Skip to main content

     I challenge Senator Ron Johnson, and all his like-minded Gun-Control-Law-Hating Congressional colleagues to put their ink-pen where their big mouths are and:
Lift the "No Carry" ban on all Congressional Buildings.

     Seriously, what are they afraid of?  Why can't people carry their weapons in Congressional Buildings?  Rep. Louie Gohmert seems to think that if someone started shooting at Congress on the Floor of the House or Senate, one of them would surely be able to stop the crazed gun-man very quickly.

GOHMERT: "Was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?"

~Rep. Louie Gohmert, July 19, 2012, the day 71 people were shot at a movie theater

    Are Ron Johnson, Louie Gohmert and their like-minded wild-west mentality Congressional colleagues too chickensh!t to sit on the House and Senate Floor knowing someone could be packing a high-capacity assault weapon with 100 rounds of ammunition in a magazine?  

     They sit behind "No Carry" signs and tell us they will not restrict guns and/or ammunition and if we don't like it, either dress our children in Riot Gear of stop sending our children to the movies, classrooms, or malls.  

     Yes, Freedom of Speech is regulated ... the First Amendment is regulated.

     Examples: Speech is limited:

- You can't falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there is a real fire.
- Defaming a person's reputation is against the law.
- Sometimes speech is limited to Free-Speech Zones.  
- Active Duty Military member's speech is limited.
- Civilian employers can fire you if they don't like what you say.
- Private businesses can kick you out of their establishment if you start cussing people out.
    Basically, Freedom of Speech boils down to the legal notion that the government cannot arrest you for speaking out against the Government's policies.  Thus, Freedom of Speech is regulated.

     I've always thought that the authors of the Bill of Rights and Constitution thought Freedom of Religion and Speech were the two most important freedoms so they put them both in the First Amendment -- yet -- Speech is regulated.

    Therefore, since, even with the the First Amendment I am legally prevented from saying things that will ruin a persons reputation.  It is time we regulate the Second Amendment to prevent people from killing a multi-people with a military-grade weapons in classrooms, bars, restaurants, malls and theaters.

     1700's: Every American with an IQ above 50 knows that the only definition of "Arms" at the time the Constitution was written was: Flintlock Muskets and pistols that fired one shot.

     The 'Arms' in the 1700's people used their Flintlock Muskets to hunt for food, protect themselves against attack, and to fight in the Revolutionary war.

     2000's: Today, we have more than just a Flintlock Musket, we have gobs of different types of "Arms' and each has a different use.  

      Crudely put, military-grade assault weapons, high-capacity assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition are solely used to 'hunt people.'

      The military and law enforcement use high-capacity weapons and ammunition to solely hunt people ... people they deem as either: terrorist, very bad and/or the enemy.  

        In 2010, Candidate Ron Johnson said people should be able to buy guns without registering the gun.  

JOHNSON: "I do not, nor will I ever, support licensing or registration of firearms."
     WOW!  Just WOW!  Johnson does not even want people to register their guns!!!  That is totally UN-F@CKING BELIEVABLE!

     On Ron Johnson's 2010 Campaign website explained why he hates all gun control laws and sees no reason why anyone should even have to register their guns.

“Criminals should be fearful of the ramifications of our nation’s laws, not law-abiding citizens who exercise their gun ownership rights protected by our Constitution.”
    Isn't that a cute, misleading, fearmongering NRA blurb?  No one should have to register their gun because "Criminals" should be fearful ... blah blah blah.

     The reality is, currently, if a "Criminal" is pulled over and is seen packing an "unregistered" gun then that "criminal" can be arrested for possessing a non-registered gun -- thus, potentially preventing a crime that would/could occur.

     More importantly, if a "Criminal" used an unregistered weapon in a crime then that is one more criminal charge against the "Criminal" which could potentially mean more prison time.  

    There are many members of Congress who are owned by the NRA - and as a result America has laws that allow any civilian to purchase military grade rifles, high-capacity hand guns and high-capacity ammunition.

      Regarding the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater massacre, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson said that owning 100 round magazine ammunition is a Constitutional right.

