Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article about a committee hearing concerning legislation that would restrict the property rights of schools by preventing them from restricting gun owners from keeping a gun in parking lots on school property. What struck me was the contentious posture apparently taken by some of the lawmakers toward testifying witnesses.
It got especially heated when Zionsville mother Shannon Watts, of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, testified. For every statistic she used, Lucas countered from a book he carried. For every statement she made on mass shootings, another lawmaker would refute. Lucas even pointed out her maiden name and read a list of her previous jobs to note her expertise in media and marketing. And Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, called her disingenuous for supporting background checks and other gun regulations but claiming to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. A representative from the National Rifle Association spoke in support of the bill, but no private citizens did.
Proponents of reduced firearm regulation don’t do themselves any favors by being unnecessarily confrontational. They will tell you that they are promoting self-defense and the constitution. However, they need to be aware that many proponents of increased firearm regulation see firearms as a force enhancer for blowhards who are spoiling for a fight. At this point in the process, Sen. Lucas should have his votes sewn up. Or at least he should have already educated his colleagues on the fence sufficiently that a witness like Watts is incidental to the process. At best, engaging her will do nothing. At worst, it will blow up in his face – making her more important to the process than he had any need to make her.
Also, are firearms still not permitted at the State House? Seems like a decent respect for consistency would make that the first place to drop restrictions.
There is a huge difference between a gun ban in a building or airplane where everyone is searched and a place where you have to depend on voluntarily compliance with the gun ban, a place such as a park or the parking lot of a business or school.
I am not sure I see the difference in a ban when considering voluntary versus involuntary compliance. A ban is a ban. A freedom is a freedom. If they are enforced or not does not matter as to if they are lawful.
On the other hand if you are saying that there is a difference between a law banning guns within a building (e.g., school or State House) and a law banning guns outside a building (e.g., school parking lot or State House parking garage) then, yes, there is a huge difference. I am unsure if the current law prohibits guns outside the State House. Can’t say I’ve ever tried. :-)
Paul, in all the years i’ve known you, I never saw you carrying a shootin’ iron. Has the ol’ neighborhood gotten a lot more dangerous or have you adopted this new right wing shibboleth that carrying a gun anywhere is a sacrament?
So, legislators are more important than children and teachers – simple deduction.
“Proponents of reduced firearm regulation don’t do themselves any favors by being unnecessarily confrontational.”
Says Masson.
“They will tell you that they are promoting self-defense and the constitution. However, they need to be aware that many proponents of increased firearm regulation see firearms as a force enhancer for blowhards who are spoiling for a fight.”
Now who’s being confrontational?
Hate to agree with ‘Freedom’ here but it does seem like less loaded and thus less confrontation wording could have been used. ‘Blowhards’ demeans the other side.
I wasn’t purporting to describe the reality of the situation. Some gun advocates are blowhards. Some are delicate flowers who take to the fainting couches when called a name like “blowhard.” Some are both. Most are neither.
Nonesense, George Zimmerman is an entirely rational man. As was the nice Tampa retired policeman who killed the dude in a movie theater. Gun owners and carriers are always non-confrontational and perfectly rational
So, are gun owners “spoiling for a fight” or “taking to their fainting couches?”
Some are. Some are not.
Lucas and McMillin were displaying poor impulse control at the committee hearing.
Reading comprehension, anyone?
Few people are more likely to take to fainting couches than “Second Amendment advocates,” who frequently misstate the law and are terrified the dam guvmit’s coming to take away their guns. The only ones more ridiculous are the others Doug suggested, i.e., the apocalyptic crusaders planning on their AR-15 stopping a drone or Bradley or helicopter gunship
It’s truly scary to see the Left’s fantasies. Actively hoping for the U.S. Military to attack the very country they are sworn to defend. Actively hoping the U.S. Military will fire on Americans. Actively hoping the U.S. Military will reduce American cities and skylines to rubble.
When New York City looks like this:
http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss335/alopez_17_photo/DestroyedSite.jpg
The Left will be happy, because the U.S. population will be 1/50 of what it was, and guns may be hard to come by.
If guns make us safer, why are we NOT the safest country in the world?