Maybe it is about taking away guns

[Beerman]

Democrats showing their true colors.  This incoming congresswoman has obtained a DC concealed carry permit and permission from the Capital Police to carry her firearm.  Now all of a sudden they want to change a rule that has been in place since the 60's.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-elect-lauren-boebert-ban-concealed-carry-us-capitol

 

[Kyrshamarks, BSN, RN]

On 12/17/2020 at 1:11 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

  Where does it say in the constitution that people can carry weapons anywhere they prefer at any time?

From the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:   "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is where it says it in the Constitution.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

2 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

From the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:   "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is where it says it in the Constitution.

Then by all means, the congresswoman should be allowed to bear the arms that were available when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. 

[Kyrshamarks, BSN, RN]

8 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

Then by all means, the congresswoman should be allowed to bear the arms that were available when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. 

And by all means you should only be allowed to use the communication forms that were available during the time the Constitution was ratified.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

28 minutes ago, Kyrshamarks said:

And by all means you should only be allowed to use the communication forms that were available during the time the Constitution was ratified.

Is this a straw man argument or a false dichotomy? I always get the logical fallacies mixed up. Or maybe this is just an ad hominem attack. 

[chare]

11 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

41 minutes ago, Kyrshamarks said:

And by all means you should only be allowed to use the communication forms that were available during the time the Constitution was ratified.

Is this a straw man argument or a false dichotomy? I always get the logical fallacies mixed up. Or maybe this is just an ad hominem attack. 

You appeared to state that the Second Amendment should pertain only to the weapons of that time.  If so, how do you not see limiting the First Amendment communication mediums available at that time as a valid comparison?

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

12 minutes ago, chare said:

You appeared to state that the Second Amendment should pertain only to the weapons of that time.  If so, how do you not see limiting the First Amendment communication mediums available at that time as a valid comparison?

I thought the subject was the 2nd Amendment , not the whole Bill of Rights. And actually the rights of free speech and a free press do have limits. 

My original point was that the framers could not have conceived of the sophistication of weapons that we have today. Plus, the previous poster conveniently omitted the first part of the 2nd Amendment that states that in order to maintain a militia, that citizens should keep and bear arms. 

[toomuchbaloney]

5 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

From the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:   "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is where it says it in the Constitution.

Are you suggesting that the current laws which regulate weapons are unconstitutional? No matter the membership in a militia, Americans ought to be able to carry weapons into any environment or setting, using that logic. 

[Kyrshamarks, BSN, RN]

20 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Are you suggesting that the current laws which regulate weapons are unconstitutional? No matter the membership in a militia, Americans ought to be able to carry weapons into any environment or setting, using that logic. 

yes, I am saying that.  

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

On 12/17/2020 at 12:11 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

Are there security and guards in the capital buildings? Is there a clear reason that someone should carry a weapon casually onto that property or is this simply a situation of someone believing that their privilege is a right, again.  Where does it say in the constitution that people can carry weapons anywhere they prefer at any time? Can you think of any other places where people are not allowed to enter while armed? 

Gosh it sure looks like some gun owners are looking for argument. 

I've been to the Capitol  building, and yes there are security guards around the outside and within. You pass through one set when traveling into the Capitol itself, and another before you enter the Senate and/or House Chambers. I have also walked the streets with my husband and some friends and never felt unsafe. I suppose the congresswoman was afraid she might be assaulted by a Segway or a power scooter? Or was it because the residents of Washington are mainly persons of color? 

[toomuchbaloney]

10 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

yes, I am saying that.  

Wow

So no regulation of weapons, eh? Yikes

[guest1163268]

On 12/19/2020 at 10:40 PM, Beerman said:

She has the privilege under a 50+ year old regulation to carry a gun in the Capitol.  Why now, are the Democrats trying to get the rule changed?

In almost every society I know about stupidity is a trait that is abhorred. America is the only industrial nation that this idiocy is tolerated. You live in a society where you need to carry guns to protect yourself, sorta of like in the jungle where wild, dangerous animals exist AND no one sees the insanity of this? While you are at it, why not get a machette and a few grenades as well. I mean she's likely to be attacked so I think it's only sensible to have as much protection as possible! 

Seriously, if you were only able to see yourselves from the rest of the world perspectives. But then, shame has actually died here and has been replaced with hypocrisy! 

The absolute embarrassment of making a spectacle of yourself and actually thinking that there won't be consequences? Do you think that anyone takes Lindsay Graham or Ted Cruz seriously anymore? 

[Kyrshamarks, BSN, RN]

I believe in Constitutional Carry.  The governments should not have the right to regulate the carry of weapons, at all.