By now I'm sure everyone who pays attention is aware of the eight Democrats who voted via committee to enact a gun ban in the state house and two other state facilities. I've been following the arguments both in favor of the gun ban as well as those against and I must admit there are some real winners supporting it.
I've compiled a list of what I feel are the five most foolish arguments in favor of the ban along with the reasoning behind why they are foolish.
1) "Several lawmakers expressed concerns not just for their own safety but for the many children who tour the state house and the members of the public who come to observe to testify in the state house and legislative office building." - Maggie Hassan (one of the 8 Democrats who voted for this ban
The old "for the children" argument. This of course is just silly for a couple reasons. Mainly, if someone did intend to harm anyone including the children does Maggie seriously think this ban will amount to anything? And if it's just the sight of a gun that she feels may cause harm to the children then she has a serious mental disorder and should seek help. A gun is nothing more then an object, yes it can harm but so can a knife, a baseball bat or any other number of objects commonly found in a home. Children should be taught to respect guns just as they are taught to respect other dangerous objects like matches but it is unhealthy to have a fear of these objects.
By creating a "gun free zone" where you don't see any guns this gives the impression of safety but does it really protect? Did having a gun free zone at Virginia Tech protect anyone? Did having a gun free school zone at Columbine protect anyone?
Did any of the reporters standing around waiting for Reagan to come out see Hinkley's gun before he opened fire?
Did anyone see Mark David Chapman carrying his gun before he shot and killed John Lennon?
Just because you don't see a gun or because those who follow the law are prevented from carrying a gun does not equate to safety. In the case of Reagan, he was surrounded by trained police and armed secrete service and he was still shot. If someone wants to cause you harm they will; the only thing this gun ban will do is strip away the rights of those who don't wish to cause harm and wish to follow the law.
2) Maggie didn't stop at the for the children argument, she also made this claim: "Its our responsiblity and good policy to ensure a climate of civility where many differeing opinions can be safely shared. These policies are appropriately considered as part of the responsibilities of the Legislative Facilities Committee."
Actually Maggie, the first and foremost job of an elected official and a job you swear an oath to uphold is to protect and honor the Constitutions of both the federal government and the state of NH.
Which brings us to argument number three also made in the response Maggie sent out in response to why she would support this ban.
3) "Moreover, the US Supreme Court just ruled in 2008 that its decision to overrule a gun ban in Washington D.C. did not extend to bans in government buildings, so there is no 2nd Amendment issue here."
In the Supreme Court Case of DC Vs Heller, which she is referring to the Supreme Court wrote the following in their opinion:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
So she is correct in her statement however this is a misleading remark because this matter would also fall under the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire which states:
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
How can you defend the state as the state constitution says we have the right to do when you are prevented from carrying out that right in state buildings?
4) "For every example where crimes were stopped by people having a gun, there are just as many where people failed to stop a crime, despite carrying a gun." - comment made on the Telegraph's website in response to their article about the ban.
So because not everyone who carried was able to prevent the crime, all peaceful citizens should lose their right? This argument makes zero sense.
5) "If all 304,059,724 Americans were armed, do you think the 16,272 murders a
year would go down or up?" - Also in the Telegraph's feedback section.
This has got to be the sillies comment of all.
Why not ask if magic wands were real if crime would go up or down?
This question also demonstrates the lack of knowledge those on the left have of our own state constitution which states:
[Art.] 13. [Conscientious Objectors not Compelled to Bear Arms.] No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto.
So there will never be a case where everyone in NH has a gun. We cannot force people to arm themselves.
That aside however it also ignores facts. In every location where guns are more prominent in law abiding citizens crime goes down. So facts show that the answer to the question would be crime would go down. The book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott goes into great detail proving this and I would highly recommend it to anyone who questions whether this is true or not. He explores not just regions of our own country but other countries as well.
All arguments aside though, what I find most telling about this ban is how it was enacted. In 2008 Democrats attempted to pass a law accomplishing this same thing (HB 1354). It was voted down 279-19 and Kjellman, the prime sponsor of the bill was voted out of office in her primary.
Three of the 19 who voted for that failed bill were members of this committee as is the current house speaker.
Terie Norelli (D)...............Presiding (House speaker)
Mary Jane Wallner (D)......ITL
Marjorie Smith (D)...........ITL
Daniel Eaton (D)..............ITL
The timing of this was also interesting. Of the four Republicans on the committee only three voted against it, the fourth was not present because they didn't know this was even coming up since it wasn't listed on the agenda for the meeting. And here it is the week before Christmas when most people aren't watching the news that closely and are instead preoccupied with family and holiday obligations.
Do you think it was intentional that they waited until now when the fallout from this action will occur mostly when people aren't paying attention? I do.
Another is to write to your state representatives and make it clear you will not support anyone who supports disarming law abiding citizens.
Also don't be afraid to show up at one of the protests, there is already one planned for today December 23rd at 3 PM at the state house and I'm sure there will be many more.