I just came across this piece by E.J Dionne about the hypocrisy practiced by members of Congess when it comes to gun laws. How to solve their hypocrisy? Let people bring guns into Congress:
Isn’t it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away, and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation’s Capitol building?
I’ve been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association and have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.
If they believe that, why don’t they live by it?
Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn’t NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy?
Brilliant.
Article by Don Pogreba
Don is from Shelby, MT (Go Coyotes!) and has lived in Montana his whole life. He teaches English and Debate in Helena, MT, and does most of his writing far too late at night.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
Pogie, it's not the guns that're the problem. It's the ammunition. They contain explosive material. There is no constitutional right to bring explosive material into the halls of government.
Nice. I assume, then, that you'd agree there's no right to carry ammunition anywhere in the United States, then?
I'm totally fine with anyone carrying a gun–as long as we can have sensible restrictions on ammunition.
I think that's correct. A box of ammo thrown into a fire will explode. A box of ammo hit with a sledgehammer will explode. There is no right to carry explosive devices without appropriate restrictions.
Wow. Just wow.
What do you think about Dionne's premise, Rusty? Given the logic of the NRA and their thralls in Congress, it would certainly be safer if guns were allowed inside the Capitol. Should they go for it?
I wasn’t commenting on that…I was commenting on your “restrictions on ammunition” stupidity..
I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on the premise of the article. It exposes the absurdity of the NRA position quite nicely.
Why can't we restrict sales and distribution of ammunition, oh great Constitutional scholar?
Maybe you ought to stick to making comments about John McCain's daughter and posting South park pictures. That's a little closer to the level of discourse you're comfortable with.
Why should we regulate ammo?! Oh yeah…I forgot…you’re a liberal…you want every aspect of your life to be overseen by the Government.
It’s funny to me that you libs piss and moan about the Second Amendment and how “unclear” it reads in the Bill of Rights, yet, somehow, you’re able to find the right to privacy (Abortion) and the “wall” between Church and State. Weird.
You only account for that which suits you. Intellectual honesty much?
Got me. I am just waiting for the government to make every decision for me.
It's interesting to see that you won't just answer my question. Should Congress be able to restrict guns in the Capitol? Should members of Congress and public be able to bring guns inside the building?
If not, why?
Yes…members of Congress and the public should be allowed to legally (obviously) carry concealed weapons in the Capitol.
“Better to have a gun and not need one, than to need a gun and not have one.”
The 2nd Amendment is really awesome. You should try understanding it sometime.
Airports too, I assume?
While we're on the subject of your deep and abiding knowledge of the Bill of Rights, which other amendments are without any restriction? Is the First Amendment limitless? Libel and slander are not restricted in it, nor is obscenity.
I assume that your position on the First is the same as the Second…a free-for all.
It's exactly that kind of extremism (the real agenda of the NRA) that Americans absolutely reject.
You prattle on as if you’re aware of all the restrictions currently on the books that “ALLOW” law-abiding citizens to own firearms…and that amuses me XD
But please, carry on…a liberal never allows facts to get in their way!!
And you don’t believe in an individual’s right to defend themselves and their families from criminal elements. Nice!
Like I said, carry on…
“You prattle on as if you’re aware of all the restrictions currently on the books that “ALLOW” law-abiding citizens to own firearms…and that amuses me XD”
Like I stated..you don’t have the first clue of the restrictions put on law-abiding citizens…but please, don’t let that stop you from running-off-at-the face.
BTW, Air Marshals pack on airplanes…usually armed with either Glaser or JHP ammo…but I’m sure you already knew that.
It's pretty clear why you post and comment under a pseudonym. I'd be embarrassed, too.
Airports? Planes? I mean, the Second Amendment certainly is without limit in the sky, too, right?
I assume you also oppose the government involving itself in decision about who can carry concealed weapon, too. How dare they infringe anyone's right to carry whenever and wherever they like?
Despite what you tell yourself, it's not principled to take an extremist, position and defend past the point of madness. It's just stupid.
It’s a fascinating argumentative strategy you’ve adopted, manufacturing my opinions. Of course, I know that air marshals are armed. My position is that no one else should be on an airplane. It seems like you position is that anyone who wants to bring a gun on a plane, into a school, or inside the Congress should be able to. Am I mischaracterizing your position?
Your contention that I don’t think people should be able to defend themselves against criminals is exactly my point. It’s possible that there is a more nuanced position than either all guns all the time or no guns at all. I clearly don’t believe in the latter, but you seem to believe in the former.
That’s an extremist position. I’m honestly curious if I am wrong about what you and the NRA believe.
Responding to a post from the future…well played!
“It’s possible that there is a more nuanced position than either all guns all the time or no guns at all.”
You are correct, there is a more nuanced position between “all guns” and “no guns”, it’s what’s referred to a “Concealed Weapon Permit”…but I’m sure you already know what a law-abiding citizen has to go through to obtain one, right?
I think it's a great idea, and I'm all for it. However, it won't impact me much since I'm not likely ever to be in D.C. I think we should implement it in Montana.