Sober Talk From New Hampshire Democrats on Assault Weapons?

The Union Leader has an editorial out this morning that quotes some members of New Hampshire Democrat leadership as tip-toeing around the current wave of rhetoric and discussion on what to do about guns.

Instead, they are asking what are probably important questions about mental health services but I suspect that their interest here is more about using Newtown as a way to grow the state budget…for mental health.  Rolling back the right to self defense is not necessarily the quickest route to more government and it is important to keep your eyes on the prize.

State Senate Democrat Sylvia Larsen, however, is reported as wanting to take a more aggressive approach on guns.  She is all in on an assault on assault weapon and would like to roll back stand your ground laws, and restrict carry rights in the State House.  So perhaps this would be a good time to ask?  Do you wait for the assailant to change clips before you draw your weapon (assuming you are permitted to have it with you) or are you just supposed to run away and hope their aim stinks?

Update: The NH House rules committee, now run by Democrats, predictably banned guns from the House controlled portions of the State House yesterday by a vote of 6-4.   The measure must now go to a floor vote.

You are reading  "Sober Talk From New Hampshire Democrats on Assault Weapons?"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Guns vs Progressives

After 12 more hours the Londonderry News on-line polling percentages tell the same story.  People who vote on polls at the Londonderry news would (so far) overwhelmingly allow their fourth grader into the New Hampshire State House even though it is not a Gun Free Zone.

For those reading this from  police states like Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey...Venezuela, Cuba and so on, you might be asking what the hell am I talking about?  Allow me to review.

In New Hampshire you can carry a firearm openly just about anywhere.  You may also carry concealed and or in your vehicle with a permit at the very reasonable price of $10.00 for residents, renewable every four years, I believe.  You fill out a one page form, no fingerprints, no photos, just a few questions, which you submit to your town.

If you are not a convicted felon, domestic spouse abuser or drug user, and not certified as having a mental illness, odds are good you will get the license.

People who were raised in liberal bastions or who have not been adequately deprogrammed every day after returning home form the government run propaganda ministry (public school system) may be reading this with their mouths agape. Oh My God!  They all have GUNZZZ! (You can also add "What about the CHILDREN! at no additional cost.)

Fear-not brainwashed victims of a decades-long (not so secret) government "experiment" run by the media, entertainment, and Edu-cution industrial complex.  Despite being armed to the teeth, New Hampshire is consistently one of the safest states in the nation, and always has one of the highest quality of life rating. (Liberals will tell you there is no connection.)

To the lefts credit, we did very briefly have a gun ban in the state house in the last year of their tenure in the majority, but a shift from a Democrat majority to a Republican super majority--and perhaps adding to the rules that the members of the House have the right to carry on the floor of the chamber as well--has set the democrats and their progressive leash-holders into a brow-furrowing, lip-spittling tizzy over the ban's repeal.  So to appeal to the populace they have decided to pull out the template and use the 'for the children' narrative, in a PR campaign to make the Republicans appear to be putting 'the children' at risk.

Add the Arizona shooting, in a public space, filled with unarmed law abiding citizens and one certified armed lunatic, and the progressives think they have a winner.  Stories of armed conflict raging on the floor of the state house read like old-time western gun battles, with innocent women and children senselessly butchered by hot flying lead.

This narrative is of course written by unhinged left-wing moon-bats who all seem to have anger-management issues that might actually preclude them from getting a pistol permit, even in New Hampshire. They are the very people the fear most, so the best possible remedy must be to have fewer of them in Concord, but that may be a story for another time.

So this almost brings us full circle, with the democrat scaring people unnecessarily to advance their fringe gun agenda, and looking desperately for support from the education industrial complex for aid in their new Spring campaign- "its for the children."

Of course the real risk to children in New Hampshire comes not from guns at the state house--or the fact that there are guns everywhere else you might take your kids except the School itself and maybe a federal building--but from progressives and an educational system cluttered up with left-wing addled union members directed by the NEA. These people exist to nothing more than build union power on the backs of taxpayers using children as the grease for their wheels.

