Propose bill to allow concealed handgun on lawmakers including capital

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well Chicago got a bit of a beat down recently for their strict gun control laws. I figured DC would be next anyway.
 
As pointed in the post above, any shooting between lawmakers (and anyone really) should be made by appointment and in agreement by both sides... also, it should be on CSPAN... God knows they need the ratings.
 
As pointed in the post above, any shooting between lawmakers (and anyone really) should be made by appointment and in agreement by both sides... also, it should be on CSPAN... God knows they need the ratings.
and in HD damnit!
 
Hamilton was not very good at duels like Andy Jackson. I don't think Jackson ever dueled when he was in office.

But could you imagine the headlines today if the Burr/Hamilton duel happened today?

I don't think Hilary Clinton would have missed Joe Biden.
 
Instead of allowing guns into the Capital building, they should allow members of Congress to challenge one another inside the Octagon, then sell C-SPAN to the UFC.
 
Not sure it's an assassination. As it's shaping up there was most likely no political reason behind the shootings. It would just be mass murder
In that case: members of Congress are just so much more important than everyone else.

Wait, the Daily Show already made that joke.
 
You should check out Kennesaw, GA where the law requires, "every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore." and the city boasts the lowest crime rate in their county.
 
It takes more than one shot to completely disable an attacker, especially if you're only carrying a 9mm. Unfortunately movies have portrayed handguns as instant kill devices (laughably exaggerating the shot by pretending it would actually blast the opponent backward), but even those with great aim and calm in bad situations won't always aim well, and an enraged attacker can continue to be a threat even with several rounds rattling around inside them.

If you do have to walk through area where gang violence is a problem, you won't necessarily have the time to swap clips.

Further, it's not going to change things. Need 30+ rounds and can't carry them all in one clip? Carry three clips. Are they then going to restrict the number of bullets any one person can carry at any given time? Not to mention that those who would use weapons to attack others won't obey the law, and eventually they may be the only ones willing to pay the top dollar for the remaining extended magazines on the streets. Extended magazines, of course, which will now become a hot item, and be produced at an amazing rate until the law goes into effect, if it is passed.

All in all, it's a silly law - someone's attempt to remain relevant as a lawmaker.
 
Yes, it would change something. 12 shots would have been fired before someone could have tackled Jared, not the 33 he fired before he had to reload.

I swear, why do we want civilians and criminals to use extended clips? It's not Police or Security people who use this stuff.

Those clips were banned for a good amount of time. It was silly to allow that ban to expire.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/giffords-gun-clip-weapon-mass-destruction_n_807033.html

Interesting article which points out that, "Banning it would be almost totally irrelevant," said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University. "It would be the mass shootings where it would make a difference, but there are probably only two mass shootings in the history of the U.S. where it could have made a difference. This [Arizona] is one of two incidents."

Further, in the past when such bans are announced, manufacturers simply ramp up production, and they aren't that much harder to get.
 
I'm willing to bet North Hollywood was the other incident, but then again, that incident made it perfectly clear our police forces weren't adequately armed as well. But a lot of that has to do with image: If the police were running around with SWAT weapons and riot armor all the time, people would be nervous and crimes would tend to be exacerbated.

Look, I'm a lefty and even I'll admit that it's pretty rare to see any of this fancy stuff being used against people in the US. Most of it is in the hands of people who are too afraid of losing them to use them anywhere other than the range (if they ever wanted to use them at all) and the rest of it is owned by organized crime who wouldn't have any trouble getting more of it anyway. Couple this with the fact that very few legitimately owned guns are used in crime by their owners and you start to see why the assault ban ran out.
 
Most of it is in the hands of people who are too afraid of losing them to use them anywhere other than the range (if they ever wanted to use them at all) and the rest of it is owned by organized crime who wouldn't have any trouble getting more of it anyway. Couple this with the fact that very few legitimately owned guns are used in crime by their owners and you start to see why the assault ban ran out.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
Perhaps addressing this problem is the best way to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals?
 
I purchased a pistol from an at home dealer once, then he told me... "Don't worry about that gun, my shed that holds all my records tends to burn down every 3 to 5 years."
 
I don't know that there's a good way to prevent guns getting in the hands of criminals without also preventing citizens from getting guns. There will always be corruption because there's money to be made in it, and there are many people willing to take a risk for a high payout.
 
It would be as easy to prevent drugs getting into the hands of the drug dealers. (once we figure out how)

Now of course guns are usually manufactured by someone so restrict sales would only hurt civilians since criminals and terrorist would have large "cash pool" to obtain from said people.
Except that last time i checked no one was manufacturing guns in South America in low tech conditions...
 
C

Chibibar

Except that last time i checked no one was manufacturing guns in South America in low tech conditions...
Tru dat! but you can make bombs with low tech conditions. So I guess without guns, people just escalate to the next level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top