Now that the Minnesota State legislature has been taken over by Democrats, their innate hatred and fear of guns (and gun owners) has predictably reared it's ugly head yet again.
This time, the focus is on those visiting the State Capital in St. Paul, where lawful carry permit holders have been carrying firearms for decades, and without incident. In other words, they are seeking a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But, liberals never let history or common sense get in the way of silly regulation. So the gun-phobic Democrats have mounted yet another "investigation" (read "witch-hunt") in order to come up with new restrictions on lawful permit holders.
Initially leading the charge was long time anti-gun Democrat Representative Michael Paymar, who now appears to have been replaced by yet another anti-gun crusader, Carolyne Laine, another Democrat. Apparently, Paymar's anti-gun bona-fides are seen as a potential problem for Democrats in the 2014 mid-term elections. In a high gun ownership state like Minnesota, they are likely correct.
Now, you'd think that the dozens of shootings that have all taken place in locations where guns were banned (i.e. the Aurora Colorado theater) should have gotten the message through to even the most thick-headed anti-gun zealot. But, no, they continue their Quixotic campaign against all of us who had n0thing to do with the killings.
But why? Simple. Reason has nothing to do with their objection to lawful citizens carrying guns. Instead, it is all about "feelings" - a statement made by Linda Winsor (who objects to guns just about anywhere) illustrates it quite clearly:
“I just feel so strongly on how intimidating it is to discuss this issue when people are carrying guns,” she said. “The only way to have democracy and action is when people feel safe.” [emphasis ours]
Think about what she said. First, she claims to be intimidated by someone, just because they happen to be carrying a gun. You see, like most liberals, she does not differentiate between a gun carried by a law-abiding citizen (who has already passed a background check) and some street-thug. Because to her, it is the gun that represents the danger, regardless of who is holding it. Unless it is some "government authority" that is, like police or sheriff's deputies.
Even more perplexing is her view, often repeated by others of her ilk, that she somehow has a right to feel safe. It is telling that she does not say "to be safe" but to feel safe. If ever there were a succinctly illustrated difference between liberals and conservatives it would be this difference in approaching "safety" - conservatives acknowledge that everyone has a right to be safe; liberals think they have a right to feel safe.
She is not the first to make this assertion - I've seen it countless times in discussions involving guns, and this is more than a matter of semantics. These people actually believe that all the rest of us should disarm ourselves and become completely defenseless victims, just so she and her like-minded friends can "feel" safer.
Note that she completely avoids discussion of the (now documented) reality that the more people like you and me carry guns, the safer even unarmed citizens like her actually are. Even if you duct-taped her to a chair and made her read the statistics from across the nation, it wouldn't matter. Because it's not about facts, or even genuinely being safe. She wants only to feel safe. And you can never fight emotion with fact.
But I have news for her, and those like her. My right to protect and defend myself from harm trumps her desire to feel safe. So if she and her anti-gun comrades have a problem with my carrying a gun for personal protection, there are plenty of good clinical psychologists out there who can help them get over their phobia.