Export thread
Propose bill to allow concealed handgun on lawmakers including capital
#1
Chibibar
Chibibar
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028337-503544.html
This can be interesting. I don't think it is a good idea. Maybe a congressman might shoot another in a REALLY heated debate (who knows now-a-days)
This can be interesting. I don't think it is a good idea. Maybe a congressman might shoot another in a REALLY heated debate (who knows now-a-days)
#2
GasBandit
GasBandit
In the old days, they used to beat each other to death with canes.
“You have libeled my state and slandered my relation, who is aged and absent. And I feel it to be my duty to punish you!”
“You have libeled my state and slandered my relation, who is aged and absent. And I feel it to be my duty to punish you!”
#3
Krisken
Krisken
Thank goodness we've moved beyond stupidity.
Sometimes.
Sometimes.
#4
strawman
strawman
Well Chicago got a bit of a beat down recently for their strict gun control laws. I figured DC would be next anyway.
#5
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Wasn't Alexander Hamilton's hobby to have duels to the death on the lawn of the White House? I'm pretty sure he killed more than a few doing it.In the old days, they used to beat each other to death with canes.
“You have libeled my state and slandered my relation, who is aged and absent. And I feel it to be my duty to punish you!”
#6
@Li3n
@Li3n
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.
#7
Covar
Covar
and in HD damnit!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.
#10
GasBandit
GasBandit
Andrew Jackson, if I remember correctly.Wasn't Alexander Hamilton's hobby to have duels to the death on the lawn of the White House? I'm pretty sure he killed more than a few doing it.
#11
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
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.
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.
#12
GasBandit
GasBandit
I looked it up and you're right... all Jackson's duels were from before his presidency.
#13
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
#14
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
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.
#15
Emrys
Emrys
It would certainly liven up Senate debates.
#16
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
And have Joe Rogan provide political commentary.It would certainly liven up Senate debates.
#17
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
They act like no lawmaker has ever been assassinated before.
#18
Covar
Covar
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 murderThey act like no lawmaker has ever been assassinated before.
#19
Hailey Knight
Wait, the Daily Show already made that joke.
Hailey Knight
In that case: members of Congress are just so much more important than everyone else.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
Wait, the Daily Show already made that joke.
#20
Krisken
Krisken
Definition: An assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons.
Still qualifies.
Edit to add:
Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives. Additionally, assassins may be prompted by financial gain, revenge, a desire to acquire status within a group, or a psychological need to garner personal public recognition.
Still qualifies.
Edit to add:
Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives. Additionally, assassins may be prompted by financial gain, revenge, a desire to acquire status within a group, or a psychological need to garner personal public recognition.
#21
Covar
Covar
fair enough
#22
Mathias
It's becoming reality!
Mathias
It's becoming reality!
#23
strawman
strawman
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.
#24
Chibibar
Chibibar
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028815-503544.html
but trying to limit to low capacity clips. (i.e. no 33 rounds clips)
Heh.. So in a heated debate up to 10 people can be shot (unless they bring extra clip and load really fast)
but trying to limit to low capacity clips. (i.e. no 33 rounds clips)
Heh.. So in a heated debate up to 10 people can be shot (unless they bring extra clip and load really fast)
#25
strawman
strawman
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.
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.
#26
Krisken
Krisken
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.
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.
#27
strawman
strawman
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.
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.
#28
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
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.
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.
#29
Krisken
Perhaps addressing this problem is the best way to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals?
Krisken
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.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.
Perhaps addressing this problem is the best way to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals?
#30
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
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."
#31
strawman
strawman
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.
#32
Chibibar
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.
Chibibar
It would be as easy to prevent drugs getting into the hands of the drug dealers. (once we figure out how)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?
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.
#33
Krisken
Krisken
It's pretty simple. Make dealers who illegally sell weapons liable for crimes committed with those weapons.
#34
@Li3n
@Li3n
Except that last time i checked no one was manufacturing guns in South America in low tech conditions...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.
#35
Chibibar
Chibibar
Tru dat! but you can make bombs with low tech conditions. So I guess without guns, people just escalate to the next level.Except that last time i checked no one was manufacturing guns in South America in low tech conditions...
#36
@Li3n
Point was that you can track guns easier the drugs... (or explosives).
@Li3n
More likely they'll just go with knives actually....Tru dat! but you can make bombs with low tech conditions. So I guess without guns, people just escalate to the next level.
Point was that you can track guns easier the drugs... (or explosives).
#37
Chibibar
Chibibar
Yea... but I think with anything it is harder to regulate countries. So what if China decides to make their own guns? (why not, they make everything else) and sell to people who then sells to criminals? then what? put trade embargo against China?
#38
@Li3n
@Li3n
Ask them nicely for serial numbers and who they sold the guns in question too...
