicians be essentially bought hook, line , and sinker by the various lobbies who care little about us ordinary folk. Just think, Wall Street paid a cool million for EACH representative and senator last year – do you think they cared a rat’s patoot about the Tea Party of any of us unless they could purchase what they wanted.

          • 45caliber

            skip:

            Yes, his gun was. When I speak of a single-kill weapon, I’m talking about killing only one thing at a time with a single squeeze of the trigger. The fact that he could shoot others doesn’t change that fact. On the other hand, a RPG will kill multiple things with one shot. So can a machine gun (automatic weapon that continues to fire with a single pull of the trigger). The fact that he killed more than one person only points out that either no one had a gun or (as was the case) the only person with a gun chose not to use it. Considering that 9 of 10 people tend to freeze or get “deer fever” when in a gun fight, that was more likely the case. He simply didn’t think of the gun he had until things were over.

            But if ten people had been there, carrying a gun of their own, at least one would have been able to think and act.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      The US military personell take an Oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and Domestic. Who do you think our sons and daughters will side with ? They’re not the mindless robots you libs seem to think they are.

    • PAP

      The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the last check on the power of the state to oppress them. It is interesting to note that during the American revolution and for decades after, there were only two requirements for joining the militia; you had to be able bodied and you had to have your own gun. The militia can exist only with an armed population since it was to be made up of the people. Yes it is true that the US military has awesome firepower at its disposal, however it remains to be seen if they would use it against their own people. This is to the point; by having an armed populace, you force a would be dictator or group of dictators to invoke the military and by so doing, risk mutiny.

  • Gerald Johnston

    Federal law forbids convicted felons from possessing firearms. I believe that there are some members of congress who have been convicted of felonies. This would forbid those members of congress from carrying fire arms.

    Other than that little issue, I say let them do anything any other upstanding person in DC can do! If the honest upstanding pizza delivery guy can’t carry arms, why should the people who prohibit him from doing it be able to do something he can’t?

    • 45caliber

      Convicted criminals can’t own or carry – but that doesn’t stop them since the feds ignore that law. So why should it affect any Congressman?

  • chuckb

    arm the congressmen? i can see it now, some controversial bill comes up and one of them gets real passionate, the first thing you know there’s a shoot out, known as the shoot out at the halls of congress!

    • 45caliber

      Look at it this way. There are no innocent parties to get in the way in Washington.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      OH< THE HORROR !!!!!!!!

  • chuckb

    i think the liberals in congress are more dangerous than people being allowed to carry automatic weapons, we should ban liberals not the guns. just think what damage these liberals do and they don’t carry weapons.

    • 45caliber

      I believe with reason that the “intellectual elite” (usually progressives) have caused more harm and killed more people than any warlord in history. They all have this “new theory” and want to try it out. If a lot of people die from it, oh well. There are more people – and they have this new theory …

  • JIBBS

    Crooks are many, cops are few, crooks carry guns, whay can’t you….or

    When danger lurks, remember sonny, that rabbits foot won’t save no bunny.

  • Raggs

    The hippies from the 60′s and 70′s still believe in flower power, peace, love and VW vans… And what is truly scary is that now they are in “charge” of this country by thier account anyway… People just don’t understand this is a real world with real problems that cannot and will not be solved with a kiss.

    • 45caliber

      The liberals are convenced that all world problems can be solved at a meeting table. All you have to do is be nice and be willing to give the other side what they want – money. That’s why they are against Israel so much. Israel won’t give the Palestinians what they want (Israel). They believe that if a country has a military sooner or later that military will have to be used to attack someone because those who believe in a military obviously needs to use it. Further, having a military means the loss of money that could be used by them elsewhere and it also acts as a threat to others (like Russia). If we disarmed, everyone else would since they would know there is no threat.

      I can understand their beliefs of “love, not war” but it is not realistic in this world. And I can’t see that it ever will be.

      Many years ago now, not long after my son was born, I talked with another new daddy. I innocently asked, “well, have you gotten him his first toy gun yet?”

      The guy instantly said, “No, we are NEVER going to allow our son to have violent toys or see violent movies. And when he gets grown, the world will live in peace as a result.”

