Can we please stop with "republican this", "democrat that" finger pointing, where does it get us?
Good point. It will never stop unfortunately here, Washington, and any other political arena. One side will always be wrong and the other always right. Bipartisanship is an empty thought, and we wonder why things are screwed up.
Everyone has a plan, till you get punched in the face,
Can we please stop with "republican this", "democrat that" finger pointing
Impossible.
Who cares if there is an existing law that bans the mentally ill from purchasing? What good is the law if we don't check them for mental illness first??? The NRA and the Republicans are the ones who insist on NOT FINDING OUT FIRST, because it hurts their feelings. Nebish, most things shouldn't be a left v right issue, but gun control certainly is. Any measure to detect the mentally ill up front before purchasing is immediately opposed by Republicans because they are in cahoots with the NRA to sell more product. The end result is whackos killing innocent people way too frequently and easily. Every police department in our country conducts mental evaluations on their recruits to determine their competence. I know a severely violent bipolar person who failed 3 of these police exams in NYC, Philly, and Baltimore. Thank God they work, otherwise this lunatic would be a cop. If our police conduct them specifically for this reason, and if they clearly work, we should be able to do the same to protect our citizens from these deranged people. But no, profit and power is more important.
Who cares if there is an existing law that bans the mentally ill from purchasing? What good is the law if we don't check them for mental illness first??? The NRA and the Republicans are the ones who insist on NOT FINDING OUT FIRST, because it hurts their feelings. Nebish, most things shouldn't be a left v right issue, but gun control certainly is. Any measure to detect the mentally ill up front before purchasing is immediately opposed by Republicans because they are in cahoots with the NRA to sell more product. The end result is whackos killing innocent people way too frequently and easily. Every police department in our country conducts mental evaluations on their recruits to determine their competence. I know a severely violent bipolar person who failed 3 of these police exams in NYC, Philly, and Baltimore. Thank God they work, otherwise this lunatic would be a cop. If our police conduct them specifically for this reason, and if they clearly work, we should be able to do the same to protect our citizens from these deranged people. But no, profit and power is more important.
The law states that you must be adjudged to be "mentally ill" by a court of law to be denied your Second Amendment rights, a police "test" is not an ad judgement of mental illness. It is a pre-employment exam, same as you take for working at Walmart, Lowes', and any bank.
Should members of Congress be allowed to carry firearms for personal protection?
Yes, but even that is not enough. They need more security while they are working there. They should have dormitory style housing for them with appropriately trained security. They need a compound to live in while they are working, like an Army base. Secured. The Congressman who was shot today, with his high ranking status as a Majority Whip had security, and still look what happened.
They want to live wherever they want to some of them in Georgetown, it is not safe for them to be travelling without protection.
Today's incident could be passed off as one pissed off person acting inappropriately, but we all know the Deep State and Democrats will do anything to take down the govt.
Gina, honey
this took place in Alexandria, Virginia.
Every one of the people there had the legal right to carry a weapon. Actually i'm surprised none had one, given past statements supporting the 2nd amendment.
Now the second part of this is should we be providing higher and more security to every member of Congress and their families? Interesting question, and very expensive.
I would say that if they are proponents of anti-gun laws, then no armed protection for them. The bodyguards should get between them and a shooter and yell the reasons why the person they are protecting thinks that citizens shouldn't have firearms.
If they don't want other citizens to be able to protect themselves, then why should they have armed protection?
Should members of Congress be allowed to carry firearms for personal protection?
Yes, but even that is not enough. They need more security while they are working there. They should have dormitory style housing for them with appropriately trained security. They need a compound to live in while they are working, like an Army base. Secured. The Congressman who was shot today, with his high ranking status as a Majority Whip had security, and still look what happened.
They want to live wherever they want to some of them in Georgetown, it is not safe for them to be travelling without protection.
Today's incident could be passed off as one pissed off person acting inappropriately, but we all know the Deep State and Democrats will do anything to take down the govt.
Gina, honey
this took place in Alexandria, Virginia.
Every one of the people there had the legal right to carry a weapon. Actually i'm surprised none had one, given past statements supporting the 2nd amendment.
