Why Congress Critters Shouldn’t Be Armed

Posted on by

And we’re off to a not-great start —

The House Natural Resources Committee’s first meeting of the year turned heated Wednesday when a Democratic member offered an amendment that would prohibit lawmakers from carrying guns in the panel’s hearing room.

Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said he was proposing the “sadly necessary” amendment because it’s a “major issue of safety for members of our committee.”

He noted that the Republican-controlled Rules Committee removed a provision that had been put in place by Democrats for the previous two-year period prohibiting firearms in hearing rooms and committees. One of the first acts of the new GOP majority was to remove the magnetometers that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had installed outside the House chamber after the Jan. 6 riot.

“To be clear, members and their staff are already prohibited by law from carrying guns into the hearing rooms and conference rooms of this Capitol. Currently, under statute and Capitol Police Board regulation, members are supposed to have firearms only in their offices,” Huffman said.

“This does not allow for carrying firearms into hearing rooms and doesn’t allow for walking around the Capitol with a loaded weapon. But we know some members think these rules do not apply to them,” he added.

So you’ll never guess … oh, okay, you probably have already guessed how Republicans on the committee responded that Huffman’s proposal.

Yeah, keep it classy, Boebert. Why is it the people who always insist they have to have guns are the last people on the planet you’d trust with guns? Anyway, after her juvenile little demonstration Boebert went on to complain that she hadn’t been armed on January 6.

Boebert went on to say that said she followed House rules on the day of the Capitol attack, and didn’t have her gun on her when protesters were trying to force their way into the building.

“It was the first time in many many years that I have been unprotected. I was disarmed, not unarmed, disarmed, because I was not allowed to possess my firearm,” said Boebert, who was first elected to Congress in 2020.

Then this exchange happened.

“With threats against members of Congress at an all time high, now is not the time to be stripping members of our constitutional right to defend ourselves,” the Colorado Republican said, before recounting several incidents of violence in the Capitol and against lawmakers over the years. …

… Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat who recently launched a Senate bid, noted Wednesday that Boebert’s list of incidents against lawmakers omitted the Jan. 6 riot.

“Yes, it was awful when Ashli Babbitt was murdered,” Boebert snapped back, referring to a rioter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to get through a door leading to where members of Congress were being evacuated.

Okay, let’s deconstruct this. If I didn’t know better, I might assume that Boebert was saying she wished she’d had a gun on January 6 so she could have shot Ashli Babbitt herself. But we know that’s not what she meant. What she was arguing is that she should have had a gun to protect herself against the thugs breaking into the building, but at the same time she thinks it was wrong to shoot them.

So, lady, where’s YOUR tin foil hat?

In other GOP News: The Republicans are telling each other to double down on the stuff that voters don’t like about them. Christina Cauterucci writes at Slate,

In the wake of a disappointing midterm election cycle for the GOP, which analysts and exit polls attributed in large part to widespread public dissatisfaction with the party’s efforts to criminalize abortion, the Republican National Committee is urging party members to … er, redouble their efforts to criminalize abortion.

A resolution passed on Friday at the winter meeting of the RNC exhorts GOP lawmakers to “pass the strongest pro-life legislation possible”—essentially, to double down on one of the least popular parts of the party’s platform. The document suggests that six-week abortion bans, such as the one that took effect in Georgia after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, are one example of the types of laws Republican legislators should pursue, but it implies something much stricter: The “strongest possible” anti-abortion legislation would be a total abortion ban. The resolution also makes an oblique comparison between abortion and human enslavement, noting that the party’s original 1856 platform “rejected ‘the twin relics of barbarism,’ polygamy and slavery.”

Abortion, the document states, is one of “the new relics of barbarism the Democratic Party represents.”

The resolution goes on to criticize Republicans who, in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms, strove to attract moderate voters by keeping quiet on the topic of abortion or walking back their extreme stances. In the parlance of the document, these candidates “failed to remind Americans of our proud heritage of challenging … the forces eroding the family and the sanctity of human life.”

An internal RNC report also encourages doubling down on election denialism.

Also today, Kevin McCarthy and President Biden met today to discuss the debt ceiling, among other things. I haven’t hear anything about that, yet.

13 thoughts on “Why Congress Critters Shouldn’t Be Armed”

  1. Boebert is nothing more than a paid shill for the gun industry. It's has been a successful tactic for decades now to flood the zone with guns. Fucking guns everywhere, the more guns that are seen in public, the more guns that will be sold the next day. It started with the "Castle Doctrine" laws of the eighties and continues to this day with permitless open carry. It's been one escalation of gun brandishing after another, it works, it sells guns. That is all this is, it is all it's ever been. Boebert and who knows how many GQP'ers (I would argue most of them) are simply just on the Gun Lobby payroll, they hide the money well but it's out there, I guarantee it! As far as Ashli Babbitt goes she got what she had coming, as far as I'm concerned she certainly shouldn't have been the only one that day.