      I was a little startled but after a moment I said, “Your theory has a problem. If even ONE other person doesn’t do the same anywhere in the world, your son will only be a victim when he gets grown because he won’t know what else to be.”

      He immediately insisted that wouldn’t happen. I finally got a little annoyed with him. “Yes, it will,” I told him. “Because I’m going to teach my own son to be the meanest SOB around so he will know what to do when another tries to take over. So that blows your entire theory right there.”

      I did. And my sons have the knowledge to do whatever they need to do to protect theirs, unlike his son. But the liberals can’t see that at all and want to make laws to keep my sons from teaching their own sons the same thing. Leaving the American people helpless when someone like Saddam comes along willing to take over.

      • HFlashman

        Dang…you must be proud of the fact you raised your sons like that…feared and scorned behind their backs, ‘respected’ only because of the “meanness’ they create, and without respect earned through character of being…

        • Raggs

          Hey flash… You have anymore of that good stuff your smoking?

          • HFlashman

            Raggs..why do you ask? You out?

          • JIBBS

            I agree……..

          • eddie47d

            Flashman; Did you see how he “went over” to this young man and new father and forced his opinion on him. Then scolding him for not doing as he does or accepting his way of doing things as facts. Ironic.

        • 45caliber

          I didn’t say that I raised them to be feared and scorned. You did. I said I raised them to be able mentally and physically to be able to defend themselves and those they needed to defend. Actually, neither was ever in a fight at school – and I would know since my wife worked at the school. They were well liked – and the girls appreciated having them around to stop any other boys who might be getting a little out of line.

          • HFlashman

            I misread it then. My apologies. (“Because I’m going to teach my own son to be the meanest SOB around …’ )

            Even then…I’ve had occasion to hang around a few places where there’s “not nice’ people..and I’ve never seen the need to pack a gun (knives, chains, and a few looks around for a handy pool cue…but never a gun).

            You carry a gun, you’re going to use it instead of taking alternatives. Besides, I don’t need a gun to feed any insecurities about being a man.

          • 45caliber

            flashy:

            I don’t carry a gun because I’m insecure. I carry one because I want to discourage any attacker before he can get within reach (and because he might have one) and because I’m basically lazy. I see no reason to exert myself to defend myself if I don’t have to.

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          respect is earned not bestowed.

  • Arizona Don

    We should all abhor, no matter what political party, the fact so many in the liberal media are blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck along with several other conservatives, for the recent senseless murders in Tucson, Arizona. This action is beyond reasonable understanding.

    The majority of the intelligent population is aware of exactly what these, so called, media people are doing. Are Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams and all the other so called opinion news reporters like Keith Olbermann and Ed Shultz, all so brain dead they believe the lies they are spewing. If so, we are in more trouble, in this country, than previously thought. Furthermore, placing blame, correctly or incorrectly never solves problems. In some cases however, it does help coverup real problems, this could very well be one of those cases.

    It seems these people think being a hunter makes that person a violent person, or being a gun owner makes that person a killer and yet these same people defend the people who flew the airliners into the towers and the pentagon and also think cold blooded murderers should not be put to death by violent means. But unborn babies should be killed if the potential mother decides she doesn’t want it or changed her mind about the father. How can any group get so twisted in their beliefs. Has the organizations we citizens depend on for information become oblivious to the problem(s) or have they decided to support converting to Socialism, Marxism or Fascism, because they think it will help them personally. There is no wonder Fox News is doing so well and the others are dying on the vine, they (Fox) are the only ones using any intelligent reasoning and providing the truth.

    Our founders considered a free press the fourth branch of government, the watch dog, if you will, of our governments internal workings. If there is anywhere these great people erred it is the free press. Not of course that it shouldn’t be free but that they, the founders, thought everyone would be honest in the free press. I suspect they never considered, those with the power of the free press could be corrupted as they are today.

