The madness begins indeed. The bottom line is simple. The rule violates the American Constitution's "right to bear arms." It is wrong and should be challenged immediately in court.

Paul, the right to bear a bayonet is quite different from the weapons we have today and the constitution was not written with semi-automatics in mind.

Sonia, the Constitution was written with all arms in mind, including cannons and all other weapons of war available at the time. You clearly do not understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

I thought the madness began when a crazy man got his hands on guns and killed innocent children in Newtown... my mistake.

Another gun-free gun zone. A calling card for the loons.

What is a guns-free zone?

Mother saves family
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

Mother shoots petty thief six times....

petty thief? To funny!!!!
*
Proof you should have training with a gun! Should not have had to waste so many good bullets!!!!!
*
For the record he was not a thief but a terrorist, no different than anyone who commits a crime on the weak. Look at the out come of home invasions in NH over the last 5 years. I won't remind anyone of them individually but those that have forgotten should open their eyes!

If there was no issue before, why were the rules changed two years ago to allow guns? Why make the change then?

It totally wasn't an issue when the Republicans instituted the ban in 1971, it totally wasn't and issue when Republicans expanded the ban in the 90's, and its totally not the issue now that its been reinstated.

False equivalency. You're talking about drunks (ie PEOPLE BREAKING THE LAW) on the highway vs. law-abiding, peaceful citizens carrying guns to protect themselves and others.

Also, you seem to be implying that cars don't kill people, drunk people driving cars do. Sounds oddly familiar....hmm...could it be that guns don't kill people, criminals and crazy people do?!

You should win some kind of award for "Biggest Missed Point So Far in 2013".
In case you hadn't noticed, nearly every mass shooting takes place where guns are banned because criminals don't like to be shot back at.
Before, the NH legislature had little to fear from it.

Good point skram,
We should not ban automobiles but licence those who can use them and have regulations that keep only vehicles that are necessary for simple transportation on the road........

The theater in Colorado was also a gun-free zone. A man who was interviewed said he had a carry permit and could have stopped the senseless carnage. BUT, it was a gun-free zone. Criminals don't read the signs.

@saminnh, drunks and guns? I guess you have it together.

Yeah, if you saw the crazy tea party people waving their guns upstairs looking down at our lawmakers.... our lawmakers were victims to the party of crazy radical tempers with guns...

Yes, well go back to the days like the last 40 years where no one threatened to shoot someone else in the chambers or dropped loaded weapons on the floor.

George Rogers

Ditto "Quack, quack!"

Then keep looking . Starbucks does , bush gardens fla does along with a host of others . There are actualy very few gun free zones. Ya just hear about them alot because thats where the shootings take place.

My company allows guns. I honestly don't even know of any small businesses with 'no gun' policies.

My company doesn't have a no-gun policy either.

Who's going to believe you guys work?

With the loose regulations we have, I'd rather not.....like road rage, there are people with tempers who cannot control themselves, a gun would just make matters worse if the debate gets heated.

When was the last murder at Sandy Hook Elementary school before Adam Lanza turned up to slaughter kids in a gun-free zone?

Just to correct Susan here, the last murders in Concord were in 2005 and 2011, according to police. Neither were at the Statehouse and one involved arson and is an open case.

Two guns pointed at each other during a heated debate in the state house isn't going to help anyone...I'd rather have no guns during heated debates...I've seen crazy people w road rage on a highway traffic slow walk up to other cars and pull the person out to beat the crap out of them...do you think if they had a gun, they wouldn't have used it? Crazy people with tempers everywhere.

A lot of the nut jobs were already in the state house, and they had guns. Now they don't

"Two guns pointed at each other during a heated debate in the state house isn't going to help anyone."

Has that ever happened? Ever?

Don't worry most of the nut jobs were evicted in Noverber.

You have a short memory. Rep. Tasker dropped a loaded handgun on the floor during a hearing in the State House. Had that weapon gone off, all the mostly senior citizen legislators carrying guns could have had a shootout at the OK corral....

