It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill proposes letting U.S. lawmakers carry guns anywhere except Capitol

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Remember this the next time some politician wants to take the means of you defending yourself away.. Amazing when the stuff hits the fan in their own back yard how they figure it is time to get armed up.. I hope they pass this into law..




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Warning that members of Congress have a "bull's eye on our backs," a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday he had introduced a bill to make it legal for senators and representatives to carry guns anywhere in the country, except the U.S. Capitol building.

Representative Jody Hice of Georgia said his proposal was an important step to ensure the personal safety of lawmakers "in light of recent events," an apparent reference to an attack last week in which a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress practicing for a charity baseball game.

"Personal protection and being able to defend oneself against an assailant is part of the fabric of our Constitution, which is why I am an ardent believer in the Second Amendment," Hice said in a statement, referring to U.S. legal guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms.

"While members of Congress are all average Americans, it is clear that we also have a bull's eye on our backs," Hice added. "In light of recent events, it's incredibly important that congressmen and women maintain the ability to provide for their own safety, regardless of the city or state."

newsletter.thaivisa.com...




posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I'm all for it.

Gun free zones are the worst idea, ever.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

So now instead of "gun free zones" that allow kids to be killed, and they were okay with that, so now they figure they should be able to make a gun plus zone for themselves. Unbelievable sacks of Sit they all are.




posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky
# yea man let them have it!! I think the only reason its prohibited now is so the deep state/TPTB can easily send an assassin to off one of them if they are not playing ball. Its time to go back to the founding days when men stood their ground and were just too badass that retreat was never an option. Andrew Jackson's body will be peacefully resting as long as this bill passes.

That Senator Diane Feinkenstein better vote yes in the Senate version too! She has concealed carried since the '90's !
edit on 6-22-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Aren't they legally allowed to do this already if they choose?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   
If I have to carry a gun to feel safe buying my morning coffee, we have bigger problems to work on in America.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Fit enough to run the country, fit enough to carry a gun.
Just stupid they can't carry sidearms in DC.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep
They are currently subject to the same laws I think, which means if they are not in a reciprocal state their permit is not recognized. That means nobody can carry in DC, or Cali or New York for sure. I think Illinois is also once of those that does not reciprocate.

My only concern is if they are giving themselves special treatment over regular Americans. Meaning, Are they going to simply bypass reciprocity in states that do not recognize for themselves only, or is this part of a bigger revamp of this concept at a Federal level??? Perhaps thats a case for the SCOTUS???



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




My only concern is if they are giving themselves special treatment over regular Americans. Meaning, Are they going to simply bypass reciprocity in states that do not recognize for themselves only, or is this part of a bigger revamp of this concept at a Federal level??? Perhaps thats a case for the SCOTUS???


Protecting themselves is fine the government passing laws to give themselves special treatment is not. That is a slippery slope we do not want to slide down.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: worldstarcountry




My only concern is if they are giving themselves special treatment over regular Americans. Meaning, Are they going to simply bypass reciprocity in states that do not recognize for themselves only, or is this part of a bigger revamp of this concept at a Federal level??? Perhaps thats a case for the SCOTUS???


Protecting themselves is fine the government passing laws to give themselves special treatment is not. That is a slippery slope we do not want to slide down.


Oh you mean like their health care package, Their retirement package, and no telling what else ? I agree



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: worldstarcountry




My only concern is if they are giving themselves special treatment over regular Americans. Meaning, Are they going to simply bypass reciprocity in states that do not recognize for themselves only, or is this part of a bigger revamp of this concept at a Federal level??? Perhaps thats a case for the SCOTUS???


Protecting themselves is fine the government passing laws to give themselves special treatment is not. That is a slippery slope we do not want to slide down.


Oh you mean like their health care package, Their retirement package, and no telling what else ? I agree


Yes exactly that. they have no incentive to represent us because they are not one of us.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I don't think it's a good idea for them to be armed. They already have security protecting the building, if they happen to us the pistol, i bet they end up missing the target and hitting an innocent person.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky




except the U.S. Capitol building.


Now, why would that be ?????????

Don't they trust themselves? Are they imagining a scene on the floor of the house with both sides blazing away at each other while Rep. Trey Gowdy is shooting the worst of them with a sniper version of the AR15.

Or is it that it would not take much for the people to demand to be armed in Federal buildings.

There are no exceptions to the Second Amendment.

P



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Congressman Gianforte, who snapped and beat that reporter to a pulp two weeks ago, might have shot him if he had a gun?

He wouldn't have won re-election the next day...or would he?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358


sniper version of the AR15.

Inside a close quarters arena?? Why would you need a scope and a long barrel for that?? I think the best thing they could whip out in the capital building would be a Kriss Vector 45 ACP with recoil mitigation and R.I.P. rounds. Or perhaps, the AA-12 !! Either weapon would be better for Trey to clear House than a long barrel rifle with a scope.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

See this for what it is.

Its the begining of the rollout of an agenda item on the part of those who set the global agenda.

Obviously the plan is to take guns off the masses because they cant be trusted to use them responsbily but permit the 1%ers to carry guns presumably, with a licence to kill, in the fullness of time as; the agenda item implemention gets more advanced.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Let them abide by the same laws everyone else does .



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Do as I say, not as I do.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Yup.

Like we expected anything else??



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Make them follow there own state laws. if they are from Calif or NY they must follow there state laws and can not get a CCW just because they are a lawmaker

If its easy to get a CCW in there state its good for them. if there state makes it so the general public can get a CCW good for them
But if it almost impossible to get a CCW in there home state they should not be allowed to carry in there home state just because they are a lawmaker.

I live in calif and after all the democrat passed anti gun laws the democrat lawmakers in congress should not be allowed to carry in calif at all plus they should not even allowed to own guns in calif.
edit on 22-6-2017 by ANNED because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2017 by ANNED because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join