Republican kills CCW bill because... Gay Marriage

Nebraska's unicameral legislating body works amazingly well, but occasionally thanks to morons, it gets stupid once in a while...

Seriously, the writing is on the wall and well past dried. Let the gay marriage issue go, you're fucking up by clinging to it.

____________________________________________________________

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/johannes-paulsen/ne-state-senator-kills-military-spouse-ccw-bill-because-gay-marriage/

As reported earlier, the Nebraska legislature was considering a measure sponsored by State Senator Dave Bloomfield that would exempt military spouses from the standard 180-day waiting period to ‘establish residency’ in the Cornhusker State before they could apply for a license to carry a concealed firearm. The legislature has now tabled the bill, though, due to concern on the part of Senator Bloomfield, that the bill might cause “uncertainty” because…the Supreme Court will be reviewing cases involving same sex marriage this summer.

A bill that surprisingly combined gay marriage and guns in the Nebraska Legislature appears done for the year.

Sen. Dave Bloomfield of Hoskins has asked that his concealed handgun bill be put on hold, meaning it won’t come up for second-round consideration this session. The senator said he wants to take up the bill again next year, after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.

Legislative Bill 190 would have allowed the spouses of nonresident military personnel to apply for permits to carry concealed handguns. State law currently allows nonresident military members to obtain the permits without having to wait 180 days to establish residency….

Bloomfield said Monday he didn’t think the amendment undermined Nebraska’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. But he decided that with the Supreme Court planning to rule on the issue this summer, there was no reason to invite uncertainty by proceeding with his bill.

“How we got the whole issue of gay marriage combined with concealed carry is beyond me,” he said.

The bill advanced to the second-round of debate by a 37-4 vote. A solid majority of senators had signed on as co-sponsors before the bill was amended.


Of course, it became an issue because State Senator Paul Schumacher proposed an amendment that would protect everyone who met the military’s definition of “spouse.” That includes spouses of the same gender.

Senator Bloomfield reportedly earned an endorsement from the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund in 2012.

No matter; if Senators Bloomfield and Schumacher are interested in strengthening the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in Nebraska, perhaps they could jointly introduce a bill that would allow all non-residents a chance to apply for and obtain a license. That way, Senator Bloomfield wouldn’t have to worry unnecessarily about what married folk do with their nether regions.

Under that proposal, the relatively small number of same-sex spouses married to military personnel stationed in Nebraska would be able to obtain a license to carry a firearm, right along with the rest of the state’s law-abiding citizenry.

Is it an open carry state? Phone Post 3.0

I don't believe so... But whenever I go home I always carry concealed anyway, so I don't worry about it. Phone Post 3.0

Wasn't the liberals this time... Bloomfield just didn't realize what he'd put in his own bill. Not that it should matter. Phone Post 3.0

More people should open carry, here and there.
A country of citizens that don't know their rights. :-( Phone Post 3.0

You can be FREE to carry weapons and even hide them, but you can't be FREE to we'd whoever you love. Amurica! Phone Post 3.0

^^^well guns are in the constitution and marriage is not but I do feel bad for the poor fundamentalist LDS

As an aside, it's so fucking ludicrous how politicians piggy back completely unrelated laws. 

horrible.

FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - You can be FREE to carry weapons and even hide them, but you can't be FREE to we'd whoever you love. Amurica! Phone Post 3.0


All the fruitbats say shit like this yet theyre perfectly ok with many restrictions on "marrying whoever you love".



The person has to be of legal marrying age. So all the people attracted to kids are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a non-blood relative. So all the people attracted to legal adults within their family are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a human being. So all the people attracted to animals or objects are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



It has to be limited to one person. So all the people attracted to multiple legal adults that want to marry them are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



Ultimately, why is it so hard to add one more restriction to the many that the majority of people are already ok with? 



The person has to be of the opposite gender. Whats so unreasonable about that?



When you break it down to the core, everyone has the exact same rights. Nobody can "marry" an individual of the same sex. Being gay doesnt magically entitle you to something nobody else can do.



Any moreso than being a pedofile or attracted to animals or trees or any other bullshit entitles you special privileges.



Youre free to live in peace as long as you dont break laws, but why on earth would you be entitled to state-sanctioning of your deviant lifestyle?