Now the second part of this is should we be providing higher and more security to every member of Congress and their families? Interesting question, and very expensive.
I would say that if they are proponents of anti-gun laws, then no armed protection for them. The bodyguards should get between them and a shooter and yell the reasons why the person they are protecting thinks that citizens shouldn't have firearms.
If they don't want other citizens to be able to protect themselves, then why should they have armed protection?
Lets Shoot, Shoot, Shoot, at the home team/its a shame if they live/ and its 1, 2, 3, shots your dead at the ole ball-game!
And your argument is to just shoot people?
Should members of Congress be allowed to carry firearms for personal protection?
Yes, but even that is not enough. They need more security while they are working there. They should have dormitory style housing for them with appropriately trained security. They need a compound to live in while they are working, like an Army base. Secured. The Congressman who was shot today, with his high ranking status as a Majority Whip had security, and still look what happened.
They want to live wherever they want to some of them in Georgetown, it is not safe for them to be travelling without protection.
Today's incident could be passed off as one pissed off person acting inappropriately, but we all know the Deep State and Democrats will do anything to take down the govt.
Gina, honey
this took place in Alexandria, Virginia.
Every one of the people there had the legal right to carry a weapon. Actually i'm surprised none had one, given past statements supporting the 2nd amendment.
Now the second part of this is should we be providing higher and more security to every member of Congress and their families? Interesting question, and very expensive.
I would say that if they are proponents of anti-gun laws, then no armed protection for them. The bodyguards should get between them and a shooter and yell the reasons why the person they are protecting thinks that citizens shouldn't have firearms.
If they don't want other citizens to be able to protect themselves, then why should they have armed protection?
Lets Shoot, Shoot, Shoot, at the home team/its a shame if they live/ and its 1, 2, 3, shots your dead at the ole ball-game!
And your argument is to just shoot people?
Are you that simple?
Actually, I'm quite complex. I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others.
LMAO good material, You should write for Mad Magazine. the verses are good too:
Take em out at the ball game
Take em out in the crowd
Cuz I am gone peanuts and crackerjacks
I dont care if I never get back
And it's shoot shoot shoot . . . etc.
All I need is just one chance
Maybe I will hit someone
There isn't anyone else like me
Maybe I'll go down in history
lol
[Edited on 6/15/2017 by BrerRabbit]
The law states that you must be adjudged to be "mentally ill" by a court of law to be denied your Second Amendment rights, a police "test" is not an ad judgement of mental illness. It is a pre-employment exam, same as you take for working at Walmart, Lowes', and any bank.
And how is that law working out for Scalise? I guess the police are wasting their time then with those silly exams.
Let's just take the Republican route and give everyone a gun, no questions asked, and just clean up the messes afterward. #maga
The law states that you must be adjudged to be "mentally ill" by a court of law to be denied your Second Amendment rights, a police "test" is not an ad judgement of mental illness. It is a pre-employment exam, same as you take for working at Walmart, Lowes', and any bank.
And how is that law working out for Scalise? I guess the police are wasting their time then with those silly exams.
I'm thinking that Scalise is wishing he, or someone close to him, had a firearm on him at the time.
As far as the tests you keep bringing up go, they might do well to get new ones since there are a lot of news reports of officers breaking the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.
Also, don't tell me that you don't believe in 'equal protection under the law".
Let's just take the Republican route and give everyone a gun, no questions asked, and just clean up the messes afterward. #maga
Don't know if it's Republican or Democratic route, but if you feel that way would you support an Amendment to the Constitution stating that all citizens 21 and older be required to carry a firearm at all times, with a caliber no less than 8mm, and chambering no less than five rounds?
That would supersede any and all city, county, and state restrictions. There of course would be a provision for those who have a contentious (or religious) objection to carrying a firearm to let them register in the national database so they would not be fined for not carrying their firearm.
Mental illness would still be as defined under Form 4473 Q11.f, as would usage of illicit drugs under Form 4473 Q11.e
So, you would support that?