    Should we appreciate the goal of all the politicians proposing additional laws to attempt to stop future situations like the shooting in Tucson, Arizona. There is nothing wrong with that, there is something wrong with the idea any of these laws will ever curtail this type of action by a criminal. But understanding the desire to quell such attacks in the future is completely understandable, that’s what we all want. Going about that end successfully demands considerable understanding of the problem. Additional laws, according to history, is not the answer and will undoubtable not provide the desired results but instead create more problems. It is difficult to understand why the so called gun control advocates do not understand taking the guns from honest citizens enhances the criminal, and will never stop criminals from killing. Here is just another example of not being able to reason with an unreasonable person.

    Nothing over and above the current laws will curtail future acts like the shooting in Tucson. There is no law that can be made that will ever preemptively stop a killer determined to succeed in that goal that is not already on record. Hasn’t even our president Obama demonstrated that, even if he didn’t realize it when he said, in jest, “you bring a knife we bring a gun.” His point was we are determined to succeed and nothing you do will stop us. That demonstrates the mind set of determined criminals. Not that President Obama is, or acted like, a criminal in this case.

    Banning guns, ammunition, large clips or anything else the politicians can do or any law they may put in the books will never stop a determined killer. If hand guns are banned within 1000 feet of a member of congress they could take a rifle and shoot from 1, 2 , 3 or more hundred yards. It does not have to be a large magazine it can be a single shot. Furthermore, even if guns were outlawed totally it would not stop these things. It is possible to get a gun, if it is desired, even if it is illegal. Why is it impossible for gun control activists to understand this. Guns are illegal in Mexico. Thousands of people have been killed in the border towns and throughout the country with illegal guns. A victim is just as dead with an illegal gun as a legal one.

    Have we not learned anything from the terrorist. How many of those killed in terrorist attacks have been with guns. The weapon of choice is bombs. If a determined killer cannot get a gun perhaps they will use a bomb. Bombs are already illegal for the citizens to own. Does that really guarantee us no one will ever have a bomb?

    Some of the gun control advocates believe making it harder to get guns will slow them down (of course it will not, and can never stop them), and yet they use the opposite reasoning on the border fence by stating “if we build the fence, they will dig under it or go over it with a ladder so why build a fence.” That reasoning is not justified; there are an estimated 250 million guns in this country, a number that can never be reduced to zero. There are not 250 million tunnels and ladders under and over the border. Another good analogy is these same people contend we can never send 12 million illegal aliens back to their respective country so why try, just give them citizenship and problem solved. But we can get rid of 250 million guns? I would like someone who advocates gun control to explain that reasoning.

    The current proposed answer(s) to the problem is no solution. Perhaps it should be done medically. It was known this guy was looney tunes but no one acted on that information or notified anyone to act on that information. Are the parents and the college personal at fault? Everyone who knew the guy was nuts is partly to blame for the deaths just like the superiors to the military shooter at Fort Hood.

    No amount of security can ever protect someone if the assassin is determined to succeed. Consequently, punishment may be our only hope of stopping this type of thing. If we remain so pacifistic we do not wish to use capital punishment and use it swiftly nothing will change. This nut was caught red handed and we are still calling him a suspect. Try him and hang him publicly. Swift justice curtails violence. Swift public justice curtails violence swiftly. Everyone of these victims could be alive today if we, as a nation, were not more sympathetic to the perpetrator of a crime than the victim.

    • 45caliber

      Someone once said that if an assassin wasn’t worried about escaping, there was nothing anyone could possibly do to stop him from carrying out his murder except luck. No matter what kind of guards you set up and use, a determined assassin can get past them one way or another. The real problem is that the method sooner or later comes to a place where it kills many others as well.

      Do you want to assassinate someone in Washington who is impossible to get close to? A nuke will take care of that problem without any problem. That’s why we are so determined that Iran, who supports terrorist assassins, doesn’t start making one. But if one is used, a LOT of innocent people would also die.

      It is only when the assassin attempts to arrange his own escape after such an attempt that the authorities has any chance to stop him.

    • Patriot

      Whatever happened in the Foot Hood shooting? Was anyone demoted, fired, etc.? Was there any outrage by the media as to how this nut fell through the cracks for the years he was in the service? If we cannot even protect our own in the armed forces how in the world can begin to protect the average citizen or anyone else? Let me answer, we cannot! Is it me or are these elected officials missing a few screws as well?

