For Me; Not For Thee

Our Betters™ feel a need…

Congress is considering new legislation that would permit lawmakers to carry a concealed firearm …”in nearly every conceivable scenario,” … wherever they perform official duties across the United States, according to a copy of the new bill that marks an unprecedented effort to help lawmakers confront a growing threat to their safety.


Babin maintains the bill “would ensure rank and file Members of Congress have the opportunity to defend themselves by providing them the ability to concealed carry in nearly every scenario with only a few restrictions.”
It is a direct response to the increased threat posed to federal lawmakers.

…erm, but

“With the increase in security threats to Members of Congress and our staffs, this is an important and necessary step that we must take,” Babin said.

uhhh… excuse me…

Members of Congress would be permitted to pay for the training out of their own allowance funds, according to the bill.

And for “free”??!?

And for the rest of us? What about the “increase in security threats” to the rest of US?


Finish your assignment! »

Final thought: Nancy Pelosi with a gat in her bra-holster…
yer walcome.


  1. Daemon
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 6:46 am |

    I’m curious what the Brady Campaign® has to say about this.

  2. JimB
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 6:50 am |

    I want to know who is the first Democrat to get behind this?

  3. drew458
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 7:02 am |

    JimB – the first one that gets mugged in DC?

    Nope. I am utterly against this. Not only is it special law for special people, which is the original definition of privilege – private ledger, aka private law – it goes against my belief that the only people in government who should have guns as part of the job either wear a uniform or carry a badge. Obama armed everybody, from the EPA to the Post Office, and that is WRONG. “If I could have banned them all — ‘Mr. and Mrs. American Government turn in your guns’ — I would have!” .

  4. jlw
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 7:57 am |

    ya know that image of pelosi and her bra that you put in my brain?

    well, i raise you the limit:

  5. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 8:33 am |

    Millions of Americans got a royal shaft from the ACA, either paying taxes to subsidize it or suffering huge premiums and deductibles. The ACA requires members of Congress and many congressional staffers to leave the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and join the ACA health-care exchanges in the District. Through the federal plan, lawmakers and their staff members had about 70 percent of their insurance premiums covered by the federal government.

    But members and their staff members generally make too much money to qualify for subsidies in the exchanges, which were intended for people who previously did not get insurance from employers. So the Obama administration made an exception that allowed them to use the D.C. small-business exchange to receive health-care stipends from their employer (the federal government).

    Yes, you read that correctly. The law allows individual congressional offices to be counted as small businesses of 50 or fewer employees.

    On the exchanges, members and staff members get an employer (i.e., taxpayer) contribution of 72 percent for their premiums. So this allowed them to receive a similar subsidy as they did under the federal health plan.

    After that, why shouldn’t they be allowed a nation wide CHL and free training? What the hell, give them the gun and holster for free too.

    Meanwhile, I’m afraid to go back to my home town of Baltimore (Zimbabwe West), because I’m required to be unarmed in a sub-Saharan tribal war zone.

  6. Merle
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 9:18 am |

    HMMM, if blinky’s pistol went off by “accident”, would she even notice in her current state of oblivion? :)

  7. DougM (flawed)
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 10:23 am |

    I gotta go with Drew^3 on this.
    Congresscritters need to live under the laws that apply to all citizens.
    The Constitution is very clear about when legislators are exempt from the law.
    It’s also what “all men are created equal” means.

    I’m certainly sympathetic with their need to go about armed,
    to which I say, “Welcome to the party, pal !

  8. accipiterNW
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 12:55 pm |

    Will they be filling out the usual paperwork too? Maybe take and pass a piss test too?

  9. Blake
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 1:18 pm |

    Claire, that homework was just mean.

  10. Lord of the Fleas
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 3:00 pm |

    I’m sure we all remember that time when DiFi held yet another newser in the anti-gun effort, and she was waving a dreaded “assault weapon” around the room, pointed at the reporters present, with her FINGER ON THE TRIGGER. And none of the urinalists present had the balls to call her out on that failed effort at mass murder – (not that having a corrupt CA senator killing off a bunch of suck-up MSM doofi would be lacking for entertainment value, y’unnerstand …)

  11. Claire
    Posted June 26, 2017 at 8:46 pm |

    Jlw@5 – . Well.. concealed does mean *concealed*…

  12. Jon Spencer
    Posted June 27, 2017 at 8:09 am |

    I get the image of Sen. Feinstein in her Frank Nitti pinstripe suit packing her Tommy gun. OK, AK but finger on the trigger and ready to rock and roll.

  13. DougM (flawed)
    Posted June 27, 2017 at 9:41 am |

    ^ With a magazine attached and the action closed.
    Somebody needs to kick her firearms-safety instructor in the ass…
    if she ever had one.

  14. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted June 27, 2017 at 3:00 pm |

    kick her firearms-safety instructor in the ass
    That energy would be better expended kicking DiFi in the ass, all the way back to LaLa Land.

  15. Nomen Nescio
    Posted June 27, 2017 at 3:44 pm |

    12, say hello to my leedle fren.