    2

    • Ashli Babbitt goes she got what she had coming, as far as I'm concerned she certainly shouldn't have been the only one that day.

      My sentiment exactly!

      2

    • I shed no tears for Babbitt. She earned the bullet that killed her. It was a good shoot and the J6 committee did a good job of documenting how close (time and distance) members of Congress were to the mob in real time. It was a 'good shoot.' 

      However, had the cops responded with overwhelming violence, we'd be having a different conversation about whether it was a demonstration or a riot. I understand there are snipers (on the roof?) who can cover the entrances. They could have dispersed the crowd with a few dozen executions in less time than it takes to read my meanderings. They never would have breached the building. The vandalism would not have occurred. Offices would not have been ransacked and souvenirs stolen. We'd be arguing about what the J6 crowd might have done… might have intended. Instead, we're putting some of the worst offenders away for years for what they did. 

      2

  2. You haven't heard about the results of that meeting because President Biden hasn't stop laughing yet at the paucity of real thought and concrete budget ideas from the RepubliKKKLANs.

    And how does one negotiate with blood thirty, drooling imbeciles?

    If Boebert ever had an idea, you can trust it died a very lonely death.

    And ditto for MJT, Biggs, Gohmert, that procurer of teenage girls, Gaetz, and about about 216 other members of the RepubliKKKLAN KKauKKKus!

    BTW:  If any people would be justified to carry arms in the House to defend themselves, it would be Democrats!

    But they're grown-ups, unlike the childish psychopathic cretins on the GQP side of the House's aisle!!!

    Or should we call now call that aisle the DMZ?

    Whoops!

    Almost forgot.

    The RepubliKKKLANs don't want ANY PLACE on Earth to be a "Demiliterized Zone."

     

     

     

    1

  3. Matt Gaetz Derails Judiciary Committee With Heated Pledge of Allegiance Debate: ‘Come On. This Can’t be Real’ (msn.com)

    Here's another example of one of their latest antics. This one blows my mind. I can't understand what the game is other than to create divison and tribalism. It's another tatic that was employed during the Bush era when some neocon would stand up in public meeting and begin reciting the pledge of allegiance to apply peer pressure to buttress their argument.

    What purpose does it serve other than a meaningless show that devalues the love and commitment we adult Americans have for our country. It's fine for inculcating in children the values of respect and allegiance to their country, but seeing it used as a cudgel to somehow jockey for position of possessing a greater patriotism is just sickening.  Just more of the Repugs prostituting all that is sacred.

    2

    • They could care less about the pledge, they just want the "godless liberals" to argue against it, that's it! It's just more content for Tucker and the booble heads on RW media!

      3

  4. Regarding the clown show the GOP is putting on in the House, some Democrats are showing up armed – with rebuttals. This is beautiful and the media should get in on the fun by covering the action. It's not like the House can or will produce any legislation. But the Democrats can easily light off fireworks, as these two demonstrate.

    More, please!

    https://crooksandliars.com/2023/02/rep-mcgovern-did-republicans-get-call-mar

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/maxine-waters-trump-dictators-republicans_n_63d98adfe4b0c8e3fc813311

    Regarding the meeting between McCarty and Biden, I read that McCarthy tried to spin it as a good first meeting, trying to create the false impression that Biden was going to negotiate the debt ceiling. (Which I do not think is the case, but I wasn't there.) McCarthy is going to BS for his primary audience, the radicals in the House and the former guy. Problem with the deception: the State of the Union speech is next week? (if I have it right) and Biden will have the spotlight. If McCarthy has earned a smackdown by then by misrepresenting the nature of discussions, Biden's reply in the SOTU will be headlines. 

    I think Biden had his speechwriters consider the possibility of  clarifying the issue and Biden's position before Biden ever sat down with that horse's a$$.   McCarthy is almost as dumb as Trump – Biden (at his age) can easily stay several steps ahead.

    In other news, Trump is freaking out about NY – the chance of criminal charges and the book that will break next week with ?? details of how and why Trump is guilty of financial crimes. The case was tied up with a bow when the financial case was scuttled by the new DA. The resurrection of the Stormy Daniels case may be a hasty attempt by the NY DAto pre-emptively rehabilitate his reputation. If the book is clear and detailed enough, the criminal case in MAY be charged… in addition to the Stormy Daniels case. Two witnesses (Cohen and Daniels) seem eager to testify. It's unimportant, compared to insurrection, but it's tawdry and dripping sex and money. The wet dream of the mainstream press. 

  7. The way things are headed, a dress code that required mandatory straightjackets might be prudent.   

    1

  8. <b>Shoot-out In The House</b>

    A contentious debate on rice cracker standords became unruly as insults were exchanged. Representative XX pulled a handgun from a briefcase causing other members to dive for cover, pulling firearms as well. 

    A spirited exchange followed.  Hill police watched in bemusement with one officer saying they had never seen such a riveting debate. 

    The House adjourned early. No casualties were reported.

Comments are closed.