    • Dusty

      This is well thought through comment and one of the best in this series. AZ Don has the right idea about stopping the convolution and this is to stop overprotecting the criminal and call it like it is. The victims, yes there is always more than just a victim in the crime, family, friends, business associates etc., need to see their rights are being protected and advanced over the perpetrator of said deed. A short rope and a tall tree in public would do a lot to deter the next criminal.

    • http://keylawk.blogspot.com Tom Key

      1. At no point in history did Americans have as many guns per person as they do today. Very few folks on working farms and in town had them. In the early days, the folks who hunted did so with rifles, not pistols.

      2. When the draft was implemented, one of the reasons given was that so few recruits could shoot, the US just was not prepared for war.

      3. Under the Soviets, almost all young men enjoyed shooting. Stalin encouraged shooting galleries everywhere as a useful skill for the comrades.

      4. Arabs are interesting folks. They love having weapons and think of themselves as “warriors”, even though most of the young men with education are actually schooled in engineering. Tribesmen now claim they have a “tradition” of shooting of live ammo at weddings. Gun ownership is widespread — under Saddam Hussein especially.

      5. Albanians have long enjoyed widespread gun ownership.

      6. In England, gun ownership is restricted and controlled. Almost no one has pistols, and few rifles. Even Bobbies were not armed until very recently. (Very few people “hunt”, although it is still a past-time for the rich. On fox hunts, the dogs tear the fox apart before most of the hunters ever see the fox.)

      7. The United States is the biggest arms dealer in the world.

      8. The NRA is the biggest lobby in the world.

      9. In Mexico, for a hundred years, the scourge of gunmen living off the land and killing people was finally resolved by confiscating weapons. For the last hundred years, Mexico enjoyed very stable communities — most people were rural, but the biggest city in the world was Mexico City. In recent decades this has all changed. The United States supplies the criminals of Mexico with weapons and buys drugs from them. Mexico is now a dangerous place for everyone.

      10. The Japanese pretty much prohibit gun ownership. Few crimes are committed with guns.

      11. What is the point of looking at these interesting facts? The facts appear to be that “communists” from the USSR to Albania have long advocated widespread gun ownership and training.
      Clearly it is insane to accuse an American who advocates “gun control” of being communist. (Marxists are extinct; they did not survive Marx.)

      And what kind of society thrives with the proliferation of guns?

      The Jew-Arab regions have almost universal ownership and open carrying. People are fleeing from many Arab regions.

      Now the fabric of Mexico is being torn apart by gun owners.

      Albania remains a region hostile to visitors and the inhabitants bury the victims of constant feuding, whereas millions of people visit England and Japan annually, where millions of inhabitants are relatively prosperous and welcoming.

      12. And yes of course I am a Liberal. I was born in Mexico, I am a naturalized American, and a small arms expert and graduate of Armor School, and I am a veteran of 24 years of military service.

      Not content with destroying our country, the NRA is now destroying the world.

      • JC

        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

        There is a historical reason for that and no matter how you twist your your little spreadsheet the reason is valid.
        You Liberal morons will not be getting my guns…ever.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          JC,
          I’d be honored to stand next to you!

  • Raggs

    Liberals live in a bubble.
    I think that thier bubble should include padded walls!

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      It’s time their bubble was burst.

  • Melissa

    I also noticed how the media glossed over the fact that it was a couple of unarmed citizens who bravely and selflessly took their lives in their hands in order to bring down the mentally disturbed shooter. The police didn’t get there in time and where were her guards? If more responsible citizens carried weapons, there would be less violence and less crime. Often just knowing it is there is an effective deterrent to crimes like the one that took several lives in Tuscon. The answer is a well armed and well informed citizenry.

    • HFlashman

      “where were her guards?” <— Melissa.

      And why would a Congresswoman need guards at a forum to talk with constituents?