Beth, you don't think loaded guns in a room of debate isn't an issue? What's wrong with you?
I can't believe some of you. Gun nuts not thinking.

It's called safety. Dear dear Republicans ran on jobs jobs jobs, and the first day in, they vote on allowing guns in the state house because THAT'S WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT and showed it!

Ok great. So what do YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT ? What did you run on ?

You do not create anything except a more collegial House when you return a rule like this to its previous force.

This is required for the first step to begin working together.

"Like"

I would love that too...I would like them banned for as long as possible until their is proper testing and regulation in place...

Again.. Columbine.. nuff said.. liberalism has been declared a mental illness.. comments like yours are the reason why

The Tin Foil Society is a 'mental illness'.

Of course you don't, because you apparently have an irrational fear of guns. You probably are also under the assumption that if you make someone angry they may shoot you.
Your fear of guns does not override another person's right to carry one.

as pointed out.. Columbine had armed guards.. what Columbine really needed however was armed students and teachers.. foolish people never learn

With one restriction, you can bet more will follow. Your rights are being eroded every day. Someday guns will be restricted to your own home and allowed only if you do not have any children living there and provided they are locked in a gun cabinet or safe. That's where the liberals are headed. I prefer they go to hell.

@Suzzieqd: "It won't stop those intent on causing harm to others from getting them illegally."
Are you aware that the Fort Hood, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Newtown shootings were done with legally owned weapons?

No instead you will continue to pervert the minds of those same fourth graders by brainwashing them into thinking perversion should be considered as " normal. There are things far worse then guns.. when the pedophiles finally win their victory and molesting kids becomes sanctioned by the government because of you fools, then sadly you might understand

Hey , i've got an idea. Lets round up all the tea partiers, gun owners and republicans. Then we'll have a night of outrage when we will all go out into the streets and protest all the bad things that tea partiers and gun owners and republicans have done. Maybe even pull some them out of their houses and put them with the others already rounded up. That night will be remembered as the night of glass... Then all we would need to do is figure out how to make one final solution, so we wont have to worry about those tea partiers, gun owners and republicans any more.

So Ancel Rick, I am guessing from your comment that you are a big fan of Fascism. White supremacy or just you basic garden variety Neo Nazi?

And there's the rub, you have the power but not the brains.. dangerous combination . Like sheeple you bow before your naked emperor.. real patriots do not.

Careful the moonbats want to get rid of that too.. they seem to think liberty and freedom is a nasty thing

That has been a thing of the past for a while now. Have you seen the number of cars on the road who have blocked our state motto? I think they should all go live in another state if they don't like our motto.

spoken like the kings serf.. which if you moonbats have your way you will be

And where in the second amendment is there any mention of any restriction to the right to bear arms?

Steve - only one of the amendments to the Constitution specifically and deliberately includes the words "shall not be infringed", you seem like an intelligent adult so I'm sure you know what those words mean.

If you don't like it there is a process to change it - pass a Constitutional amendment that rewrites or removes the second amendment.

That's precisely what it means; the arms are to be in the hands in the citizens, not the government. Why don't you read about Switzerland and comprehend what you are speaking about.

In case you didn't notice, the John Birchers and other mentally unbalanced wackos where thrown out in November. Only a nearderthal would fall for your line of thought.
In 2014 we will throw out the rest of the TeaNuts, so pack your bags. Move to some Red State, you won't be missed.

The officer was unable to stop a target 60 yards away. That target was a lunatic with a rifle. The officer made the right decision when he realized he was outgunned. Instead of taking more pot shots in the wide open, he was able to radio for help and prevent more death.

If you and all the other anti-gun morons have it your way you will ensure more death by lunatic. Just keep that in mind.

What will your battle cry be when the guns are all taken away and the criminals are free to kill 50 or 80 or an entire school instead of just 10 or 20 ... let me guess "BUT WE SAID NO GUNS!!!!" is that about right???

one armed guard , not in the building at the time the shooting started. The odds favored the attackers.

one armed guard who engaged the shooters before the majority of the students were killed, having weapons is no panacea.

