Senate considers concealed weapons
source: http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Senate-considers-con...
-
-
- locutus [removed]
- added this
The Senate begins debating the measure Monday. The measure is an amendment to the defense authorization bill, an amendment sponsored by Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune. Known as the "Thune Amendment", the measure has been attached to a Defense Authorization bill that would provide funding for troops overseas.
Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the amendment "could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. To gut the ability of individual states to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense," he said.
(more at link)
-
- groups:
- Community
-
- tags:
- News, News and Politics, US Politics, Senate, 3 more
-
-
thefatbear
-
All of this moot. The right to bear arms is recognized in our constitution. No one can limit that right.
No one.
Granted "they" have limited that right in quite a few states. Thank god it's citizens are compliant and "law abiding."
I wonder how much of our rights can be stripped away before we actually do anything about it. From where I stand, I could fully envision a socialist dictatorship (of the likes of Chavez) being in this country one day. It's really not that hard to imagine.
- 2 years ago
-
thefatbear
-
-
Jino7
-
Bulwar said "The pen is mightier than the sword"
Jino sez "TV is more dangerous than a gun"
Let's ban TV not guns. - 2 years ago
-
Jino7
-
-
evoleon
-
I would support the states right until you get on matters that deal with the constitution. Really we should be able to carry whatever gun we want on us concealed or not. What if people had to buy a permit to use freedom of speech? The first amendment is far more dangerous to a Politian than guns could ever be.
- 2 years ago
-
evoleon
-
-
Saladin
-
evoleon:
Uh, no it's really not. A gun is more dangerous every fucking time.
And no, the second amendment, unlike the first, does not imply unlimited weapon rights.
It's why you're not allowed to buy weapons grade plutonium or Abrams tanks.
- 2 years ago
-
Saladin
-
-
evoleon
-

-
evoleon:
You don't understand the point I was making. One guy with a gun will always be weaker than a man with words. A man with words can move a nation, he can muster crowds, change the world. Whatever live in your police state. Let the government disarm you, then see how fast they try to really screw you.
- 2 years ago
-
evoleon
-
-
thefatbear
-
evoleon:
You say the second amendment does not imply unlimited rights to bear arms, therefore you implicitly suggest that it implies limited rights.
Please provide us with the text to back that claim up.
- 2 years ago
-
thefatbear
-
-
BullDogg
-
States Rights? What about our rights? Pretty much every thug knows that a car carrying an out of state license plate has no weapons on board. Perhaps if we recognized the 2nd amendment in entirety vacationers wouldn't be an obvious target for criminals.
- 2 years ago
-
BullDogg
-
-
unimatrix0
-
The NRA has too much clout.
- 2 years ago
-
unimatrix0
-
-
Saladin
-
Stupid as hell and a blatant violation of the supposed states' rights Republicans pretend to support.
You don't NEED to have your weapon concealed. You're better protected form thugs if one sees you got a .38 on you like the one in the picture than if he assumes you're unarmed.
These assholes want to shoot people, that's what a concealed weapon law is really about.
- 2 years ago
-
Saladin
