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.
LOL What an absurd statement. What part of my simple post led you to believe I am for disarming police? hahahahahahaha
It's not about disarming cops.
I have a better idea, why don't you take a course on comprehension. Tell us how that works out.
You first
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Allowing government to have guns but not the people is part of tyranny.
Federal agents Marshalls/FBI/BATFE are federal employees.
State Troopers are State government employees.
Sheriff's/Game Wardens are County Employees
Local town/city officers are town/city employees.
In NY Park Rangers have more authority than a state police officer.
They ran white Durangos and Impalas with green lettering, they can search your person and car without a warrant.
All carry arms. All are a part of the government. All get paid via the government.
Federal agents Marshalls/FBI/BATFE are federal employees.
State Troopers are State government employees.
Sheriff's/Game Wardens are County Employees
Local town/city officers are town/city employees.
In NY Park Rangers have more authority than a state police officer.
They ran white Durangos and Impalas with green lettering, they can search your person and car without a warrant.
All carry arms. All are a part of the government. All get paid via the government.
One more time in hopes you understand.
"Allowing government to have guns but not the people is part of tyranny." Taking a simple statement, incorrectly applying it and running off at the mouth is no why to get through life.
Show proof I want to disarm anyone, go ahead. I can't wait for another misguided post of yours based on nonsense.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Park Rangers cannot search your car without a warrant unless they have proof that there is evidence in the car that could be destroyed or that a weapon is in the car AND will be used against them.
Given the threats to their lives by the Leftist mob, I don't blame Republican Congress persons wanting to conceal carry. Some of them have already said publicly they will be carrying.
So now we will have the Republican "mob".
More of a reason someone can make them targets. Gunfight at the ok corral.
I guessing they don't have the Constitutional authority to do so. Have to think about this one a bit.
They have the Constitutional right to carry firearms, just like all US citizens do. The Constitution is not the obstacle. The municipal laws in DC, however, are. As could laws in their home states as well. This would indeed be a "special privilege" granted to members of Congress that gives them and end around such state and local laws. Laws they may very well have supported or even sponsored.
No, if they're going to pass a law like this then Constitutional right to carry needs to become the law of the land. This measure smells to much like aristocratic privilege. It makes a lot of congressional representatives immune from their very own laws enacted to restrict or outright do away with the rights of their constituents. I can't support this measure. So sorry Mo. I am a staunch 2A supporter, firearms owner and user and support CCW as a constitutional right.
But I'm not willing to see any special privilege granted to elected officials circumventing state and municipal laws that deny the people their rights. Instead, sponsor a measure that deals with the unconstitutional nature of those laws, and then we can all have the same right to self defense.
They have the Constitutional right to carry firearms, just like all US citizens do. The Constitution is not the obstacle. The municipal laws in DC, however, are. As could laws in their home states as well. This would indeed be a "special privilege" granted to members of Congress that gives them and end around such state and local laws. Laws they may very well have supported or even sponsored.
No, if they're going to pass a law like this then Constitutional right to carry needs to become the law of the land. This measure smells to much like aristocratic privilege. It makes a lot of congressional representatives immune from their very own laws enacted to restrict or outright do away with the rights of their constituents. I can't support this measure. So sorry Mo. I am a staunch 2A supporter, firearms owner and user and support CCW as a constitutional right.
But I'm not willing to see any special privilege granted to elected officials circumventing state and municipal laws that deny the people their rights. Instead, sponsor a measure that deals with the unconstitutional nature of those laws, and then we can all have the same right to self defense.
Very reasonable position well articulated.
I have never been a fan of congress passing laws for their benefit and excluding the same rights to the people. It smells like a conflict of interest at the least.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
As always the reader will decide.