      Think about that …

      • Dusty

        flash are you unaware of the number of illegal aliens passing through the Tucson area? This in itself might be a reason for a Congressperson to consider some type of protection. Is is possible the Congresswoman did not consider this when she scheduled this forum? In all honesty, there were too many open chances of some type of violence being brought into the picture at this forum and at the time of the forum due to the volatility of the situation on the Arizona-Mexico border thus it is entirely possible the Congresswoman and her immediate Arizona staff did error in not having protection for the Congresswoman.

        • HFlashman

          so your proposition is the Congresswoman should have had guards because of illegal aliens? Or becaus there are so many gun totin’ lunatics in Az? One, both or neither?

        • eddie47d

          Maybe it proves that it’s not the illegals who will shoot you but your fellow American.

          • JIBBS

            Why did the people who said he was acting weird and saying anti goverment slurrs not report him, you can do that in Arizona and get them a mental evaluation. We have yet to see or hear what type of contact the two had going back as far as 2007. And eddie, there are people like you and flash planted in every forum I’ve ever been on. How much do they pay morons like you two to say stupid shit ? please sit down and be silent.

          • Denniso

            If you advocate turning in people who make ‘anti government slurs’, you’ll have your hands full right here…get with it.

      • Rob Alexander

        An excellent question, hopefully rhetorical because it’s so obvious…

        In case not, it’s because Congress has become so completely disconnected from the average citizen while off in its ivory tower, that its members are now near-universally hated by all but the biased media, those in cahoots with the establishment, and some “useful idiots” who haven’t figured out that the system is a farce and only exists to help the connected at everyone else’s expense.

        • Raggs

          :)..:)… Bingo!

    • 45caliber

      Melissa:

      Don’t say he was “mentally disturbed”. I’m mentally disturbed when I burn my toast. Say he was crazy or insane. That better describes him.

      • http://gunner689 gunner689

        He’s bughouse nuts.

        • Raggs

          oops your picking on flash, :)
          Just wondering if mexico had him for a few day’s?
          Oh a few day’s is too many I’m sure… People like that that cannot take care of themselves well you know. Oh I almost forgot he has a cell phone oh my!

          So which is faster a bullet or a cop?

          • HFlashman

            “So which is faster a bullet or a cop?” <— Raggs

            Jeesh…even someone like you who has an IQ that wouldn't even make a resptable earthquake should know that answer Raggs.

            Answer is … Superman is faster than both ! And that is closer to reality than what you've been spouting today …

          • eddie47d

            Raggs;Which is faster? Your mouth….. LOL

  • Rob Alexander

    While I fundamentally agree with the idea, why is it restricted to those who are “more equal than others”?

  • http://PersonalLiberty Bud

    Good comment Chuck b amen

  • http://com i41

    Raggs, rewmember flushy beleives in Onumnutts, all socialist democrats, and every airy fairy green idea that come along, like the hopey and the changey thing. Reality is a foreign concept for socialist democrat perverted liberials. Also don’t worry about edee’s dual purpose orfices, they are inter changeable. So he is always spouting out his rear, no matter which orfice is vertical visable. Soros Socialist never are able to fight their way out of a wet paper sack. To react they need the approval and back up from other socialists, and Soros approval. Before they will react and run away.

  • HighLighter

    Hatian Nation baby. Check out a 60 Minuits piece on the Hatian ruling body. Parilament or whatever it is called met fully ready for full automatic battle in business suits. One of the most laughable scenes I have ever viewed. One firecracker and ………….

  • bob wire

    “Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) plans to introduce legislation that would allow lawmakers to carry weapons on the House floor as well as in the District of Columbia.”

    Well, he can do that! But I can tell you now, ~staying heeled up and in the constant ready, is a full time job and takes a lot of effort and discipline. It’s work! Anyone that’s ever had to do it knows this.

    I’ve felt like Batman with his utility belt many times. Bulging, banging and clunking along with all these “things” attached to my body.

    Most married men I know, by the time they are 45 can’t find their socks in the morning if it wasn’t for the woman in their life and even I have problems keeping up with my cell phone and favorite pen. So I don’t believe very many politicians will commit to a life of being heeled up at all times.

