This is a great thoughtful piece about the insanity of unfettered gun ownership:
jsonline: Jim Stingl Here's what I don't get. If concealed carry is such a good idea and is going to make us all safer, why exempt government buildings where lawmakers work?
Or schools for that matter. Think how much safer the kids will be if someone with a gun happens to be around if trouble breaks out in the lunch line or third-hour study hall. You know, it takes a vigilante to raise a child.
If more guns equal more protection, then let's go for it and quit watering down the rules. Maybe we can even start handing out firearms like we do bike helmets and smoke alarms.
We may need to change the license plates to America's Carryland. I'd hate to see the legislators in Madison miss out on this vital protection in their own building. I'm assuming they're going to be armed, too, because that's the best way to ensure you'll survive the workday. So if any of these Madison lefties would bring a weapon into the Capitol, they'd be outgunned. You can see how much safer everyone will be. We could stop wasting everyone's time with these security checkpoints at Milwaukee County Courthouse entrances. This building, too, deserves the same premium level of protection that concealed carry will bring. An armed courthouse is a polite courthouse. And people wouldn't have to surrender their tweezers and knitting needles anymore.
And what's with exempting police stations? They should think of everyone walking through the door as a newly armed deputy, not a potential 10-32 in progress.
Meanwhile, domestic abuse shelters would have no such prohibition. See? They get it. Everybody knows guns save lives.
Don't be left out of the party. Get yourself a gun and some ammo, and let's make Wisconsin truly the home of the packers.
Jim Stingl is usually a rational thinker ... but in the interest of advancing a liberal agenda he is adapting the routine anti-gun assumption; all gun-owners are lunatics/killers/stalkers. There is no differentiation made between law-abiding citizens and the criminals (who are NOW the only ones actually carrying guns). The article is very entertaining - so I got a good chuckle out of it. But it is rhetorically suspect throughout! So! A++ for creativity. D- for factual content. At the end of it all, the message I receive: Jim Stingl does not trust Jim Stingl with a gun! (Jim Stingl is a law abiding citizen. Jim Stingl takes the time and due diligence to earn qualification to carry a gun and learn to use a gun in a responsible manner. Jim Stingl runs amok!)
ReplyDeleteI don't like to make sweeping generalizations so let me put it this way.
ReplyDeleteI would say most "carry" gun owners are paranoid, unstable, over compensating hobbyists, who are threatening my feeling of security guaranteed in the constitution. Not collectors, but scared, frightened carriers of loaded guns.
You actually helped make my argument; with all the gun carriers out there, there will be no way to differentiate law-abiding citizens...and the criminals.
Thank you!