CHRIS WALLACE: "Does something that would limit magazines that could carry 100 rounds, would that infringe on the constitutional right?" host Chris Wallace asked Johnson on "Fox News Sunday."

RON JOHNSON: "I believe so,"

      Johnson went on to say that limiting gun ownership and/or high-capacity ammunition ownership restricts our freedoms.
JOHNSON: "I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. And part of that Constitution is the Second Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms. These types of laws [gun control] infringe upon that right and I just -- I don't agree with them.
      To underscore his complete ignorance, Ron Johnson said the military-grade assault rifle the shooter in Colorado used was just your good old, basic, run of the mill hunting rifle:
JOHNSON: "the left used the term assault rifles. They're really talking about semi-automatic weapons that really are use in hunting. That's what happens in Wisconsin. These are rifles that people use in hunting."
      As was typical for Fox, Chris Wallace did not call bullsh!t on Johnson's false comment.  

       Finally Ron Johnson said he does not want to restrict American's freedoms:

JOHNSON:  I really would hate to see a tragedy like this used to promote a political agenda to reduce American's freedoms. Enough have been taken away and we don't want to lose anymore.
      In March 2012, Ron Johnson was the co-sponsor of a Bill, S.2213, that would would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines regardless of the conceal carry gun laws within the state they are entering.  Basically, Johnson's Bill would eliminate state's concealed carry laws in every state.

           Ya want to know what Ron Johnson really is?  In reality, Ron Johnson is a chickensh!t who posted a "No Carry" sign on his Wisconsin Office door:

“After consulting with Senate legal counsel, it has been determined that the law considers my Oshkosh office a federal space, in which it is illegal to carry a firearm. We are posting a sign to make that clear.”
      The NRA pushes lies and hate against a fake tyrannical U.S. Government as a means to make millions selling guns to anyone, including the mental disabled (hence the no gun registration mantra).  Yet, at the same the NRA owns the very government they chant their hate and fear against.

      I challenge Senator Ron Johnson, and all his like-minded Gun-Control-Law-Hating Congressional colleagues to put their ink-pen where their big mouths are and:
Lift the "No Carry" ban on all Congressional Buildings.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm a gun-control advocate and I understand (5+ / 0-)

    some of the RKBA pushback against some forms of regulation.

    What I can't understand for the life of me is exactly what you've underlined here--some people--even here--seem to value the second amendment, certainly as equal to--and in a few cases greater than--the first (the 2nd amendment is here to protect the others)

    If gun ownership and use is such a core, essential human right, why is it that it is only enshrined in a few constitutions such as (I may not be fully accurate here) Haiti, Guatemala and Mexico?  Oh, and the U.S....

    And the arguments that 'shall not be infringed' means 'cannot--in any way shape or form be regulated'--well, you've cited pretty clear examples of regulation on the first.  So apparently a 'right' can be regulated.  Preventing sales of, say, 100-round magazines does not seem to be an imposition on the 'right to keep and bear arms' in the least.

    But maybe that's just me...

    •  Dude, buy all the muskets you want - no one cares (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but stop pretending that high-powered military-grade weapons is what the Founders had in mind.

      You are fooling no one.

      •  dude--you're shooting your own men-- (0+ / 0-)

        I'm on your side!  Read it again.

        •  bev: Your definition of Infringe is Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          You wrote:"the arguments that 'shall not be infringed' means 'cannot--in any way shape or form be regulated'

          Legally infringe does not mean what you wrote

          Legally the term infringe simple means:
          "exceed the limits" "violate"

          Notice: "infringe" does not mean it can't be 'regulated'

          regarding 2nd Amendment:
          A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

          "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be violated"

          No where in the 2nd Amendment does prohibit government from regulating types of "arms" a person can own.

          No where in the 2nd Amendment does it prohibit govt from regulating the purchase by the people of military-grade assault weapons.

          As cc wrote, at the drafting of the Constitution the framers definition of "arms" was a flintlock musket and a pistol that could only fire one shot at a time.

          •  no--again--I wasn't clear. (0+ / 0-)

            I was trying to say 'the argument that 'cannot be infringed' meant 'cannot be regulated'   is an argument that a lot of gun advocates try to apply to the second amendment, but aren't so concerned when it comes to the first.

