Of course, Amendment 2 is to protect citizens from the government, so really, congressmen should not be allowed to carry at all.
28 Likes
I regret that I have but one like to give.
11 Likes
He was in front of a group of politically active women, therefore he was reasonably in fear for his life (or at least his job.) As such, he was perfectly justified in drawing his weapon, and showed great restraint in not gunning them down. What were they thinking, leaving the kitchen? But seriously, is brandishing a firearm not a crime in most jurisdictions? How far does one have to go to qualify as “brandishing?” and would this be OK if the congressass was, say, black?
14 Likes
the HARD BOILED answer.
14 Likes
What an unusual manner in which to announce his retirement.
12 Likes
This is well within a typical definition of “brandishing.”
14 Likes
I take a very expansive view of the Second Amendment, but anyone who displays a loaded firearm unless he intends to immediately use it is just an asshole. I am trying to think of any exception to this but even if you were to hand a firearm to someone else to use, you’d still bloody well unload it before you did anything else.
22 Likes
Even that’s only true if we accept his worldview - that all gun violence is committed by “bad guys” who will stop at nothing to kill people. If that were true, in countries with significant gun control, we’d see stabbings and mass stabbings at the same rate as shootings/mass shootings in the US. But we don’t. Because guns don’t just make problems much worse, they also create problems that otherwise wouldn’t exist. So Norman’s doubly an idiot.
19 Likes
I believe one appropriate recourse would be for us all to write to our own congresscritters, and seek his formal censure in the House.
4 Likes
Nah, it’s perfectly reasonable - possessing guns make you bullet-resistant/grants you psychic powers. That way, the gun owner can identify any (would-be) shooter and fire back before they themselves are incapacitated! I know this is true because I saw it in all the Hollywood movies.
7 Likes
You misunderestimate us.
We have sitcoms about a freakin’ flying nun.
Set in Puerto Rico- then just let Puerto Rico slowly suffer.
18 Likes
One possible upside, this story illuminates the problem at a basic level:
They are not going to put their toys away, and Mom can’t make them.
10 Likes
But… but… then they miss out on all the objective, scientifically sound research that would cast a positive light. Why would they do that?
8 Likes
I imagine that his pathetic action will serve to get him re-elected. This is a nation with irrational fear of women and his little Freudian dick substitute will earn admiration from his idiot constituents. What a miserable coward he is. Pity that the women didn’t stick his little organ of power up his tight ass…though he might have enjoyed that.
3 Likes
If MAD has been good enough for America, then it ought to be just fine for individual Americans.
6 Likes
Obviously there’s an obvious gun-based “solution” to this. Norman? Anyone?
4 Likes
17 Likes
It’s an interesting point. The Second Amendment garuantees the right to keep and bear arms in a general way. “Arms” is usually interpreted to refer to firearms, but the Second could be reasonably taken to apply to all arms- swords, bayonettes, machetes, big sticks, tire irons, and so on. And yet, legislation on knife ownership does exist in a variety of forms, and much of it is predicated on the purpose or shape of the pointy thing itself. From Wikipedia:
Indiana law makes it illegal to possess a ‘dagger’, ‘dirk’, ‘poniard’, ‘stiletto’, ‘switchblade’, or ‘gravity knife’ on school property, or to possess any knife on school property “capable of being used to inflict cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds” if that knife “is intended to be used as a weapon”, but provides for a criminal penalty only if a person “recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally” possesses such a knife on school property.
And:
San Antonio, Texas city ordinance makes it unlawful for anyone to knowingly carry within city limits “on or about his person” any folding knife with a blade less than 5.5 inches long with a lock mechanism that locks the blade upon opening.[80] This ordinance is designed to work in tandem with the Texas state statute[111] making illegal the carrying of knives with blades longer than 5.5 inches.
So I wonder: why aren’t knives covered by the Second Amendment, and if they are covered (as I think must be the case), why is the GOP so comfortable infringing on the Second when it comes to edged weapons? Unlike guns, knives are useful for lots of stuff besides making live things dead, and if one is going to ban them on the basis of their ability to cut, stab and tear, you’d think semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines would come in for some sharp scrutiny.
23 Likes
Now, THAT’S a knife.
10 Likes
