GOP Rep Boebert allowed to concealed carry in DC— due to Roberts Court and Scalia

[Anonymous]

Guns kill people.

Canada effectively bans handguns.

Canada has access to the same media as we do.

Canada has effectively zero handgun death.

See how easy this is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you want her to have the ability to protect herself from the evil crazies out there?

Umm, she IS the evil crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what happened is that DC lost the lawsuit and decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court. Instead they passed an extremely restrictive concealed handgun permit law. There has been no increase in crime since then, and certainly none related to lawfully carried guns. There have always been a huge number of people legally carrying concealed firearms in DC, mostly police and federal law enforcement, but also retired DC police who were uniquely privileged for decades. Even without DC’s current law, federal law allows retired and active law enforcement to carry firearms in DC. You may not think this one particular individual (who may be immune from arrest most of the time she is in DC anyway) is a suitable candidate but please don’t blame the Supreme Court. DC’s long-standing near prohibitive gun laws have never done anything except deprive decent people of the right to efficacious means of self defense.

Countries with near total bans on handguns, and guns in general, are safer. Trump and all the republicans keep mysteriously trying to prevent federal funds being used to actually study the evidence. I wonder why. Is it because we have over 30,000 gun deaths a year and every other day there is basically a mass shooting? Nah. They’re freedom loving patriots and this is 1884 and the Wild West and everyone should be strapped to protect their women from getting raped. Even though Japan and Norway and most other developed nations have restrictive gun laws and have like 0 gun deaths we should force cities and towns in the United States to allow guns so everyone can “protect” themselves. Also, ar-15s, with bump stocks, for hunting are definitely necessary and don’t indicate a small pen15. God

This is all very well said and lord have mercy why do we have to be so backward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see how Heller doesn’t put my family at greater risk due to Boebert carrying here.

Unless you and your family physically attack her, I fail to see how you and your family are in any greater risk whatsoever.

She seems seriously mentally unstable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/boebert-granted-concealed-carry-permit-dc

People can say what they want about how Republicans have changed constitutional law and federal law to allow guns.

But one thing is very very personal here in DC:
We passed a handgun ban.
And Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito overturned that law.

Those five Republican judges literally allowed this unstable Rep Boebert to carry a gun on our streets, against the wishes of the vast majority of DC citizens.

I sincerely hope she pulls it on the wrong person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/boebert-granted-concealed-carry-permit-dc

People can say what they want about how Republicans have changed constitutional law and federal law to allow guns.

But one thing is very very personal here in DC:
We passed a handgun ban.
And Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito overturned that law.

Those five Republican judges literally allowed this unstable Rep Boebert to carry a gun on our streets, against the wishes of the vast majority of DC citizens.

I sincerely hope she pulls it on the wrong person

The only person she “would pull it on” would be someone trying to harm her.

In that case, that would be exact the right person to pull it on.

If you don’t want to be that person, then I’d suggest you simply leave her alone and not assault her.

Or is that just too much to ask of you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see how Heller doesn’t put my family at greater risk due to Boebert carrying here.

Unless you and your family physically attack her, I fail to see how you and your family are in any greater risk whatsoever.

She seems seriously mentally unstable.

She seems completely ordinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guns kill people.

Canada effectively bans handguns.

Canada has access to the same media as we do.

Canada has effectively zero handgun death.

See how easy this is?

And yet, Canadians find plenty of other ways to murder each other.

But keep comparing apples and hammers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you want her to have the ability to protect herself from the evil crazies out there?

Umm, she IS the evil crazy.

Come, come. Crazy. But evil? Seems just focused on grifting to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you want her to have the ability to protect herself from the evil crazies out there?

NP: Isn’t this the person who approached and followed David Hogg down the street screaming at him? I’m pretty sure she IS an “evil crazy”. And I would rather put some boundaries on evil crazies — to use your words — carrying guns. I would be fine if she were to be escorted by the National Guard if she feels she needs the protection of a government approved militia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it does not matter but this Scalia stuff is not right. The Heller case said an individual could have a gun in their home for self defense. That's all. The DC gun law was shot down in the court of appeals and DC decided not to go the the Supreme Court. Scalia and in fact no one on the court had anything to do with it. Heller is a very limited ruling. Just because we won does not mean we should turn into nutty Trump type people.

You’re telling us that the Republican effort to flood the country with guns, Scalia, Koches (for votes), gun CEOs, NRA — this has nothing to do with gun crime? Come on.

Scalia and the other Republican judges in Heller said that DC couldn’t ban handguns. They *made that up*. It’s “unconstitutional” because Republicans made up a new part of the constitution.

And that allowed a demonstrably non-cautious woman to carry a gun secretly around the streets of DC.
That puts every family in DC at some higher level of risk. Period.

This stuff isn’t hard. Why do people have to make such specious arguments about it?

Republican. Gun. Policy. Endangers. DC. Citizens.

This country has always been flooded with guns. Guns aren’t a new invention. They’ve existed for the entire history of settlement on this continent.

What’s new, is the acceptability and normalization of violence in our entertainment and popular culture, a tolerance in our court systems for violent criminals, and psychoactive mediations prescribed to so many as though they were TicTacs.

What now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t you want her to have the ability to protect herself from the evil crazies out there?

NP: Isn’t this the person who approached and followed David Hogg down the street screaming at him? I’m pretty sure she IS an “evil crazy”. And I would rather put some boundaries on evil crazies — to use your words — carrying guns. I would be fine if she were to be escorted by the National Guard if she feels she needs the protection of a government approved militia.

No, that was the other female GOP whacko, the one from Georgia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/boebert-granted-concealed-carry-permit-dc

People can say what they want about how Republicans have changed constitutional law and federal law to allow guns.

But one thing is very very personal here in DC:
We passed a handgun ban.
And Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito overturned that law.

Those five Republican judges literally allowed this unstable Rep Boebert to carry a gun on our streets, against the wishes of the vast majority of DC citizens.

I sincerely hope she pulls it on the wrong person

The only person she “would pull it on” would be someone trying to harm her.

In that case, that would be exact the right person to pull it on.

If you don’t want to be that person, then I’d suggest you simply leave her alone and not assault her.

Or is that just too much to ask of you?

statistically, she's most likely to pull it on herself or a family member

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns kill people.

Canada effectively bans handguns.

Canada has access to the same media as we do.

Canada has effectively zero handgun death.

See how easy this is?

And yet, Canadians find plenty of other ways to murder each other.

But keep comparing apples and hammers.

Americans are to Canadians as Apples are to . . . Hammers? Really?

I have a feeling you didn't do so well on your SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/boebert-granted-concealed-carry-permit-dc

People can say what they want about how Republicans have changed constitutional law and federal law to allow guns.

But one thing is very very personal here in DC:
We passed a handgun ban.
And Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito overturned that law.

Those five Republican judges literally allowed this unstable Rep Boebert to carry a gun on our streets, against the wishes of the vast majority of DC citizens.

I sincerely hope she pulls it on the wrong person

The only person she “would pull it on” would be someone trying to harm her.

In that case, that would be exact the right person to pull it on.

If you don’t want to be that person, then I’d suggest you simply leave her alone and not assault her.

Or is that just too much to ask of you?

Let's try again. She has zero respect for any of our laws. For a citizen to carry a gun they should at least respect the law. She refused metal detectors before she had her permit!

She needs to be expelled period.

I firmly believe in the second amendment but she should be in jail not walking the streets anywhere in the US. They will vote her out in CO. But hopefully jail first.