Amendment to every gun control bill

[A-R]

We should get a Congressman to attach this amendment to EVERY gun control bill.

"All provisions of this bill and all other Federal gun laws apply equally to any person hired in any capacity to protect another person, regardless of position or status."

So if the people can't have hi-cap mags or assault weapons, neither can the hired security guards of the elites

And if an elitist celebrity (Charlie Sheen) is prohibited from possessing guns at all, then so are his body guards while they are protecting him.

[bdickens]

Howzabout just no gun control bills in the first place.

[SlickTX]

Wait until you see the part where Congress exempts its members from the bill. They do that all the time.

[74novaman]

I think a better "poison pill" would be the abolition of the NFA laws.

They want a magazine capacity ban? Cool, legalize short barreled rifles, suppressors, and full auto then.

They would never pass that and withdraw their own bill to keep it from happening.

[VMI77]

We should get a Congressman to attach this amendment to EVERY gun control bill.

"All provisions of this bill and all other Federal gun laws apply equally to any person hired in any capacity to protect another person, regardless of position or status."

So if the people can't have hi-cap mags or assault weapons, neither can the hired security guards of the elites

And if an elitist celebrity (Charlie Sheen) is prohibited from possessing guns at all, then so are his body guards while they are protecting him.

I'm for it, but I would add "property." So, it would read: "All provisions of this bill and all other Federal gun laws apply equally to any person hired in any capacity to protect another person or property, regardless of position or status or value."

[K.Mooneyham]

I think a better "poison pill" would be the abolition of the NFA laws.

They want a magazine capacity ban? Cool, legalize short barreled rifles, suppressors, and full auto then.

They would never pass that and withdraw their own bill to keep it from happening.

Sort of a reverse Hughes Amendment...I kind of like the idea.

[JALLEN]

As you might expect, amendments are tightly controlled. You can't just make any old amendment you dream up. Moreover, doing that over and over will get you earmarked [pardon me!] as eccentric, and when it comes time to vote on that new dam for your district, or the newer courthouse, or funding the air force base you have been fighting for for twenty years, you may get only one vote.... yours. When you ask for unanimous consent for something, all of a sudden you don't get it.

The way to get along is to go along. Your party leaders can make life easier or harder. Of course, if they make things too hard, a bunch of the followers will get together and throw them out.

If you are lucky, you have no bad habits you don't want your constituents or colleagues to find out about, or a Lyndon Johnson type operator will own you.

It's not easy being a Congressman.

[K.Mooneyham]

As you might expect, amendments are tightly controlled. You can't just make any old amendment you dream up. Moreover, doing that over and over will get you earmarked [pardon me!] as eccentric, and when it comes time to vote on that new dam for your district, or the newer courthouse, or funding the air force base you have been fighting for for twenty years, you may get only one vote.... yours. When you ask for unanimous consent for something, all of a sudden you don't get it.

The way to get along is to go along. Your party leaders can make life easier or harder. Of course, if they make things too hard, a bunch of the followers will get together and throw them out.

If you are lucky, you have no bad habits you don't want your constituents or colleagues to find out about, or a Lyndon Johnson type operator will own you.

It's not easy being a Congressman.

Then perhaps we should stop electing people with things in their background that can be used against them...

[MasterOfNone]

As written, this could apply to the military. If the military were to be excluded by the language of such an amendment, the DC elites would just assign military to protect them.

[tbrown]

We should get a Congressman to attach this amendment to EVERY gun control bill.

"All provisions of this bill and all other Federal gun laws apply equally to any person hired in any capacity to protect another person, regardless of position or status."

So if the people can't have hi-cap mags or assault weapons, neither can the hired security guards of the elites

And if an elitist celebrity (Charlie Sheen) is prohibited from possessing guns at all, then so are his body guards while they are protecting him.

If only it could also apply to the people guarding the politicians pushing the unconstitutional laws. Equal rights for all!

[airboss]

If only it could also apply to the people guarding the politicians pushing the unconstitutional laws. Equal rights for all!

While I share your frustration, the simple fact is that the law is not applied equally. If it were, Jon Corzine would already be in jail. Of course there are many more examples.

[JALLEN]

If you are lucky, you have no bad habits you don't want your constituents or colleagues to find out about, or a Lyndon Johnson type operator will own you.

It's not easy being a Congressman.

Then perhaps we should stop electing people with things in their background that can be used against them...

That has always been a good idea but seldom used with appropriate vigor.

These days, nobody is ashamed of themselves. If you like the ladies, don't like the ladies, have a problem with the ponies, demon rum, football pools, etc., no need to be disgraced. There is even a long serving member of Congress who was impeached for bribery, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office as a US District court judge, a pretty good gig, life during good behavior and all that, for crying out loud. Alcee Hastings D(it goes without saying)-FL. Now serving his 11th term, or 12th. One of a mere handful of men in the 225 years or so of the Constitution to have gotten the boot.

[bdickens]

Then perhaps we should stop electing people with things in their background that can be used against them...

That's a great solution! With no one in office at all, there will be no one at all to oppress the citizenry.

[mojo84]

I don't think amendments should be added to bills. Each issue should stand on its own and be voted on accordingly.

[chasfm11]

As you might expect, amendments are tightly controlled. You can't just make any old amendment you dream up. Moreover, doing that over and over will get you earmarked [pardon me!] as eccentric, and when it comes time to vote on that new dam for your district, or the newer courthouse, or funding the air force base you have been fighting for for twenty years, you may get only one vote.... yours. When you ask for unanimous consent for something, all of a sudden you don't get it.

The way to get along is to go along. Your party leaders can make life easier or harder. Of course, if they make things too hard, a bunch of the followers will get together and throw them out.

If you are lucky, you have no bad habits you don't want your constituents or colleagues to find out about, or a Lyndon Johnson type operator will own you.

It's not easy being a Congressman.

I realize that you are speaking about the Federal House. I watched the debates over the Campus Carry last session in Texas and can tell you from my uneducated perspective that that was EXACTLY what the opponents to that bill were doing - making up any old amendment that they thought up on the spur of the moment. The procedure called for an immediate vote on the amendment and, because there was a Republican majority, all of the stupid amendments were defeated. Ultimately, the legislation failed and not for lack of public support through our elected representatives. In deference to the request to tone down our rhetoric, I'm not going to take this any further.

To my view point, the Texas session was a good thing. It put the individual Representatives on record with their votes rather than the clandestine, behind the scenes wrangling as it is done in Congress today. The local newspaper in Minnesota directly asked Alan Franken's representative whether the senator supported the Obama proposed gun ban legislation. The response was "I don't have an answer for you." HOGWASH. Franken knows darn well that if he publicly comes out in support of the legislation, the voters will take him out at the next election. But he will not go on record as opposing it. Too bad, so sad. He may be asked to vote on a bill and he owes his constituents an answer. From a voter perspective, transparency is a good thing. Cowardice is not.

It is time that we started holding politicians accountable for what they are doing, not letting them do it in the dark in the back rooms where they can later disavow their actions.

with A-R's proposed amendment.