You do realize that we're wasting countless amounts of mental energy on an issue that is relevant for maybe 2% of the population?

HELWIG - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - You can be FREE to carry weapons and even hide them, but you can't be FREE to we'd whoever you love. Amurica! Phone Post 3.0


All the fruitbats say shit like this yet theyre perfectly ok with many restrictions on "marrying whoever you love".



The person has to be of legal marrying age. So all the people attracted to kids are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a non-blood relative. So all the people attracted to legal adults within their family are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a human being. So all the people attracted to animals or objects are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



It has to be limited to one person. So all the people attracted to multiple legal adults that want to marry them are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



Ultimately, why is it so hard to add one more restriction to the many that the majority of people are already ok with? 



The person has to be of the opposite gender. Whats so unreasonable about that?



When you break it down to the core, everyone has the exact same rights. Nobody can "marry" an individual of the same sex. Being gay doesnt magically entitle you to something nobody else can do.



Any moreso than being a pedofile or attracted to animals or trees or any other bullshit entitles you special privileges.



Youre free to live in peace as long as you dont break laws, but why on earth would you be entitled to state-sanctioning of your deviant lifestyle?



You do realize that we're wasting countless amounts of mental energy on an issue that is relevant for maybe 2% of the population?


I usually read without logging in, but I had to log in after reading this to tell you that you're an idiot.

"The person has to be a human being."

yes. very good Helwig. by defintion

HELWIG - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - You can be FREE to carry weapons and even hide them, but you can't be FREE to we'd whoever you love. Amurica! Phone Post 3.0


All the fruitbats say shit like this yet theyre perfectly ok with many restrictions on "marrying whoever you love".



The person has to be of legal marrying age. So all the people attracted to kids are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a non-blood relative. So all the people attracted to legal adults within their family are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a human being. So all the people attracted to animals or objects are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



It has to be limited to one person. So all the people attracted to multiple legal adults that want to marry them are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



Ultimately, why is it so hard to add one more restriction to the many that the majority of people are already ok with? 



The person has to be of the opposite gender. Whats so unreasonable about that?



When you break it down to the core, everyone has the exact same rights. Nobody can "marry" an individual of the same sex. Being gay doesnt magically entitle you to something nobody else can do.



Any moreso than being a pedofile or attracted to animals or trees or any other bullshit entitles you special privileges.



Youre free to live in peace as long as you dont break laws, but why on earth would you be entitled to state-sanctioning of your deviant lifestyle?



You do realize that we're wasting countless amounts of mental energy on an issue that is relevant for maybe 2% of the population?


lol... Well when you put it like that...

HELWIG - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - You can be FREE to carry weapons and even hide them, but you can't be FREE to we'd whoever you love. Amurica! Phone Post 3.0


All the fruitbats say shit like this yet theyre perfectly ok with many restrictions on "marrying whoever you love".



The person has to be of legal marrying age. So all the people attracted to kids are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a non-blood relative. So all the people attracted to legal adults within their family are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a human being. So all the people attracted to animals or objects are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



It has to be limited to one person. So all the people attracted to multiple legal adults that want to marry them are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



Ultimately, why is it so hard to add one more restriction to the many that the majority of people are already ok with? 



The person has to be of the opposite gender. Whats so unreasonable about that?



When you break it down to the core, everyone has the exact same rights. Nobody can "marry" an individual of the same sex. Being gay doesnt magically entitle you to something nobody else can do.



Any moreso than being a pedofile or attracted to animals or trees or any other bullshit entitles you special privileges.



Youre free to live in peace as long as you dont break laws, but why on earth would you be entitled to state-sanctioning of your deviant lifestyle?



You do realize that we're wasting countless amounts of mental energy on an issue that is relevant for maybe 2% of the population?



lol @ "well, we've restricted freedoms there, so why is it so unreasonable to restrict freedoms here?"



Apply that logic to any of the fundamental freedoms and you'll see how ridiculous it is.  You can't just lump infringements together and act like it's all the same, and therefore ok.  It's a case by case basis. 



I can't justify denying marriage between consenting adults, regardless of whether or not they're blood relations.  The slightly increased likelihood of a birth defect doesn't justify denying them freedom.