Let's just take the Republican route and give everyone a gun, no questions asked, and just clean up the messes afterward. #maga
Don't know if it's Republican or Democratic route, but if you feel that way would you support an Amendment to the Constitution stating that all citizens 21 and older be required to carry a firearm at all times, with a caliber no less than 8mm, and chambering no less than five rounds?
That would supersede any and all city, county, and state restrictions. There of course would be a provision for those who have a contentious (or religious) objection to carrying a firearm to let them register in the national database so they would not be fined for not carrying their firearm.Mental illness would still be as defined under Form 4473 Q11.f, as would usage of illicit drugs under Form 4473 Q11.e
So, you would support that?
I guess it would solve the overpopulation problem. Forget to signal a turn, death by roadrage. Sure, let's do it.
I don't need to leave the house anymore anyway.
Jerry, of course not. I was being sarcastic, but regarding Scalise, his "hoping" didn't seem to work too well because as it turns out in this particular case, nobody playing in that game chose to carry.....as is the case with most mass shootings. That hero scenario unfortunately rarely happens - I wish it would happen more, but it doesn't. While I fully respect those who carry, they are a small minority. The government should never force anyone to carry, and if most Americans choose not to, then i believe it should be up to our government to protect its citizens by proving sanity first before purchasing.
Jerry, of course not. I was being sarcastic, but regarding Scalise, his "hoping" didn't seem to work too well because as it turns out in this particular case, nobody playing in that game chose to carry.....as is the case with most mass shootings. That hero scenario unfortunately rarely happens - I wish it would happen more, but it doesn't. While I fully respect those who carry, they are a small minority.
{Possibly because most mass shootings are in the so called "gun free zones." When have you seen a sign at a concert, sporting event, or theater that says "Firearms Welcome"? }
The government should never force anyone to carry, and if most Americans choose not to, then i believe it should be up to our government to protect its citizens by proving sanity first before purchasing.
{SCOTA has already given a decision on police protection of civilians, and it isn't
what you would like to believe to be true.
www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0
And I believe the government should not blockade the wishes of those who want to carry. Same things are involved-freedom of choice, equal protection under the law.
There is no "proof of sanity" available, and I've already listed on other threads the process of having someone declared mentally incompetent, so I'm not going to post them again.
Again, if the politician has the beliefs that citizens should not be armed, then that politician should be protected as his policy states, no armed protection.}
So let me get this straight. If Scalise and the others had guns, they would have stopped this before anyone got hurt. Except that nobody realized what was going on until the gunman started firing and he hit Scalise was hit early in the shooting and 2. Even if they had handguns they would have been outgunned and 3. who cariies a gun when playing baseball? I believe it is difficult to do.
Other than that, arming congresspeople seems like a capital ideea.
Republicans these days need to realize they are all targets of the Democrats and also crazy people. They are naïve to think they can just live their lives uscathed. After those weapons were found before the inauguration and the azzhole who was arrested was going to be in the Review Stand, AND the democratic supporters were going to chain the trains together so no one could even leave the city, what did they was going to happen? The Democrats declared war on the Republicans and any Americans that get in their way, and it started when they were determined to 'win' the election no matter what they had to do, including lieing, cheating, registering and bussing illegals across state lines to vote multiple times; yet it's Trump under scrutiny for trying to influence the election. That's how fukked it is.
Republicans these days need to realize they are all targets of the Democrats and also crazy people. They are naïve to think they can just live their lives uscathed. After those weapons were found before the inauguration and the azzhole who was arrested was going to be in the Review Stand, AND the democratic supporters were going to chain the trains together so no one could even leave the city, what did they was going to happen? The Democrats declared war on the Republicans and any Americans that get in their way, and it started when they were determined to 'win' the election no matter what they had to do, including lieing, cheating, registering and bussing illegals across state lines to vote multiple times; yet it's Trump under scrutiny for trying to influence the election. That's how fukked it is.
This is even a bit far-fetched for you. You have one too many drinks today of Alex Jones on the rocks?
There is nothing far fetched about it. Links and threads covered these pre-election events; I do think Alex is very attractive though! (could make any girl wanna go bullridin' ). 😉
