Gifford's shooting prompts lawmakers to arm themselves

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I think it's wise for them to carry.

But I don't think it would have helped Mrs.Gifford in this case had she had one. She was either down by the time she heard a gun shot or a short time after.

Could have helped someone else though if they had one, and werent the prime target.

We have a senator in calif that use to carry till the people of calif found out.
Senator Feinstein is a staunch gun control advocate. Despite her stance, in the 1970s, she obtained a concealed firearms carry permit, and carried a handgun with her. A CCW permit was then rare in California, and she had the only such permit in San Francisco.

This is what the elite democrats think about the rest of us.

They want it so only the elite can carry weapons and the rest of us can be dammed.

I care not for what is going on that no elected official shall be armed in chambers. Anyone remember seeing any vids like this on TruTV or on any like channel or show?

India - www.youtube.com...
Ukraine - www.youtube.com...
Russia - www.youtube.com...
South Korea - www.youtube.com...
Bolivia - www.youtube.com...
Malaysia - www.youtube.com...
Australia - www.youtube.com...

Imagine if any of these Parlimentery bodies had guns in them? Each would've ended with at least 6 dead and dozens injured. No guns should be carried by any member of Congress or Parliamentry body ever.

Reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

You're assuming the outcome.

When our guys used to do it their worst arguments ended in duels.

If we're to believe your prediction to be accurate then we would also have to conclude that people a hundred years ago or at least our people a hundred years ago were more civilized then other people. I'm not prepared to make that claim because if I were there are too many variables consider when asking what made them more civil.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Guns in any chamber of The People's House regardless of nation is not a very wise idea. If these people came to blows what's to stop a Congressperson from opening fire upon the chamber itself? Too many variables to consider, no insurance policy guaranteeing them from discharging their weapon during chamber.

I dont care if their armed if they dont care that I am. The 2nd applies to them as well as us................now if they could just understand the us part...lol

reply to post by lastrebel


It's widely accepted and common practice that you do not carry anywhere either alcohol is to be served or discussions are to occur as if things get hostile there is no way to shut it down. Opens up a pandora's box that we really do not want opened.

Reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

The same assumption.

Why wouldnt the prospect of death prevent them from coming to blows?

Just as valid an assumption.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

The same assumption.

Why wouldnt the prospect of death prevent them from coming to blows?

Just as valid an assumption.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Members of Congress and Parliament are held to a higher standard then the rest of the populous and needs to set the example hence why the Congress nowadays does not look a thing like The Wild West or The OK Corral! We as a nation needed to evolve to settle disputes using words and not fists and weapons hence why spoken word will forever be the "First option, only option".

Reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

You said yourself they may break out into fist fights. Is that the higher standard you refer to?

Here in NH the state reps carry in the capital buildings. Always have save for a brief 18 month neo-lib policy that got revoked last month. Not one shootout. Not one riot. Am I supposed to believe NH politicians are better behaved than national politicians?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com