So if we really wanted to ban something that would actually benefit the health and well being of students forget the guns and the state house, we should consider banning the Teachers Unions from the public schools.  That would actually make a difference.

Cross Posted

A Compromise?

There is a very touching bit of sympathy-searching in the Union Leader's My Turn editorial today.  Eric Merklin, husband of State House Rep Tara Sad (D-Walpole) cranks up the left wing fantasy-template on State House violence and goes fishing.

He is 'worried' that someone in the gallery could shoot his wife.

Does Eric realize that his wife, the third term House member, sat there in the well for years under the sights of armed observers while the democrats controlled the body, and no one tried to shoot anyone? Given what the progressives did you'd think that was the threshold opportunity for all those right wing crazies.  Balloon fines, bathroom bills, gay marriage, fines, fees, taxes, more taxes,  yet no gun battles.  He does troll out the HCR6 shouting to make the point that yelling is the gateway drug to gunning down innocent people in the House chamber despite the lack of evidence to support it, but if yelling leads to gun violence why are there still progressives walking around heating up the planet with their exhaled exhortations to ban guns?  They should have wiped themselves out by now?

So we have several years of nobody crying a public river about the risk of bloodshed in Concord's hallowed halls until it appeared to be politically convenient, which makes the "it's all about safety" shtick smell like rovers little donation to renewable fertilizers--which I think got a green energy grant through RGGI if I remember correctly. Its got that disingenuous feel that reeks of populist fear-mongering of the sort only the right can ever be guilty of.

This also leaves us wondering what's next after a State House ban we didn't need then... but have to have now? (Well, not really.  We know what comes next but just play along..)

If you can ban guns in the State House, where our 'rights' are supposed to be protected above all else, where next?  The list of places a liberal might decide are unsafe for a firearm are only limited by their ability to imagine them as unsafe and to then write touching letters to the editor about the perceived risks, followed by laws, which means there are no safe places.  The goal is to disarm the populace.  We already know this.

So I would like to think of this as both drawing a line for the right to self defense in the sand, and legislators putting their money where their mouths are.  We'll take the same risks as you.  Besides, and you can ask Dan Eaton to confirm this, bars are far more contentious places to be than the floor of the New Hampshire House, armed or not.

Then there is the letter itself.  It (conveniently) follows the formula laid out in Boo Hoo Hamster and by Mike Farley in Manchester,(template provided by the DNC, patent pending) which is not surprising for a letter from the left.  It goes like this.

House reps in the midst of an honest yet heated debate about (contentious social issue) gunned down by ....  All we need to do now is wait for the Lifetime 'Tear-Jerker' Movie adaptation. 

Forget that law abiding gun owners save their own lives and lives of others every day. No, let's use one very public tragedy to advance our agenda to create more tragedies--after all it helps us grow the government so we can create that violent underclass we've always wanted.

So I'd like to offer Mr. Merklin a compromise.  If a side arm and a few lessons for Tara seem inappropriate I'm willing to concede from this moment forward that no democrats or progressives should be allowed in the State house armed with a gun, or a knife, and no car keys either or pencils. In a fit of rage over some budget cutting bill one of those left wing lunatics might go on a rampage and try to poke out an eye with one of those things.

And if that doesn't work for you, she can resign.  I bet some Republicans would be more than willing to take her place without all the drama.

Cross Posted

Liberals Should Listen To Michael Ellenbecker

 

From Skip's post at GraniteGrok about a dusgruntled, gun-ban favoring letter writer...

I will not enter our people's house until this abhorrent policy is changed. I urge all of my fellow citizens to do the same.

MICHAEL ELLENBECKER
Concord

So Mike can spend that time watching the Oprah Winfrey Network with his fellow (progressive) citizens.

I'm good with that. 

Cross Posted