Exactly, the last ban did nothing . A new one will not work any better. Unless of course they tell criminals " but this time we realy mean it"

And there were two armed guards at Columbine- Yet Conservative idiots want everyone to be armed......

There was only one armed Resource Officer at Columbine. Deputy Gardner. He was eating lunch and not in the school at the time. He got to the school after the shooting started. It's an easy google.

Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold before the majority of students were shot, It's an easy google.

you are correct. Columbines one armed resource officer was obviously under trained and ill equipped for that encounter.

"under trained and ill equipped" describes the majority of gun owners.

No Mike, 'ill equipped' is what we'll be if the guns get taken away. As has been stated many times, 'under trained' is still far preferable to ill equipped.
As far as I understand it, the officer didn't stand a chance since he only had a handgun in a long distance firefight with two people with rifles. Indoors, distances are much closer and handguns become the weapon of choice.
Look, if you guys on the left need teachers to be fully trained before they are allowed to carry handguns, then you'll probably find that we on the right will wind up going along with it if that's what it takes. But make no mistake, until teachers are allowed to defend themselves and their students then you're going to have lots more Columbines, Auroras, Sandy Hooks, etc.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Actualy they would probably have been less heated in person. Its a lot easier to shoot ones mouth off under the guise of a made up name behind a screen then in person.

The Larry Correia piece is the piece breakdown of the gun debate I've seen anywhere. Regardless of which side you're on, everyone should read it.

This new rule only asks responsible people to leave their guns outside when they enter the House floor and the Gallery above.

The anti-rule change speeches yesterday did nothing but show how frightened these people are. One woman says she walks to her car with her finger on the trigger of her gun? In Concord? When the guards at the State House would willingly walk or even drive her to her car?

The really frightening part of they whole play was that so many paranoid people who fail to understand that rules and laws hold force over the Constitution... These same people who want the 2nd amendment to stand without question, now demand voting laws be very restrictive.

"This new rule only asks responsible people to leave their guns outside when they enter the House floor and the Gallery above."

In other words, if you're a criminal then it's perfectly acceptable.

Have you ever sat in the House Chamber?

There are State Troopers stationed in the Gallery and outside the chamber door, well trained and with one objective... To keep us safe.
There is little room for one of over 400 people to stand and aim into either access point without encountering an obstacle like a 4th grader.
There are lockboxes available for those who require their gun to get to the State House.

This rule worked before, it was changed to pander certain people, and now it has returned to be as it was for years.

If we ever hope to change the track of gun violence and mental health health problems that leads to massacres we won't do it by whining about returning to the civility we shared before. Step one, stop fighting each other.

The rules were changed two years ago because we had a wave of lunatics voted into the statehouse.

We ask for ID when registering to vote.
Using false equivalencies don't help make your point Steve.

And this discussion isn't about buying guns, it's about returning to a civility rule on the State House Floor and on the Gallery.

You don't need an I.D. to buy a gun.

We do ask for I.D. to vote in New Hampshire.

false equivalency -

ID to register to vote in the place where you live
ID to buy a gun and take it anywhere you like

There are lots of rules and regulations on voting, and now you are even required to show a specific government-issued ID to vote...

That would be like requiring everyone who is carrying to display their gun ID at all times. And having the information on "who owns what" available to everyone.

That would create an equivalency. Sound good?

Who is to say someone with a carry permit will be anything but a victim if someone snaps? Who's to say the person with the carry permit isn't the guy who is going to snap?
Who's to say the person with the carry permit isn't the guy who provides the gun to the person who snaps?

Who is to say the next elected democrat isn't a felon. Who is to say that democrat isn't a socialist. Does anybody ever say healy knows what he is talking about. That of course would be conjecture or innuendo, something like that.

Who is this "healy" guy?

Good catch Flashy,
I was mocking Edwards ridiculous conjecture, with some of my own.