Of course you'll never stop it, but you can probably control it better then drugs that are already illegal... look at the british... their gun control works so well that most murders there are with knives...
Of course you'll never stop it, but you can probably control it better then drugs that are already illegal... look at the british... their gun control works so well that most murders there are with knives...
#39
GasBandit
GasBandit
The second amendment isn't about turning people into Police. It's about keeping them free from oppression.I swear, why do we want civilians ... to use extended clips? It's not Police or Security people who use this stuff.
#40
@Li3n
@Li3n
And we all know that having those extra bullets is the only thing standing between taking down that tank being used to oppress you and your liberties being taken away...The second amendment isn't about turning people into Police. It's about keeping them free from oppression.
#41
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_(manufacturer)Except that last time i checked no one was manufacturing guns in South America in low tech conditions...
#42
Krisken
Krisken
Gas, that is highly contested premise of the 2nd amendment and not relevant to the discussion. Banning the extended clip does not prevent the ownership of firearms.
#43
GasBandit
And don't pull out the old "well-regulated" retort either, it's already been shown that in the 18th century, regulated meant "trained and equipped," not restricted by law. And don't pull out the "yeah but they meant muskets" argument either. At that time, the musket was the most deadly instrument of violence able to be carried by one man alone.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is plain - the citizenry of the united states is intended to be able to hold its own against an actual army, be it that of a foreign power, or one of domestic oppression. Remember, the redcoats WERE "our" army in 1774, and they were one of the most advanced at the time.
It is, or for some people, SHOULD be, an issue of great concern that this right has been infringed so badly by those who would govern us, all in the name of "your own good" - the most dangerous and insidious political thinking since ancient man thought it might be nice if he had someone to do his labors for him, free of charge.
GasBandit
Because we've all been shown by Iraq and Afghanistan that an indiginous population with small arms is completely powerless against an occupying force who has tanks.And we all know that having those extra bullets is the only thing standing between taking down that tank being used to oppress you and your liberties being taken away...
Just like banning gay marriage doesn't prevent homosexuals from being able to live together. That's highly contested too, now isn't it? No, Krisken, it's quite relevant to the discussion. The 2nd amendment was not about protecting your house from burglars, shooting animals or competing in marksmanship events. It's right there in the first sentence of the amendment - "being necessary for the security of a free state."Gas, that is highly contested premise of the 2nd amendment and not relevant to the discussion. Banning the extended clip does not prevent the ownership of firearms.
And don't pull out the old "well-regulated" retort either, it's already been shown that in the 18th century, regulated meant "trained and equipped," not restricted by law. And don't pull out the "yeah but they meant muskets" argument either. At that time, the musket was the most deadly instrument of violence able to be carried by one man alone.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is plain - the citizenry of the united states is intended to be able to hold its own against an actual army, be it that of a foreign power, or one of domestic oppression. Remember, the redcoats WERE "our" army in 1774, and they were one of the most advanced at the time.
It is, or for some people, SHOULD be, an issue of great concern that this right has been infringed so badly by those who would govern us, all in the name of "your own good" - the most dangerous and insidious political thinking since ancient man thought it might be nice if he had someone to do his labors for him, free of charge.
#44
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Hell, even earlier than that. The only reason we call them Molotov Cocktails is because the Russian civilians used them so effectively against German tanks... and we wouldn't have the story of Marathon without the people of the city keeping the invading army from beaching. Time and time again it's been proven that an under armed but determined populace is an effective defense against an opposing force, as long as said force is unwilling to put every man, woman, and child to the sword in pursuit of victory.Because we've all been shown by Iraq and Afghanistan that an indiginous population with small arms is completely powerless against an occupying force who has tanks.
#45
Krisken
Krisken
The 2nd Amendment is NOT plain. There is a reason people have been arguing over it for over a century. It is plain to YOU, because that is how you choose to read it.
Clarity is less evident when you are willing to listen to opposing points of view.
Clarity is less evident when you are willing to listen to opposing points of view.
#46
Chibibar
the elites? (politicians, celebs, the rich) or the lobbyist? or the people?
While sometimes it is nice that some policies are "good for the people" there are some policies that we should look more into that some may consider "good for the people"
i.e. same sex marriages, abortions, right to bear arms, and freedom of speech.
Chibibar
I think the fore fathers choose the particular language so the future generations can "interpret" the way the society see fit, but the "dangerous" part would be..... which society?The 2nd Amendment is NOT plain. There is a reason people have been arguing over it for over a century. It is plain to YOU, because that is how you choose to read it.
Clarity is less evident when you are willing to listen to opposing points of view.
the elites? (politicians, celebs, the rich) or the lobbyist? or the people?
While sometimes it is nice that some policies are "good for the people" there are some policies that we should look more into that some may consider "good for the people"
i.e. same sex marriages, abortions, right to bear arms, and freedom of speech.
