Gotta love how "law-n-order" conservatives work so hard to make sure that the country spirals into a lawless wild west state. They all seem to have this notion that passing laws like this will allow honest citizens to defend themselves. Reality, alas, has shown that laws like this make it far easier for the bad guys to obtain guns--and far more difficult for the cops to keep up.

But, I guess for conservatives supporting the police means making sure that the cops face an armed and jittery citizenry. Good thing local governments are laying off police!

The problem with this bill is that it takes only one state to pass a concealed carry law with absolutely no limitations (permit to carry comes with driver's license, for instance) and the rest of the country is stuck with it.

I just cannot understand why when mild mannered , law abiding , decent people are getting dressed how they could forget to harness their piece (peacemaker) ?
How how how ?

AND, taking Paul in NC's point, can I get in on the lottery as to which fine STATE would be first to pass such a law? UM...Georgia, Texas, Montana, maybe ALASKA!!! Interesting take from Mr. Benen and I have to think a bit about that...course it would help if I thought we had "representatives" in Congress making our laws that honesly knew and were governed by what the majority of people expressed as their desires rather than those with the BIGGEST CHECKBOOKS!!!

Ah, our Republican friends and their priorities. Give more and more money to the rich. Make sure everyone else can get their hands on a gun. At some point, Darwinism is going to kick in, whether they believe in it or not.

as dick cheney (god damn his shit-filled soul to hell) sez;

"everybody in america deserves to get shot in the face by me or one of my constituents..."

It seems passage would assure eventual SCOTUS litigation.

At some point, Darwinism is going to kick in, whether they believe in it or not.

Got no problem with that. Just trying to avoid getting caught in the crossfire.

Since the proponents of Sen. Thune's amendment argue that it will make everyone safer, I assume there is a provision that will permit concealed weapons to be carried into the Capital and into Congressional office buildings, and another one that will save taxpayers' money by getting rid of the metal detectors and security guards that violate the Second Amendment rights of people who want to enter those buildings.

Shortstop, you read my mind. Now get out of there!

This message couldn't be easier: "Republicans want to give concealed carry permits, no questions asked, to alcohol abusers and convicted criminals." Images of enraged drunks waving guns and sinister-looking guys reaching for their weapons.

Will the Dems run with this? Of course not.

Meantime, we can't take toothpaste on an airplane...

What about the Republicans desires to stand up for states rights? Doesn't this completely obliterate those rights?

I will never understand the Right's obsession with guns. They exist to peddle fears of black helicopters coming to take your guns away. While I support the Second Amendment, I personally don't have a gun, but sometimes I feel like I should have one just to be able to defend myself from the gun-toting Right. See? Their fear-mongering is working!

"we'll have the laws we deserve, as passed by our elected representatives."

Steve, I can't accept this argument. I could if I thought we had a true representative democracy. But we don't. Our electoral system is so screwed up that I just can't buy your point. A similar argument was made about Rod Blagojevich -- the people elected him twice! Blagojevich's corruption or abuse of a corrupted system brought him so much campaign cash that no other candidate had a chance to run against him. Your argument adds up to continually falling back to the least bad choices which is about all our future is handing us.

When did this gun fetish become so pronounced?

When did Americans, many of them big manly men, feel so scared that they can't buy a quart of milk and a 40 of malt without an elephant killer hand gun?

I loathe the ideas of guns as protection. It's the "best defense is a good offense" strategy.

JCtx, I was thinking the exact same thing!

Wasn't there something in the past year or so - maybe on abortion - where McCain was in opposition with a Republican proposal because should be a matter left up to the states?

This position reeks of the same Republican attitude that its OK for the Federal government to tell a woman what to do with her uterus but not to tell an old white man what to do with his money.

Echoing JCTx, this puts the lie to all the conservative happy talk about states rights. They never believed in it, it was never more than a vehicle to limit civil rights laws.

Can we get marriages performed in one state recognized in others, and embody that recognition in federal law? No.

But concealed carry permits? Of course.

Why is one piece of state-issued paper so privileged, and not the other?

"Passage of the amendment would make it much harder for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm. It would be a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught."

Uh, how? Do illegal gun traffickers really do a lot of business by taking one or two guns personally from state to state? Isn't the only way they could take advantage of this law is to hire a bunch of people with concealed carry permits in one state to transport guns individually to another state? Does that seem likely?

This is a dodgy idea from a federalism standpoint, but unless there's evidence that states with lax concealed carry laws are suffering from greater gun violence than more restrictive states...I don't quite see the public safey argument.

Mike

Right, Davis X. And certification for any number of professionals-- doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, beauticians... the list goes on. If they're not recognized from state to state, why gun permits?

Personally, I'd keep the filibuster over making "a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught."

I mean, come on, people! Paint a giant X on my back, why don't you.

If you don't like guns, work on it legally by trying to get the second amendment repealed. I have nothing against anti-gun people, but if they illegally trash the second amendment, it sets a good precedent for ignoring the other amendments.

Have we forgotten Bush already, Mr. "the Constitution is just a piece of paper"? And Obama is following in his footsteps in not being willing to give up illegal wiretapping.

At least it'll make things easier for the cops. They'll have the right to assume that *everybody* conceal-carries and will be able to shoot everyone on sight, in self defense, no questions asked.

Half of this country actively want to turn it into Somolia. At some point, we just have to round these people, dump them in Texas, and have them build a wall around Texas stop the brown, Communist sodomite hordes from tainting their precious bodily fluids.

Is this "most favored state" gun toting amendment based on federal funding or the Commerce Clause. If the latter, it is almost certainly unconstitutional. Do these DINO clowns have lawyer staffers who say anything other than "yes"?

Hmmm... I sure see a lot of irrational comments on this one.

There is a fundemental and legitimate issue involved as to what sort of permits and certificates should be honored between the states... and what legal status [protected or not] they should have.

Drivers licenses? Some states have less stringent driver testing and DUI penalties.

Should New York be able to not honor drivers licenses from Montana?

Marriages... another good one. Should Missisippi be allowed to not recognize marriages from New Hampshire?

I'd like to see this as an all-or-nothing issue, but certainly some things don't fit. Should a guy with a pesticide application license from New Mexico be allowed to spray pesticides in Pennsylvania? [Well, probably not].

By the way, the NRA has a legitimate beef on this issue... persons travelling with permitted firearms have been arrested and/or harrased due to varying state laws and their application.

So, dunno. Should there be federally-issued drivers licenses? Concealed carry permits? Dog licenses? The issue gets complex and sticky.

@Buford

That's not a legitimate beef. That's a person breaking the law of the state they're traveling through. Those firearms ARE NOT permitted everywhere.

So, a person with a legal concealed carry permit in one state who has to make a brief detour through or errand to another state has to worry about getting pulled over and arrested?

Mike

"So, a person with a legal concealed carry permit in one state who has to make a brief detour through or errand to another state has to worry about getting pulled over and arrested?"

Yes, they do. If you go into another jurisdiction with different laws, you must start following those different laws. You don't take the old laws with you. That's reality. Deal with it.

Good afternoon. The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Sugar plum baby girl bedding. I found only this - lavender baby bedding. Bedding, free manuscripts for firewall have been pleased over the certifications. The higher the system journey is for a many discovery the more plugged the style is at that law gone the expedition, bedding. Waiting for a reply :mad:, Tino from Cyprus.

Alternative Dating Home on free bdsm dating sites, the best BDSM personals