    Even in combat zones, we depended up on “others” to secure the area so so the rest of us could concentrate and do our work and it’s no different today in the free world. There is a thing called “protocol” and everyone is “suppose” to be singing for the same piece of sheet music.

    Bill O’Really gave the Arizona sheriff (democrat) a good going over a few nights ago on his program. Of course the sheriff has been very vocal and has got some air time where he is saying, “He is not surprised this shooting happened” after so much hard talk in the media, ~ and BIll is saying, ~ “Well if so, why wasn’t you there?”

    Good question on Bill’s part, ~ While sheriffs usually administer to County affairs and Police to city affairs. ~ Why wasn’t some law enforcement present at this publicly scheduled event? I worked for the County SO for a spell after the war, there was a lot of in-fighting going on between the SO and City PD back then and I wouldn’t be surprised if it common everywhere to this day. It’s seems local politics is something that’s hard to avoid.

    If law enforcement had been present, would it have made a difference? There was a line of defense that was missing that day. Not the first, the first being the laws that controlled the selling of firearms, 2nd, the sell of ammo, 3rd the right to conceal.

    On this day, ~ law enforcement and protocol were found lacking.

    Why do people carry guns? Policemen are too heavy and have a mind of their own and even more bulky then a mindless 3.5 pound hand gun.

    Personally, I fear laws enforcement more then I do criminals ~ BUT! If laws enforcement was not offering a “presence” that balance would quickly change.

    • http://myronjpoltroonian.blogspot.com Myron J. Poltroonian

      I have used a firearm on several occasions to defuse a potentially dangerous/deadly situation. Here are just two: Unfortunately, these two incidents occurred after I was told by a friend who was on the S.F.P.D.: “You’re not the ‘right’ kind of judge or lawyer. Why don’t you buy a vacation property in Lake County and get a CCW there?”. And this from a man who, along with his brother and two other partners, owned a club in which I played guitar. He knew what he paid us and that we couldn’t afford to do anything like that. It drove home the meaning of the photo op of Diane Feinstein turning in the smaller of the two handguns (a Smith & Wesson Chief’s Special, model 36, in .38 S&W Special calibre) that she and her husband owned, while backed by two of her three $40,000.00 a year bodyguards, when she “banned” handguns in the city. A total of twelve were turned in before the state shut her down.
       “An armed society, is a polite society” said noted author, Robert Heinlein. I have, on occasion, had to make the presence of a firearm known. I too, was not in violation of the second amendment of our constitution, just the laws of the state I was residing in that contravene the constitution. As a matter of fact, I had my right eye socket broken in March of ’73 because there was no one willing to intervene and there was no firearm handy. The neurosurgeon who put me back together told me I was lucky to be alive and to never let that happen again. I haven’t.
       For example: I was driving north on Masonic, in San Francisco, having just crossed the Panhandle of Golden Gate Park, when I was cut off by a young (early twenties) driver turning unsafely into my lane. I noted out loud he was going to get someone killed driving like that. Then, three blocks later, we were both in the fast lane stopped at a signal at the busy intersection of two major streets, each with five lanes in each direction. Said driver, when the light turned green, pulled halfway across the intersection and stopped, giving me no way to pass him. He exited the vehicle and walked back towards my car, rolling up his sleeves. I could tell he wasn’t into a friendly chat, so I reached over and picked up my trusty Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 S&W Special calibre, and, when he came abreast of my front fender, held it tight across my chest, yet high enough for him to see. His eyes widened, he halted his purposeful stride when I said “Why don’t you go away, before I have to do something you won’t live to regret.”. Then, as he walked backwards to his car he uttered: “Well shoot me, mother … .”. The fact that he was black and I’m caucasian never entered into the equation. The fact that he was acting in a very threatening manner did.
       I have gone hunting in the Trinity National Forest, for example, and encountered extra-urban agronomists in their 20′s to early 30′s, just leaving their “crops” as the deer hunting season opened. In the tradition of any farmer describing an animal consuming or destroying their crops, “Varmints” is the very term they used to describe the deer I was about to hunt.
       Fortunately, for them, my appearance was both disarming and not threatening. Older; Salt and Pepper hair and beard; 9 month old mixed-breed dog; ’57 vintage Winchester model ’97 in 30-30 WCF; Smith & Wesson N Frame .44 S&W Special on my hip, all went towards convincing them I was not after their crop. What they didn’t see, was my .44 S&W Special calibre Charter Arms Bulldog secreted, yet handy, on my person. We chatted briefly, and went our separate ways, as I intended. If it had turned out otherwise, I knew I had a better chance than they thought, giving me the edge. I have, on other occasions, had to use a firearm to defuse a potentially violent situation. Never have had to actually shoot anyone, as the sudden appearance of the gun was argument enough, and that’s all I wanted in the first place. But I was ready to follow through, if, and only if, it became necessary.

