A reply
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-elect-lauren-boebert-ban-concealed-carry-us-capitol
I have mixed reactions to this, due to the special status carve out they gave themselves.
A reply
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-elect-lauren-boebert-ban-concealed-carry-us-capitol
I have mixed reactions to this, due to the special status carve out they gave themselves.
Seems to me it’s a great way to resolve impasses on the floor of Congress.
Anyone trying to hijack the Capitol would have the Capitol Police covered. So lawmakers packing would be the old ace up the sleeve to stop them.
There are quite a few other scenarios in which one of them might need to protect themselves of someone else from a deadly threat or other forcible felony.
Even limited freedoms can be messy.
House hearings on C-SPAN would become one of the highest rated shows on T.V. “We will now hear arguments for the environmental bill”.
Our country is getting weirder by the day…and I can certainly understand this newly elected representative’s position to carry a gun. This is her right and it’s her decision whether or not she’s going to exercise it.
Liberalism.
Calling them “liberals” is an affront to actual liberalism.
Yes I agree. If lawmakers can carry arms at capitol, so can visitors and citizens. No special privileges.
I’m fine with either way. As long as it is apply consistently.
Since it is public property and given the 2nd Amendment, which way does it have to go?
Secret service and capitol security is going to be against everybody being armed. Things get tense up there. Citizens get upset with politicians all the time too.
They will continue to ban firearms at the capitol if I have to guess.
Secret service and capitol security is going to be against everybody being armed.
Too bad. You didn’t answer the question.
Yes I agree. If lawmakers can carry arms at capitol, so can visitors and citizens. No special privileges.
I’m fine with either way. As long as it is apply consistently.
Why would you be fine with the violating the Constitution way?
SneakySFDude:
Tom_Ch:
Yes I agree. If lawmakers can carry arms at capitol, so can visitors and citizens. No special privileges.
I’m fine with either way. As long as it is apply consistently.
Since it is public property and given the 2nd Amendment, which way does it have to go?
Secret service and capitol security is going to be against everybody being armed. Things get tense up there. Citizens get upset with politicians all the time too.
They will continue to ban firearms at the capitol if I have to guess.
Are you familiar with the Taurus pistol called “the judge”? It’s a revolver designed to fire .410 shotgun rounds or 45 Colt cartridges. It was inspired by a Judge who although protected by armed guards in the Courthouse, declared that he would not relinquish his right to defend himself while on the bench. Yes, the Capitol is guarded by armed security forces, but they are not infallible.
It was inspired by a Judge who although protected by armed guards in the Courthouse
Do you have a link for that please?
Where is @mxdad when you need him??
I remember @SneakySFDude, @Samm, @WildRose, @mxdad, and @Physics_Hunter all fending off the hoplophobes back in 2016. What happened?? I do yearn for those times again.
Y’all used to be friends. Now kiss.
Samm:
It was inspired by a Judge who although protected by armed guards in the Courthouse
Do you have a link for that please?
“It got its name “The Judge” in 2006 when Bob Morrison, Executive Vice President, learned that judges in high-crime areas of Miami, Florida, were purchasing the revolver for personal defense in their courtrooms …”
The Taurus Judge is a five shot revolver designed and produced by Taurus International, chambered for .410 bore shot shells and the .45 Colt cartridge. Taurus promotes the Judge as a self-defense tool against carjacking and for home protection. There have been two model number designations for this firearm, the 4410 (no longer produced) and the 4510 (current). Both model numbers are essentially the same revolver, and any 4410 or 4510 will yield basically the same performance. It got its name "...
Tom_Ch:
Yes I agree. If lawmakers can carry arms at capitol, so can visitors and citizens. No special privileges.
I’m fine with either way. As long as it is apply consistently.
Why would you be fine with the violating the Constitution way?
Oh I don’t know. There is an exception to everything. Yelling fire in a theater might be one example.
Samm:
Tom_Ch:
Yes I agree. If lawmakers can carry arms at capitol, so can visitors and citizens. No special privileges.
I’m fine with either way. As long as it is apply consistently.
Why would you be fine with the violating the Constitution way?
Oh I don’t know. There is an exception to everything. Yelling fire in a theater might be one example.
Yelling fire in a theater is NOT an exemption to the First Amendment. When will you libs ever quit perpetuating that myth?