The Senate has rejected an effort to expand the use of firearms on the heavily visited lands of the Army Corps of Engineers in a congressional victory for gun control supporters.
The vote for the proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn was 56-43 for the legislation, but that fell short of the 60 votes needed.
The measure would have let people carry guns onto Corps property for any legal purpose. They currently can only be used there for activities like hunting or target shooting.
The agency oversees nearly 12 million acres containing dams, lakes and trails used for recreation by 370 million visitors annually.
So, what is this? Is it the bone they were supposed to throw us last time?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Keep violating the Constitution. We're keeping score.
ReplyDeleteYou are in perpetual violation of your Constitutional Right to disarmament. Unfortunately, your Government currently denies you this fundamental right, and acts as a rouge State, refusing to work with the international community to rectify such crimes against humanity.
DeleteYou've returned, Jade? Why didn't you bring any new material?
DeleteAnd exactly why is this such a victory for safety? It's not like the National Parks have become war zones since carry was allowed there.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a victory for safety, but it is for "gun control" because gun control is about making guns off limits to certain people, and in as many places as possible--regardless of safety.
My opinion is permission to carry on public lands or in National Parks is no biggie one way or the other.
DeleteAlas, the vote of the Supreme Soviet has saved the proletariat from a flood of foreign oppression by the flooding of the people's parks with such vile weapons of war and destruction. May we be thankful to our comrades for such a patriotic vote.
DeleteOur revolutionary fervor is hindered by the disturbing fact that for some depraved purpose, we have allowed some park goers to still be corrupted by the use of arms under the nefarious guise of such petty-bourgeois excuses as "hunting or target shooting". We demand an end to the bloodshed!
Both human and four-legged predators can attack on Army Corps of Engineers lands just as well as anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteFurther, there is nothing "sensitive" on those lands where an armed citizen could cause any significant damage to anything.
Citizens NEVER need anyone's permission to be alive or to defend themselves from violent attackers. And yet the current situation criminalizes a citizen who simply wants to have the means to defend themselves and their family. That is immoral and the very definition of tyranny.
By the way, Mikeb, weren't you telling us a little while ago that using a sixty-vote hurdle is an example of Senate rules thwarting democracy? Well, now, fifty-six votes out of a hundred constitutes, oh, um, what is that word...
ReplyDeleteMAJORITY!
I know I should have learned my lesson already, pitting my memory against yours, but no, I don't think I ever said that about the 60 vote requirement.
Delete