      • Denniso

        ‘An armed society is a polite society’? That’s another myth pushed by the NRA and the gun makers. We have nearly as many guns in this country as people,just under 300 million,and we have one of the most divisive,vitriolic and polarized societies in the world. We have some of the highest murder rate in the world,along w/ other violent crime.

        Why don’t we quit using cliches that are clearly not true and discuss the issue w/ actual facts. Very often,having a gun can lead to more of a threat to the person,just because she/he feels empowered by the gun and won’t diffuse a problem by other means…like getting the hell out of the area,or staying away from the wrong people, or just calling the cops.

  • Judoka from Tulsa

    Good article and good comments folks.
    To HFlashman & Edie47.
    I am a 140-lb woman trained in martial arts. Oklahoma has a Conceal carry law and I too carry a concealed weapon now,having been carjacked at gunpoint myself. Even with my martial arts training, the dude had a gun and kept far enough away I couldn’t use my training. Had I had a gun as well, the playing field would have been even. Perhaps more so since I grew up around and used guns hunting in addition I received more training in using my weapon. I was fortunate that he only wanted and got my car (later used in a robbery) and not my body. That would have been a battle in which he would have lost (the battle as well as a limb or two that would have been unusable for a while). I do notice that since Oklahoma passed the CC law, rape, robbery etc have gone down every single year. It just an observation, but I believe there is a direct correlation between the action (the law) and the results (less crime). I also note that one of those who helped subdue the shooter in AZ, was carrying his weapon (lawfully) Just what makes you think passing more gun restrictions will have any influence on a criminal or insane???? That is an insane notion

    • Denniso

      Part of the reason that so many criminals have guns is because of the ease w/ which guns can be bought. We are saturated w/ guns,and yet our crime rates lead the world in all categories,among all first world countries.

      If you had had a gun,it’s also possible you would have been shot as a threat to the car jacker. You can’t assume that he would have been rational enough to back off and run,or that you would have gotten off the first shot,and a good one at that.

      I believe in self defense,and think our society is insane to accept the crime rates we have. We are spending tens of billions of $$ a month to protect us from terrorism,yet most people live in a fairly high degree of fear from domestic crime and ‘terrorism’.

      If more guns,and easy access,created a safe society, we would already have a safe society…something is wrong w/ the theory.

      • Denniso

        At least two recent studies show that more guns equals more carnage to innocents. One survey by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that guns did not protect those who had them from being shot in an assault — just the opposite. Epidemiologists at Penn looked at hundreds of muggings and assaults. What they found was that those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. The unarmed person, in other words, is safer.

        Other studies have found that states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    I would like to change the topic for a second.I see where Obama`s
    approveable has gone up since his speeches in Arizona What the Hell is wrong with the American people?We all know the man has great speech
    writers and he gives great speeches. However, this does not change the man.He is doing nothing but trying to survive, so he can win in 2012.Can`t Americans remember anything?Please remember why his party
    was defeated so badly in Nov 2010.Those reasons haven`t changed.If his party had won he would still be trying to ram his left wing
    garbage down our throats.Be smart America,don`t let this man and his
    thugs fool you a second time. If you do, you deserve what he is going to do to you.It will be to late to cry me a river.( WELCOME to the WEIMAR Republic )

  • http://SHTFAmerica.blogspot.com Drake Pendragon

    SHTF Times Epitaph: “America: Gang Raped By Congress”

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.