Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
ID pro-gun legislators turn anti-gun when their laws allow creepy guy to carry a gun in the Capitol
This story is a couple of months old, but I never heard about it until now. I wanted to make sure no one else missed it because it says so much about how gun lovers can turn anti-gun very quickly when the loose carry laws they promoted start to threaten them...
This story is beyond priceless. Idaho gun-nut lawmakers are very disturbed about an armed man who walked around the state Capitol building, alongside a tour of Cub and Boy Scouts, in part because he was armed.
And so what? I thought guns made us safer. Why should it matter if the man was armed? He was simply exercising his Second Amendment rights, right? Sure, he might have had plans to murder all the kids, or take out a few state legislators, but that’s the price you pay for our precious constitutional freedoms.
Seriously though, after you read through the story, it’s still not clear, from a gun-nut perspective, what the problem is here? If the guy was creepy because he was tagging along with a bunch of kids, and going through legislators’ desks (another part of the story), then fine, he’s creepy. But the fact that he was armed should have nothing to do with the creepiness because, remember, guns don’t kill people. And in fact, the Idaho state Capitol lifted an earlier ban on bringing firearms into the building, so what’s the problem? He was simply following the expressed intent of the Idaho gun-loving legislature.
As for the Cub and Boy Scouts, there’s an easy solution to the creepy factor here. Just arm the kids too. And any of the legislators who were creeped out about their own personal safety should simply carry guns as well. Then the entire building would be armed to the teeth and picture-perfect safe.
And so what? I thought guns made us safer. Why should it matter if the man was armed? He was simply exercising his Second Amendment rights, right? Sure, he might have had plans to murder all the kids, or take out a few state legislators, but that’s the price you pay for our precious constitutional freedoms.
Seriously though, after you read through the story, it’s still not clear, from a gun-nut perspective, what the problem is here? If the guy was creepy because he was tagging along with a bunch of kids, and going through legislators’ desks (another part of the story), then fine, he’s creepy. But the fact that he was armed should have nothing to do with the creepiness because, remember, guns don’t kill people. And in fact, the Idaho state Capitol lifted an earlier ban on bringing firearms into the building, so what’s the problem? He was simply following the expressed intent of the Idaho gun-loving legislature.
As for the Cub and Boy Scouts, there’s an easy solution to the creepy factor here. Just arm the kids too. And any of the legislators who were creeped out about their own personal safety should simply carry guns as well. Then the entire building would be armed to the teeth and picture-perfect safe.
http://americablog.com/2013/01/idaho-gun-nut-lawmakers-freak-out-over-gun-nut-in-the-state-capitol-even-though-guns-are-permitted.html
I can't post the rest without violating the four paragraph rule, but go read it because the hypocrisy exposed in the article says a lot about what hypocrites the NRA advocates are.
Not everyone should be able to carry a gun in public and even the gun nuts know it, they deny it is an issue until they start to feel threatened by it and suddenly the guns they love so much put them in a dangerous situation.
The gun nut who was carrying at the ID Capitol was perfectly legal, not only was what he was doing legal he was carrying a gun just like the NRA endorsed politicians who he was freaking out were advocating for him to do. They didn't think they were advocating for this particular guy to have a gun, but they were doing exactly that and now all their advocacy of people taking "self defense" into their own hands put them into a situation in which they realized they had no way to defend themselves.
They wanted to believe they could just shoot the bad guy with a gun when he came their way, but their laws made it perfectly legal for a guy they thought might be a bad guy with a gun to walk into their Capitol building fully armed. They can't shoot someone who is legally carrying unless he directly threatened them first and the police can't do anything because the NRA tools made the laws so weak it completely tied their hands, so the gun nut legislators who voted to allow this just had to sit and hope the guy did not open fire.
They tell us that concealed carry is needed for self defense, what they don't like to talk about is the fact that their laws allow the "bad guy with a gun" to carry weapons in public and there is nothing we can do to stop them. The Idaho legislators figured this out for a short time, but of course like all bought and sold politicians they will go right back to promoting the NRA line despite their own personal experience that should have proven to them that not everyone should be allowed to carry a gun.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
