Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm was a soldier once and am still an avid gun user and would never give up my rights as a gun owner. However, one must choose their battles. Carrying weapons into the statehouse is not one of them.
WHY should NH have the only statehouse in the nation that allows weapons?
Another attempt to smear gun owners as "crazies."
invalid argument. When you can prove to me that crazy people don't exist, I might buy it. There are lots of reasons crimes occur using guns. Being crazy is just one of them, actually it's the #1 reason..
reasons for gun crime:
1. They are crazy (bad logic, bad rationality, stupidly, mentally illness/ lack of
their needed medication) they are on drugs (narcotics, medication, alcohol)
2. They want or need of money or other worldly things
· Hate crime *racial, religious, personal*
· They are in a gang (peer pressure, coercion)
· They are bored (the rush of committing a crime or of not being bored any more)
3. They are or were pressured into doing one (peer pressure, brainwashing/propaganda)
4. To protect yourself or someone else (someone may know something about you but you don't want it to be known so you kill)( hostage
situation) (someone puts a gun to your head or to someone else's head)
5. They are angry - transference of angry form one thing to another -(gay vote...gun ban vote)
And all of your reasons have never been and will never be stopped by any law, EVER. Thus the very definition of a criminal. So why prevent those who want to protect themselves the right to do so when the criminal is going to ignore the statehouse rules?
The logic is flawed, explain how a gun ban is going to prevent crime? You can't because it doesn't.
Can you honestly look me in the face and tell me that someone(a criminal) who wants to murder someone in the statehouse is going to walk up to the door with a gun, see a "no guns" sign, and walk away?
The logic of the left never ceases to amaze me. You call yourself a gun owner that won't give up his rights but yet you roll over on this issue. You probably think assault weapons should be banned too.
The former policy was withdrawn because it didn’t define the area where weapons were forbidden.
there are instances such as last March 9th when liberty activists stormed the statehouse armed with guns and bowie knives. Those people used the language of violent revolution. People that work for the legislature for $100 per year should not have to fear the protesters. Crazies are everywhere.
Do we really have to wait until someone gets killed?
of course, there is no way to enforce the rule. So workers will still be armed and so will the people.
the only alternative is to reinforce security at the statehouse, install metal detectors and note the name and address of everyone that is carrying.
The free staters are not a bunch of crazies like you try to claim. It's a very libertarian movement and very anti-violence. Carrying guns was an expression of a right not for intimidation, etc. I believe the incident in particular was aimed at standing up to federal gun grabs, making the carrying of guns very appropriate for the protest.
Last edited by arctichomesteader; 12-23-2009 at 12:11 PM..
And all of your reasons have never been and will never be stopped by any law, EVER. Thus the very definition of a criminal. So why prevent those who want to protect themselves the right to do so when the criminal is going to ignore the statehouse rules?
The logic is flawed, explain how a gun ban is going to prevent crime? You can't because it doesn't.
Can you honestly look me in the face and tell me that someone(a criminal) who wants to murder someone in the statehouse is going to walk up to the door with a gun, see a "no guns" sign, and walk away?
The logic of the left never ceases to amaze me. You call yourself a gun owner that won't give up his rights but yet you roll over on this issue. You probably think assault weapons should be banned too.
Precisely. A sign saying no guns, even a metal detector, will do nothing to stop a person intent on doing a crime. It only strips away the rights of those who are law abiding, and renders them defenseless. VA Tech was a gun free zone, look how well that worked out...everyone was a defenseless sitting duck to be shot by a criminal who simply ignored the sign saying no guns...
Until now, NH Statehouse was the ONLY state capital in America which had not outlawed firearms.
There's actually no law in Vermont that says you can't carry a gun there. There's a regulation by those who administer the building (maintaining it, etc.), which would likely be thrown out in court for lack of authority. I imagine there may in fact be many statehouses where it's not actually truly illegal to carry a gun into.
There's actually no law in Vermont that says you can't carry a gun there. There's a regulation by those who administer the building (maintaining it, etc.), which would likely be thrown out in court for lack of authority. I imagine there may in fact be many statehouses where it's not actually truly illegal to carry a gun into.
Lets not let those pesky FACTS get in the way of a good argument.
A bill was brought up a few years ago to do this and it was voted down something like 293-17. The main sponsor was even voted out of office for this.
The Democrats rammed this one in the back door (as they have in so many other states) because they have seen the writing on the wall and they know that they're not going to hold on to their majority for very long. That's not to say the the Republicans are all great, but there has been a major loss in respect for the will of the majority from the Dems. This problem has grown steadily worse in the last couple of decades, and has extended to a contemptful attitude toward witnesses and private citizens in the State House, courts, and local government. The vast majority of private citizens who do get involved in state and local politics (who are not lobbyists) have become either independents or Republicans. Many voters have just dropped out of politics altogether when they saw all of the corruption there.
Do we really have to wait until someone gets killed?
Yes! You really do. You prosecute criminals for crimes actually committed. You do not castigate everybody and preliminarily strip people's rights for the presumption of a crime's potential.
WHY should NH have the only statehouse in the nation that allows weapons?
Why do you presume that there should be a correspondence among the actions of separate, independent, sovereign states?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
