BREAKING! Congressman Steve Scalise, Aides shot at baseball practice

[skeeter]

Isn't that already in the Constitution?

[Mom MD]

@mountaineer

3rd surgery in less than 24 hours is NOT good.

Actually these procedures are usually staged   The first one may have been in interventional radiology to identify where the bleeding was and to try to embolize it.  Then to the OR to control the rest of the bleeding and repair any organ damage   After that the patient will be allowed to stabilize
Before tackling less urgent things like pinning fractures and dealing with more minor injuries.  He may need several more procedures again depending on what his injuries actually are

[Sanguine]

Actually these procedures are usually staged   The first one may have been in interventional radiology to identify where the bleeding was and to try to embolize it.  Then to the OR to control the rest of the bleeding and repair any organ damage   After that the patient will be allowed to stabilize
Before tackling less urgent things like pinning fractures and dealing with more minor injuries.  He may need several more procedures again depending on what his injuries actually are

Good to know.

[Bigun]

Actually these procedures are usually staged   The first one may have been in interventional radiology to identify where the bleeding was and to try to embolize it.  Then to the OR to control the rest of the bleeding and repair any organ damage   After that the patient will be allowed to stabilize
Before tackling less urgent things like pinning fractures and dealing with more minor injuries.  He may need several more procedures again depending on what his injuries actually are

Thanks for the info!  My oldest daughter is a trauma certified RN and has said very much the same thing.

[catfish1957]

Actually these procedures are usually staged   The first one may have been in interventional radiology to identify where the bleeding was and to try to embolize it.  Then to the OR to control the rest of the bleeding and repair any organ damage   After that the patient will be allowed to stabilize
Before tackling less urgent things like pinning fractures and dealing with more minor injuries.  He may need several more procedures again depending on what his injuries actually are

Thanks.... your expertise and explanations are very much appreciated during times like these.

[musiclady]

Actually these procedures are usually staged   The first one may have been in interventional radiology to identify where the bleeding was and to try to embolize it.  Then to the OR to control the rest of the bleeding and repair any organ damage   After that the patient will be allowed to stabilize
Before tackling less urgent things like pinning fractures and dealing with more minor injuries.  He may need several more procedures again depending on what his injuries actually are

Once again, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.

The rest of us are just guessing what things mean.

[musiclady]

I wasn't calling for anyone to put his or her head in the sand. Just asking for a little civility and focus while we're commenting on this thread.

For some that is an exceedingly difficult task.

Focus, people....... FOCUS!

[Rivergirl]

I am firmly in the camp of state's rights.  If  a state wants to allow open carry I am fine with that.  If the state wants to ban certain types of firearms, then it's up to the citizen to vote with their feet.
I have had more than enough of executive orders.
The NRA has been standing the breech of gun control fanatics and second amendment folks.

[driftdiver]

I am firmly in the camp of state's rights.  If  a state wants to allow open carry I am fine with that.  If the state wants to ban certain types of firearms, then it's up to the citizen to vote with their feet.
I have had more than enough of executive orders.
The NRA has been standing the breech of gun control fanatics and second amendment folks.

States rights where they don't interfere with those specific granted to the federal.   Like the 2nd amendment.   Why is it only the 2nd amendment that we allow states to split hairs on?   Why  not the 19th amendment?

[Jazzhead]

I am firmly in the camp of state's rights.  If  a state wants to allow open carry I am fine with that.  If the state wants to ban certain types of firearms, then it's up to the citizen to vote with their feet.
I have had more than enough of executive orders.
The NRA has been standing the breech of gun control fanatics and second amendment folks.

   IMO, a federal rule that compels a state that doesn't choose to permit open carry to allow visitors from other states to brandish their weapons is a basic violation of state sovereignty and traditional principles of federalism.

An analogous situation would be recreational marijuana.  Just because I can go to Colorado to purchase legal pot doesn't mean I can't be arrested for pot possession if I'm caught holding the stuff back here in Pennsylvania.   Now I personally favor the legalization of weed and would support making it so in my home state.   But for the feds to compel Pennsy to recognize another state's marijuana laws would be an affront to Pennsylvania's rights as a sovereign state to control the spread of weed within its borders.   

[Just_Victor]

I am firmly in the camp of state's rights.  If  a state wants to allow open carry I am fine with that.  If the state wants to ban certain types of firearms, then it's up to the citizen to vote with their feet.
I have had more than enough of executive orders.
The NRA has been standing the breech of gun control fanatics and second amendment folks.

The 2nd amendment is universal, applying to the states.  I would point out the wording of other amendments by comparison.  1st amendment starts with, "Congress shall make no law...".  The 2nd amendment has no such restriction on jurisdiction.  It says simply, "shall not be infringed."  That applies to the states as well as the fed.

[Mom MD]

   IMO, a federal rule that compels a state that doesn't choose to permit open carry to allow visitors from other states to brandish their weapons is a basic violation of state sovereignty and traditional principles of federalism.

An analogous situation would be recreational marijuana.  Just because I can go to Colorado to purchase legal pot doesn't mean I can't be arrested for pot possession if I'm caught holding the stuff back here in Pennsylvania.   Now I personally favor the legalization of weed and would support making it so in my home state.   But for the feds to compel Pennsy to recognize another state's marijuana laws would be an affront to Pennsylvania's rights as a sovereign state to control the spread of weed within its borders.   