            For the reasons the diarist outlines.

            I was trying to say that disallowing regulations on the second doesn't square with allowing regulations on the first--but that's what many gun advocates seem to want to do.

        •  sorry for my rude comment to you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bevenro, 3goldens

          I reacted inappropriately because I am sick of the NRA people pretending that the founders could have envisioned the assault weapons that are solely designed to hunt people.

          My bad ... please accept my humble apology.

    •  Then You Support Lifting No Carry Ban on Congress (0+ / 0-)

      ional buildings.

      •  again, Im' on your side. (0+ / 0-)

        My point is that some people, even here, place undue freedoms on the second amdt. that they don't seem to have a problem applying to the first amdt.  That was one of your key points.

        I may not have been clear--the response was meant to be a bit ironic and it didn't work so well.

    •  If we have an absolute right to keep and (4+ / 0-)

      bare arms then no limits can be set. Ergo it is an infringement of my rights to not allow me to carry a weapon in a public space. Like an airport. Or airplane. Or Congress. Or a sports stadium. If it is open to the public then I should be able to carry, right?

      This is the logical conclusion from the position of the good senator. The question is not about the existence of a right, but the existence of an absolute right.

      None of our rights are absolute. And the scope of our rights has narrowed significantly since 9/11. And yet the fiercest fight over rights has been about the 2nd amendment. Would that the rest of us would value the bill of rights as much as some value only the 2nd.

  •  With a 9% approval rating..... (5+ / 0-)

    I think most congresscritters know they would be picked off in a matter of minutes if the gallery in the House was full of guns.  It's yet another protection for them that the rest of us don't get.  

    David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

    by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 09:12:55 AM PDT

  •  What an execrable excuse for a human being (3+ / 0-)

    is Sen Johnson.

    Barack Obama is not a secret socialist class warrior who wants to redistribute wealth in America. But I'll still vote for him, anyway.

    by looty on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 09:13:12 AM PDT

  •  It's an amusing way (2+ / 0-)

    To find yet more right wing hypocrisy.

    The same challenge should be made to the RNC - why can't they rely on all the "Law abiding" and "responsible" gun owners to protect them if someone starts shooting?

    Same goes with Every Mitt Romney rally.  It's easy to yammer about gun rights from the protective enclave of the Secret Service.

    If Moore ever does a follow up to Bowling, I would hope he'd include a stunt to this effect, trying to take a legal gun into a Republican political event and filming that they won't allow it.

  •  Heck, why stop there? Freedom to carry guns (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice

    in airplanes, courtrooms, schools, etc.

    While we are at it, remove any age restrictions for concealed carry (after all, the Second Amendment does not limit this right to adults only)!

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 09:55:20 AM PDT

  •  I take your point but (0+ / 0-)

    I would rather see it going the other direction.

  •  Guns 'n' Bullets (0+ / 0-)

    Ron waste-of-space Johnson is my state senator, and I am with you on your petition, cc. It's a brilliant idea!

    Reminded me of a very conflicted deer hunter who called into the Ed Show a while back in the midst of a gun control discussion. The caller was in favor of outlawing assault weapons, but he was incensed that Obama might make it impossible for him to buy a 10-round clip for his deer hunting rifle. All I kept thinking was, "Geez, buddy, how many bullets do you need to kill a deer?"

  •  It's not against the law to (0+ / 0-)

    defame another person's reputation.  You don't get arrested for doing that, but you might get sued in Civil court.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 11:57:03 AM PDT

  •  The Wisconsin legislature (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice

    in the last year made they made it legal to bring firearms into the public galleries in the legislature.  However, they arrested people for bringing cameras.  That's ok in an upsidedown gop world.  

  •  Slightly OT but I've always wondered (0+ / 0-)

    what other kind of pen is there?

    into the blue again, after the money's gone

    by Prof Haley on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 12:20:28 PM PDT

  •  Concealed Pistol License holders (0+ / 0-)

    can carry in the Washington state Capitol building.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:20:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site