Marriage, as far the state is concerned, is largely about taxing.  I'm not sure on the tax implications of polygamy.  I see no real argument against polygamy, but there will be tax implications that may be complicated.  I'm not well enough versed in that to know the situation though, but polygamy should be fine.



The kids/animals/trees restriction is warranted by the fact that not all parties are able to properly consent to the marriage.  

LOL@ all of this

HELWIG -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - You can be FREE to carry weapons and even hide them, but you can't be FREE to we'd whoever you love. Amurica! Phone Post 3.0


All the fruitbats say shit like this yet theyre perfectly ok with many restrictions on "marrying whoever you love".



The person has to be of legal marrying age. So all the people attracted to kids are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a non-blood relative. So all the people attracted to legal adults within their family are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a human being. So all the people attracted to animals or objects are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



It has to be limited to one person. So all the people attracted to multiple legal adults that want to marry them are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



Ultimately, why is it so hard to add one more restriction to the many that the majority of people are already ok with? 



The person has to be of the opposite gender. Whats so unreasonable about that?



When you break it down to the core, everyone has the exact same rights. Nobody can "marry" an individual of the same sex. Being gay doesnt magically entitle you to something nobody else can do.



Any moreso than being a pedofile or attracted to animals or trees or any other bullshit entitles you special privileges.



Youre free to live in peace as long as you dont break laws, but why on earth would you be entitled to state-sanctioning of your deviant lifestyle?



You do realize that we're wasting countless amounts of mental energy on an issue that is relevant for maybe 2% of the population?

There is one thing I never understood about the gay lobby.
Most I've encountered, including family, are dead set on "weeding out the gene pool", and are dead serious about that, concerning those who don't agree with them.
But considering the percentage of homosexuality rising as traditional religious views decline, it seems to me by lack of reproduction, they'd be weeding themselves out. Phone Post 3.0

Oops, didn't mean to quote... Phone Post 3.0

Mencken - 
HELWIG - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - You can be FREE to carry weapons and even hide them, but you can't be FREE to we'd whoever you love. Amurica! Phone Post 3.0


All the fruitbats say shit like this yet theyre perfectly ok with many restrictions on "marrying whoever you love".



The person has to be of legal marrying age. So all the people attracted to kids are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a non-blood relative. So all the people attracted to legal adults within their family are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



The person has to be a human being. So all the people attracted to animals or objects are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



It has to be limited to one person. So all the people attracted to multiple legal adults that want to marry them are shit out of luck. Who cares, right?



Ultimately, why is it so hard to add one more restriction to the many that the majority of people are already ok with? 



The person has to be of the opposite gender. Whats so unreasonable about that?



When you break it down to the core, everyone has the exact same rights. Nobody can "marry" an individual of the same sex. Being gay doesnt magically entitle you to something nobody else can do.



Any moreso than being a pedofile or attracted to animals or trees or any other bullshit entitles you special privileges.



Youre free to live in peace as long as you dont break laws, but why on earth would you be entitled to state-sanctioning of your deviant lifestyle?



You do realize that we're wasting countless amounts of mental energy on an issue that is relevant for maybe 2% of the population?



lol @ "well, we've restricted freedoms there, so why is it so unreasonable to restrict freedoms here?"



Apply that logic to any of the fundamental freedoms and you'll see how ridiculous it is.  You can't just lump infringements together and act like it's all the same, and therefore ok.  It's a case by case basis. 



I can't justify denying marriage between consenting adults, regardless of whether or not they're blood relations.  The slightly increased likelihood of a birth defect doesn't justify denying them freedom.



Marriage, as far the state is concerned, is largely about taxing.  I'm not sure on the tax implications of polygamy.  I see no real argument against polygamy, but there will be tax implications that may be complicated.  I'm not well enough versed in that to know the situation though, but polygamy should be fine.



The kids/animals/trees restriction is warranted by the fact that not all parties are able to properly consent to the marriage.  


Polygamy was soley about religious descrimination against Mormons...

But we're getting off topic.

Embracing of the religious right really is killing the republican party. It alienates so many people because of their insanity and their stance on shit that shouldn't fucking matter.

Only thing worse than bad guys with guns are gay spouses with guns