#47
GasBandit
It's not difficult to understand the meaning behind the amendment at all, it's one sentence:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first half says why, the second half says what. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There's no equivocation, limitation or stipulation as to WHICH arms shall be allowed, or how many, or what parts or accessories those arms are allowed to have.
Ironically, the abhorrent "Assault weapons" ban outlawed bayonet mounts... when the Uniform Militia Act of 1782 actually required every man between 18 and 45 to own a firearm with a bayonet.
But by far the most amusing part of this entire discussion is that my assertion that the 2nd amendment is about freedom from oppression is probably the least debated part of the amendment.
GasBandit
And that reason is the desire to have a passive and repressable electorate. Well, at the high levels it is. At the lower levels, it's the abhorrent idea that safety is more important than freedom.There is a reason people have been arguing over it for over a century.
It's not difficult to understand the meaning behind the amendment at all, it's one sentence:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first half says why, the second half says what. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There's no equivocation, limitation or stipulation as to WHICH arms shall be allowed, or how many, or what parts or accessories those arms are allowed to have.
Ironically, the abhorrent "Assault weapons" ban outlawed bayonet mounts... when the Uniform Militia Act of 1782 actually required every man between 18 and 45 to own a firearm with a bayonet.
But by far the most amusing part of this entire discussion is that my assertion that the 2nd amendment is about freedom from oppression is probably the least debated part of the amendment.
#48
Krisken
Krisken
Again, you would be wrong.
This is why talking with you on these subjects is nearly impossible. You refuse to admit that your preconceived notion has any valid detractors and assume that by repeating yourself all other view points are invalid.Wiki article on 2nd amendment said:Three grammatical interpretations traditionally informed jurists, scholars and the general public on interpretations of the Second Amendment.
One interpretation, known to grammarians as a nominative absolute construction, proposes the Second Amendment consists of an opening justification phrase or qualifying clause, followed by a declarative clause where the opening phrase modifies the main clause much as an adjective would modify a noun.[94][95][96][97] Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[98] This was a grammar structure that was common during that era.[99] This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.[100]
Another interpretation holds the Second Amendment contains an opening prefatory or amplifying clause followed by an operative clause.[19] The opening phrase is meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.[19] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[101] In Heller, the Supreme Court endorsed this description of the Second Amendment.[102] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[95]
A third interpretation views the first clause as simply explanatory; neither a qualifying nor amplifying clause. So while militia service is the stated justification for protecting the right to keep and bear arms, it is not a pre-condition on that right.[103] Adherents to this interpretation observe that the latter clause of the amendment still guarantees the right to "the people," and, therefore, is not limited to members of a select militia.[104] This style of syntax was common for the time and similar language exists in the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[103]
#49
GasBandit
GasBandit
None of those 3 viewpoints contradict me. None of them say it's about law enforcement or personal defense. They all talk about the point being the defense of freedom. They just quibble over whether it's "ONLY for the defense of freedom" or "for the defense of freedom among other things" or "for the defense of freedom and any other random purpose you can think of, whatever, go wild."Again, you would be wrong.
This is why talking with you on these subjects is nearly impossible. You refuse to admit that your preconceived notion has any valid detractors and assume that by repeating yourself all other view points are invalid.
#50
Mathias
Mathias
Gasbandit is a living version of this guy:
I'll be in the cold, cold ground before they pry my RPG-7 from my dead hands.
I'll be in the cold, cold ground before they pry my RPG-7 from my dead hands.
#51
GasBandit
GasBandit
I don't have enough cannon fuse. For my cannon.
#52
@Li3n
@Li3n
Weird, last time i checked the Taliban and co. weren't really getting any of the "freedoms" they where fighting for, nor where they buying guns from the local gun store...Because we've all been shown by Iraq and Afghanistan that an indiginous population with small arms is completely powerless against an occupying force who has tanks.
#53
GasBandit
Bonus: The local gun store is called "Iran."
GasBandit
Which is why we had a big parade and came home and now live in total peace, since our tanks completely made them stop fighting and lay down arms!Weird, last time i checked the Taliban and co. weren't really getting any of the "freedoms" they where fighting for, nor where they buying guns from the local gun store...
Bonus: The local gun store is called "Iran."
#54
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
The Taliban only has to survive until we leave, not defeat us. Once we do, the region will once again be at their mercy because they, not the peacefully folks we've been helping out, will have the means to take control... which is still proving our point: An unarmed populace is doomed to fall against it's oppressors, whether they be foreign or domestic.Weird, last time i checked the Taliban and co. weren't really getting any of the "freedoms" they where fighting for, nor where they buying guns from the local gun store...
#55
@Li3n
@Li3n
So arm the population... i'm sure that will help...