Marijuana is not a right specifically protected by the constitution.  The RKBA is. Big difference.

[Jazzhead]

Marijuana is not a right specifically protected by the constitution.  The RKBA is. Big difference.

The issue is federalism.   The RKBA is not a right to open carry.  Each state can and does make that determination on its own.   

[skeeter]

The issue is federalism.   The RKBA is not a right to open carry.  Each state can and does make that determination on its own.

Its not a right to open carry only to those willing to overlook the literal meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment.

BTW not directed at you but I'm always amazed at those willing to ignore the actual words in the Constitution but totally accepting of constitutional 'penumbras' and 'emanations' as if they are gospel.

[Sighlass]

The RKBA is not a right to open carry.  Each state can and does make that determination on its own.   

Yes it is, the only right not granted is to the right to openly threaten someone who is not endangering you while carrying.

__________________

Guess we are getting off subject here... so yeah, I will drop it.

[INVAR]

IMO, a federal rule that compels a state that doesn't choose to permit open carry to allow visitors from other states to brandish their weapons is a basic violation of state sovereignty and traditional principles of federalism.

It's amusing to note that you find that federalism does not apply to an enumerated right like the right to keep and bear arms, but you shout aloud that federalism applies to forcing something NOT enumerated (i.e.:homosexual marriage) down all of our throats, and screw the traditional principles that we were established by to force people to violate their consciences and religious exercise when it suits you.

[truth_seeker]

   IMO, a federal rule that compels a state that doesn't choose to permit open carry to allow visitors from other states to brandish their weapons is a basic violation of state sovereignty and traditional principles of federalism.

An analogous situation would be recreational marijuana.  Just because I can go to Colorado to purchase legal pot doesn't mean I can't be arrested for pot possession if I'm caught holding the stuff back here in Pennsylvania.   Now I personally favor the legalization of weed and would support making it so in my home state.   But for the feds to compel Pennsy to recognize another state's marijuana laws would be an affront to Pennsylvania's rights as a sovereign state to control the spread of weed within its borders.   

How about a person holding a valid prescription for Medical MJ from California, traveling to PA?

Similarly a person holding a valid Open Carry permit from Wyoming, travelling to PA?

[Mom MD]

It's amusing to note that you find that federalism does not apply to an enumerated right like the right to keep and bear arms, but you shout aloud that federalism applies to forcing something NOT enumerated (i.e.:homosexual marriage) down all of our throats, and screw the traditional principles that we were established by to force people to violate their consciences and religious exercise when it suits you.

What do you expect from the resident liberal?   

[Mom MD]

How about a person holding a valid prescription for Medical MJ from California, traveling to PA?

Similarly a person holding a valid Open Carry permit from Wyoming, travelling to PA?

You shouldn't need a permit to carry   That's the problem

[endicom]

BOTH of those cops were black,and the one that was shot in the ankle and still continued to return fire was a female.  I am personally steamed the media hasn't been on a major push to make heroes out of both of them.

The problem may be the abuse that publicity would bring them. My guess is that they are now being cursed and threatened for protecting a Republican.

[txradioguy]

   IMO, a federal rule that compels a state that doesn't choose to permit open carry to allow visitors from other states to brandish their weapons is a basic violation of state sovereignty and traditional principles of federalism.

An analogous situation would be recreational marijuana.  Just because I can go to Colorado to purchase legal pot doesn't mean I can't be arrested for pot possession if I'm caught holding the stuff back here in Pennsylvania.   Now I personally favor the legalization of weed and would support making it so in my home state.   But for the feds to compel Pennsy to recognize another state's marijuana laws would be an affront to Pennsylvania's rights as a sovereign state to control the spread of weed within its borders.   

So I guess the whole 2nd Amendment thing that already exists and guarantees anyone living in any state the right to keep and bear arms means nothing to you?

[thackney]

The issue is federalism.   The RKBA is not a right to open carry.  Each state can and does make that determination on its own.

I can see the argument (but not agree) that RKBA does not include conceal carry, but open carry and bear arms is one and the same.

Which rights in the first amendment do you find appropriate for a state to require a permit, fee and background check before a citizen can perform?

[sneakypete]

Isn't that already in the Constitution?

@Sanguine

No. Open carry is in the Constitution. The government,IF they are going to follow their own damn rules,can NOT keep you from carrying a gun because of the 2nd Amendment. They can keep you from hiding one on your person,though.

[sneakypete]

The problem may be the abuse that publicity would bring them. My guess is that they are now being cursed and threatened for protecting a Republican.

@endicom

You may be right,but you can bet your bippy the DC PD will help protect them.

They are both genuine heroes,and their courage and devotion to duty while under fire NEEDS to be recognized by their department and by the citizens of DC. Anything less is an insult.

[Mom MD]

@Sanguine

No. Open carry is in the Constitution. The government,IF they are going to follow their own damn rules,can NOT keep you from carrying a gun because of the 2nd Amendment. They can keep you from hiding one on your person,though.

I disagree   The right to keep and bear arms period.  There is no mention of how to bear (open/concealed/on the hip/over the shoulder).  The term shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.  I'm not a fan of open carry, I don't like the attention it draws but I would not tell someone else they could not open carry