The answer to gun violence is always more guns
In the wake of the Tucson shootings, U.S. Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, introduced a piece of legislation that would bar possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress.
It’s really a silly, even dangerous idea. With all that is going on, why on earth would members of Congress want to deny themselves the sense of security and safety that comes from knowing that at any time, they could be within easy reach of a heavily armed constituent? It’s absurd.
King’s Republican colleague, Louie Gohmert of Texas, has a far better idea.
In fact, rather than merely allow them to carry guns on the House and Senate floor, in the interest of safety we should require it. It might do wonders for civil discourse. Of course, we’d want to limit the guns to those members who could prove their sanity, which might cut down on the participation rate a bit.
Folks out in Arizona would no doubt support the general idea. A co-founder of the Arizona Citizens Defense League tells Dave Weigel of Slate that his group is drafting model legislation that it calls the Gifford-Zimmerman Act. (Gabriel Zimmerman, a Giffords aide, was killed in the attack.)
“It would require the Arizona Department of Public Safety to provide firearms training, using firearms confiscated by the state, to members of Congress and people who work for them,” league co-founder Charles Heller said. “Facilities would be made available to them in a way that wouldn’t interfere with the training of police and other safety employees.”
“”It would enable staffers and legislators, and it would drop gun laws and restrictions,” Heller told the Arizona Republic. “In other words, they could walk into a nuclear facility or school and be armed. It would exempt them from many of the other restrictions that exist in Arizona. Arizona has some fairly tough gun laws.”
Ah yes, those fairly tough gun laws. Arizona is one of just three states that don’t require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and one of six to declare that guns manufactured in Arizona are exempt from federal regulation. At an appearance by President Obama a year ago, more than a dozen protesters showed up armed, legally, including one carrying an AR-15 assault weapon.
(For all you other AR-15 owners out there, a gun company in South Carolina is now offering you — yes, you! — a limited number of lower receivers inscribed with the inspiring words “You lie!”, in homage to U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst at President Obama’s 2009 State of the Union. But you must act now, only 999 available!)
In fact, given the popularity of guns in Arizona, it’s downright amazing that Jared Loughner was able to fire off more than rounds from his high-capacity magazine — you know, the type of magazine that was illegal until we made gun laws weaker again in the name of public safety. Yet nobody with a gun was around to intervene! Imagine! Two unarmed men and a little old lady jumped Loughner and disarmed him as he attempted to reload.
One armed Arizona citizen, Joseph Zamudio, did rush to the scene, gun in hand, after the attack. But as he admitted later, he came around the corner and almost blew away one of the heroes who had subdued Loughner and was standing there holding Loughner’s handgun.
“Horrible, horrible,” Zamudio said. “That’s why I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds … two, maybe three seconds.” But Zamudio intends to keep taking his gun with him everywhere he goes. He doesn’t even want to fly anymore, because he knows that doing so would require him to surrender his gun.
That’s another rule we have to change. In the name of safety of course. Guns on airplanes, just to make everyone more secure.
As Arizona state Sen. Jack Harper told the Arizona Republic, “When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim. The socialists of today are only one gun confiscation away from being the communists of tomorrow.”
It’s really a silly, even dangerous idea. With all that is going on, why on earth would members of Congress want to deny themselves the sense of security and safety that comes from knowing that at any time, they could be within easy reach of a heavily armed constituent? It’s absurd.
King’s Republican colleague, Louie Gohmert of Texas, has a far better idea.
Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert says his office is drafting a measure to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the District of Columbia, including in the Capitol and on the House floor.Now that — that’s a great idea. Brilliant. We want members of Congress to be safer, and guns make you safer, ergo, let’s give them each a gun. Two members, Republican Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Democrat Heath Shuler of North Carolina, have already said they plan to carry concealed weapons in their home districts for protection. But why not on the House and Senate floor as well? What could be safer than 435 armed, argumentative politicians crowded into one House chamber?
Gohmert says he and his colleagues need to be able to protect themselves, in light of the mass shooting in Arizona.
“It’d be a good thing for members of Congress who want to carry a weapon in the District,” he said. “I know friends that walk home from the Capitol. There’s no security for us,” he said, adding that the measure would deter people from attacking members. “There is some protection in having protection.”
In fact, rather than merely allow them to carry guns on the House and Senate floor, in the interest of safety we should require it. It might do wonders for civil discourse. Of course, we’d want to limit the guns to those members who could prove their sanity, which might cut down on the participation rate a bit.
Folks out in Arizona would no doubt support the general idea. A co-founder of the Arizona Citizens Defense League tells Dave Weigel of Slate that his group is drafting model legislation that it calls the Gifford-Zimmerman Act. (Gabriel Zimmerman, a Giffords aide, was killed in the attack.)
“It would require the Arizona Department of Public Safety to provide firearms training, using firearms confiscated by the state, to members of Congress and people who work for them,” league co-founder Charles Heller said. “Facilities would be made available to them in a way that wouldn’t interfere with the training of police and other safety employees.”
“”It would enable staffers and legislators, and it would drop gun laws and restrictions,” Heller told the Arizona Republic. “In other words, they could walk into a nuclear facility or school and be armed. It would exempt them from many of the other restrictions that exist in Arizona. Arizona has some fairly tough gun laws.”
Ah yes, those fairly tough gun laws. Arizona is one of just three states that don’t require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and one of six to declare that guns manufactured in Arizona are exempt from federal regulation. At an appearance by President Obama a year ago, more than a dozen protesters showed up armed, legally, including one carrying an AR-15 assault weapon.
(For all you other AR-15 owners out there, a gun company in South Carolina is now offering you — yes, you! — a limited number of lower receivers inscribed with the inspiring words “You lie!”, in homage to U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst at President Obama’s 2009 State of the Union. But you must act now, only 999 available!)
In fact, given the popularity of guns in Arizona, it’s downright amazing that Jared Loughner was able to fire off more than rounds from his high-capacity magazine — you know, the type of magazine that was illegal until we made gun laws weaker again in the name of public safety. Yet nobody with a gun was around to intervene! Imagine! Two unarmed men and a little old lady jumped Loughner and disarmed him as he attempted to reload.
One armed Arizona citizen, Joseph Zamudio, did rush to the scene, gun in hand, after the attack. But as he admitted later, he came around the corner and almost blew away one of the heroes who had subdued Loughner and was standing there holding Loughner’s handgun.
“Horrible, horrible,” Zamudio said. “That’s why I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds … two, maybe three seconds.” But Zamudio intends to keep taking his gun with him everywhere he goes. He doesn’t even want to fly anymore, because he knows that doing so would require him to surrender his gun.
That’s another rule we have to change. In the name of safety of course. Guns on airplanes, just to make everyone more secure.
As Arizona state Sen. Jack Harper told the Arizona Republic, “When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim. The socialists of today are only one gun confiscation away from being the communists of tomorrow.”
No comments:
Post a Comment