Are you trying to say you have statisical evidence to support the claim that most gun crime is committed by those who legally purchased weapons? There are no guarantees in life, if that's what the gun-banners want. Writing them out of existence by a enacting a new law won't change anything to lower the amount of gun crimes by those who typically commit them- and they don't consult the law or abide by it.

Certainly history tells us that most mass shootings are done by law abiding legal gun owners.

Gun crime and Mass shootings have different demographics, but I would contend that all weapons used in crime were purchased legally by someone, and then lost or stolen because they didn't properly secure it.

That guy gets so lost in his own argument. Amusing. I also find it amusing when I see right-wingers holding their cup of coffee like a beer at a frat house. Honestly.

Tarring and feathering for… passing legislation you don't like? The irony here, you are proposing violence over a bill that is promoting peace.

That would be a sad day for NH...

The disconnect Gun Nuts have is that they think just the possession of a weapon is a magic shield. They all think they are Dirty Harry, itch'en for a fight. That they will be blessed with divine shooting skills by God almighty in the case of an emergency.

Lets talk about Columbine since your statement is the one echoed by every anti-gun nut out there.

Columbine happened in the middle of the "Assault Weapon Ban" time, and several others from 1994 to 2004. Therefore, this ban didn't work last time, and there's no reason to think it would work this time either.

Anything to say now?

Your chances are the same either way.

Mike, you've got some serious reality detachment issues. Read Steve's post again.

And what of everyone else around who have to duck your poorly targeted rounds?

And just where in the constitution are the limitations spelled out?

There was a security guard there when I visited with my children at the door; but I'd be fore metal detectors, no different then court or immigration buildings.

It is absolutely unfathomable to me that the legislature in this state is completely unprotected.
Think about that... the entire legislative body of a whole state... the third largest legislative body in the entire world after the US Congress and the UK Parliament... where it is conceivably perfectly feasible for some wacko to walk in with a grenade... because by most accounts, there's only ever one state trooper on guard at any time... and drop it off the upper balcony, taking out most of the legislators. And yet, the democrats and anti-gun crazies think there isn't a problem here.
Now, if I'm wrong and there is plenty of police protection, then say so. But everything I've heard from reps in this state (and it's not hard to get to know many) leads me to believe that their protection is slim to none.

It was crazy during the health care debate, the Tea Party people were up above watching legislators and swinging their guns...they shouldn't have been let in to begin with, they were obviously nuts and had guns, which brought on the legislation to begin with. Not to mention that our own former Speaker of the NH House, O'Brien had guns dropping out of boxes as staff were moving his stuff out of the office; he was obviously doing a great job watching and being responsible for his multiple guns! One legislator dropped his onto to the floor during session.

Then Sonia, it seems reasonable to me that what would make sense to work on is legislation to punish careless gun owners, not preventing people from carrying in the first place.
Why not arrest gun owners who drop guns on the floor?
Why not bar the public from bringing guns into the viewing area or building, but not legislators, since they have valid business to attend to there?
Why not try to pass sweeping legislation to force gun owners to be more responsible?

I think the point that often missed is that common sense measures would bring less resistance from your political opponents. As it is now, all you're succeeding in doing is convincing people that your real intent is to simply ban all gun ownership. You're going to wind up with a Supreme Court case on your hands and be the laughing stock of the nation when they overrule your bad legislation.
Not to mention getting a bunch of people killed (see the Gun Free School Zones Act).

Some legislators have tempers...would not want them having guns either! Leave it to the trained policemen, professionals, etc.

Of course not , but for some magical reason it will work this time.

No one is trying to "take your guns or ban them", all we want is a little regulation so guns stay in the right hands, like a driver's license. Your reactions are absurd. Were you that afraid when you had to pass your driver's license? Just take the exams and keep your guns. What's the big deal? How many dumb people have you met over the years? Now picture them with guns!

Same regulations you would apply to a person who wants to drive a car. Register and tag at sale, safety classes, shooting practice, then written test, use/safety/shooting test. What are you afraid of?