Gifford's shooting prompts lawmakers to arm themselves

The decision by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) raises new questions about whether lawmakers should carry guns for self defense - or need to.

"After the elections, I let my guard down," Shuler, an ex-NFL player, told Politico. "Now I know I need to have [my gun] on me."

Lawmakers can be deputized as federal marshalls and permitted concealed carry nationwide.

Those who are so deputized aren't publicized, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has said he was granted deputy status after receiving death threats in the 1990s.

Source

And they dont want to announce it.

Yet we cannot be permitted this right nationwide and in cities across the country permit holders are written up in newspapers.

Double standards abounds for the beautiful people.

Agreed, but maybe this situation will get those politicians to take another look at the 2nd Amendment, and re-think their views about it as such. Further, perhaps they will embrace the 2nd, and understand the core value of this right. Unlikely, but one can always hope.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


One can hope.

I may be cynical here but the country is rife with anti-gun politicians and activists who carry themselves from Stallone to Bloomberg to just about every politician in Chicago.

They're all special. We're just simple peon drones.

If it is legal for lawmakers to carry loaded weapons, then the people must have the same right. Who is to say that so and so politician doesn't go radical on the public or in the middle of a congressional hearing? The probabilities and possibilities are just the same as any member of the public allowing blind rage to pull the trigger of his gun- in other words, 50-50. Yes the man will kill, no he wont. 50% chance it will be the janitor at the white house with the weapon, 50% chance it will be Rand Paul. In my opinion, Im ok with our politicians having weapons. The Bill of RIghts grants them this privilege.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I too am hopeful that the Congresscritters will see the importance of the second amendment in the aftermath of this mad man's crime. Let's also hope we can manage to keep the first amendment in the process of the elite's political reaction. They are on a rip to end the free speech rights (hate speech when they disagree) of their oppostion now!

Hang on. The Internet and the airwaves are on the chopping block!

reply to post by asperetty


Right. We always hear about the dangers of use regular people getting mad at a town hall meeting. I've seen some pretty frustrated and profane politicians shouting from their podiums.

Given the stress they are constantly under arent they more likely to start firing into a crowd of people who disagree with their position than just some guy firing at them for their position?

I mean if cops are statistically more likely to suffer stress related violent outbursts and breakdowns than any of us are surely a tired, jet-setting, politician carrying the world on his shoulders is also more likely to snap than you or I.

I am completely against this. I am all for gun rights but this is insanity because it is the iron will of the military industrial complex and Federal government seeping themselves into the area of law enforcements (i.e. drones) and now lawmakers? Might as well militarized everyone who isn't an average citizen!!! I'm sure lawmakers, with all the money they make, can afford guards to watch if some maniac tries to harm them, but the idea of having a lawmaker see a would-be assassin in the crowd and the lawmaker whips out his gun? You are asking for trouble.

Welcome to the Wild West or will this be a new Nazi State? This is all done to control the masses, not to help politicians.

That's why all of you need to move to Arizona, where its citizens were given good representatives that removed the need for a CCW permit to carry concealed. Now, we are all gun toting, 2nd Amendment loving citizens.

The last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment didn't have stipulations on required permits and such. Need I remind you, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, and over rules any state laws.

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.

If a majority of the citizens at this rally were armed this would not have occurred. The shooter may have been able to get off one well aimed shot, but after that the crowd would have riddled him like Swiss Cheese.

The safest, most secure location is a location that everyone is armed and everybody knows that they are.

When the criminal knows that they will have to contend with a large armed group, they usually pick another location.

When they don't, we have a noun for that, it is called , Suicide

Would having had a gun on her saved Giffords from being shot Saturday? Hell no it would not have!! Would a badyguard have stopped it? possibly!! But that expense should come from the politicians own pocket, if they represent people so insane as to slaughter to them, they REALLY need to start earning those incomes and figure out how to reverse that sentiment, PRONTO!

Anyone remember Paladino threatening a reporter? You want HIM to have a gun?

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Hey, even though Wisconsin WAS a stronghold of progressive thought, we have gone pretty red this year.

Last legislative session, we were able to get a Constitutional Carry bill on the desk of the Governor, he did not sign it of course, should I tell you what party he was from?

But, that very same bill and another one is one the docket for introduction again as soon as they get back to it. Hmmmm, guess what Walker plans on doing when the bill gets to his desk?

By the way, thanks Congress, if you pass legislation that allows government representatives to carry everywhere, you just passed a law to allow EVERYONE to carry everywhere.

Sometimes, these people just have NO CLUE that you CANNOT pass laws that are not equal.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
if they represent people so insane as to slaughter to them, they REALLY need to start earning those incomes and figure out how to reverse that sentiment, PRONTO!

Did you just blame Ms. Giffords for inspiring the assassin to kill her? Personally I blame the shooter.

I think there should be a way for citizens' to gain nationwide carry rights. With a Utah & Florida concealed permit you have the ability to carry concealed in about 32 states I believe.

Did I? Your reading comprehension skills should help you ascertain this.

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
if they represent people so insane as to slaughter to them, they REALLY need to start earning those incomes and figure out how to reverse that sentiment, PRONTO!

Did you just blame Ms. Giffords for inspiring the assassin to kill her? Personally I blame the shooter.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


How could the congresswoman have reversed the shooter's sentiments?

I do not know. Was I speaking about the congresswoman? Or are you?

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

How could the congresswoman have reversed the shooter's sentiments?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Was just thinking pretty much the same thing. Carrying a concealed weapon does you absolutely no good at all for self-protection unless your stealth, out-of-the-blue, random shooter is a very bad shot. But maybe they're arming themselves to protect others

I am not sure how some of these politicians can even be allowed firearms. Is there not a background check of some sort?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Well, you mentioned Giffords by name. Then in the same paragraph said that if a lawmaker is representing insane people they should work on reversing those insane people's mentalities (paraphrased). The problem I see with this, is that insanity does not allow for sound logic. There is no good way to change an insane person's views for the better.

Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Could you clarify what I got wrong?

My intention is not to put you on the defensive, I honestly assume I am misunderstanding your post. The only reason I began posting is because I was very surprised at the sentiments I read from your post - but again I am assuming my interpretation is wrong. I am however curious at what your comments meant.

If the likes of Palin put crosshairs on my district or people like Angle or Savage threatened me like they threaten others; I'd be sportin my piece too. There are plenty of Right wing wackos out there that think their rhetoric is some sort of call to revolution. And I'm a Republican.

And yeah JohnnyTHSeed, I think you misinterpreted what HBT meant. To much THC perhaps.