No guns allowed at GOP meeting blasting “gun free zones”

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.  GOP Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas, bff of gun-nut and NRA board member Ted Nugent, is holding a very special meeting in the US Capitol building next week to blast President Obama and the entire notion of “gun free zones.”

Stockman’s meeting is being called “The Fallacy of Gun Free School Zones.”  He’s offered legislation repealing the federal gun free zone law that protects schools.

So where is Stockman holding his meeting blasting the dangers of gun free zones?  In the US Capitol building, a gun free zone.

No guns will be allowed at Stockman’s meeting in order to guarantee Rep. Stockman’s safety.

Oh the irony.

Wouldn’t Stockman be even safer if everyone attended his meeting armed?  I’m so confused.

Not to mention, I worked on the Hill, and we held meetings all the time off the Hill.  Stockman could have easily thrown this event at some place in town that permits guns.  But he didn’t.  He chose to have a PR event vilifying gun-free zones at probably the second-most famous gun-free zone in America, after the White House.

AR-15 gun ban

Gun ban via Shutterstock

Rep. Stockman is suffering from the same gun hypocrisy that’s afflicting the uber-Republican Idaho legislature.  I wrote absout them a few weeks ago.  They’re the guys who so love guns that they repealed the gun-free zone protecting the state capitol building in Idaho.  But of course, you know what happened next – some guy brought his gun and scared the hell out of them.  Now, it’s not entirely clearly why he scared them.  He simply glommed on to a Boy Scout tour of the capitol and rifled, sorry, I mean poked through a number of the legislators’ desks during the tour, in plain sight.  But you see, he had a gun, and oh the panic from the GOP lawmakers after the fact.

This quote from the big ole Republican and pro-gun President Pro Tem of the Idaho Senate, Brent Hill, is priceless:

Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill said: “To think that somebody is bold enough to have followed these children around with a sidearm in plain sight — who is also bold enough to go through trash cans, take pictures of representatives’ desks and shuffle their papers — all of that created a great deal of concern.”

Went through a trash can, took a picture of a desk, and shuffled papers.  Call out the National Guard!  But the best part is that the pro-gun Republicans are upset that the man had “a sidearm in plain sight” of children!

Now I’m really confused.  I thought these guys wanted kids around guns.  Stockman, for example, is leading the charge for the NRA to repeal gun free school zones so we can put armed men and women in schools across America (even though some of them are child sex criminals, but no matter).  So, in all sincerity, I don’t understand why Republicans are now suddenly so gun-shy, as it were.  And remember how the NRA got all snippy that President Obama’s kids had armed Secret Service protection while the rest of America’s kids didn’t?

I thought the answer to a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun – just arm everyone walking in the door of the state capitol and you should all be fine.

2010-05-14-NRASignIIThe proud men of the Idaho legislature and Steve Stockman are simply continuing the proud hypocrisy carried on by none other than the NRA itself, which didn’t permit guns at its annual meeting a few years back.

The NRA blames it on North Carolina state law.  But that begs a pretty big question.  Why would the NRA hold a gun convention in a place that they know would ban guns at the NRA convention?  That would be like holding a cigar convention in a place that bans smoking. Or a gay convention in a place that bans gays.  I mean, it’s not exactly not on your mind when you plan the thing.

But such is the hypocrisy of the far right.  Do as they say, not as they do.

They can ban guns when they think their lives might be in danger.  But when lives quite clearly are in danger, such as at Sandy Hook Elementary where 20 six- and seven- year old children were murdered in cold blood, suddenly the answer to every question become more guns, not fewer.

To call them hypocrites would be generous.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

173 Responses to “No guns allowed at GOP meeting blasting “gun free zones””

  1. JasonShankel says:

    A) If we’re not allowed to demand that gun-free-zone policies be reversed, then what are they meeting about?

    B) If gun free zones are such death traps, why not meet somewhere else? There’s no law that says you have to meet in the Capitol building.

  2. TGP says:

    I guess you missed the whole part talking about how they could have picked numerous other locations that allow guns. Reading comprehension. I know it’s hard for you people on the right but it comes in handy.

  3. jyrhino says:

    Adam Lanza got his legally? Killing a person and stealing their guns is legal? And why are the politicians’ private lives and schools usually covered by armed security but the average citizen’s kids are left hanging in the wind? Why would a very well known religious leader not be allowed security of an armed guard, but a politician is? And why do we pay for it when they get gobs of $ now and for life? And if you look at England and so forth, there Are STILL gun crimes. A whole lot less, but their violent crime is way above ours. And they pay for all this “security” by being in a totalitarian state that watches everything and is beholden to no one.

    Show me where any one one gun crime was stopped by a “gun free zone.” Please. Show me. People do evil. That’s a given. But taking away a man’s right to defend his family from an evil person is a bigger evil. You want to tell Jessica Lynne Carpenter that not having a gun was a good thing? Suzanna Hupp? And a multitude of women rape and murdered every year? Signs do nothing. Penalties afterwards do nothing to stop a person who would break this law in the first place. The only way to stop this from happening is not taking away legal guns from citizens. It is empowering those citizens to use, responsibly, weapons for defense. 100,000,000 weapons in the hands of the populace. And accepting the numbers spouted, 12,000 die each year. Car accidents kill 50,000+. Medical Malpractice, 10/20+ times that.

  4. jyrhino says:

    While we’re at it, let’s repeal the First – because people use it to make hate speeches, and the press (as above) produce lies, and the Fourth because, hey if you aren’t hiding anything, you won’t mind me searching your underwear for dope – probable cause? I don’t need it without a Fourth. Wait – and the Fifth – we should be able to force criminals to hand over evidence against themselves, it only fair to the victims. Wait – there’s a whole bunch of Amendments that can be removed, let’s just dump the Bill of Rights wholesale. Moe-ron.

  5. Well Done says:

    It’s not Stockman’s or the NRA’s prerogative to demand the building change its policies to accommodate them, John-boy. I’m not surprised you, a sniveling lefty, want to pretend otherwise. That’s how the left operate, they want everyone to bend to accommodate them, so they presume others are equally childish. The NRA doesn’t control the rules at the Capitol building, so this blog is rather stupid! Would little Johnny prefer the NRA never hold any meeting in a building they don’t personally control? What a douche!

  6. Danny Adams says:

    So by the logic we’ve heard lately, Stockman is advertising to everybody in the world that there won’t be any guns…

  7. BeccaM says:

    He was impeached for being less than forthcoming with a House investigating committee. The Cole had nothing to do with it. Are you so ignorant you don’t know documented easy-to-find history?

  8. Mel Haun Sr says:

    “You are probably anti gun…how is that, most democrats are,” Where the “H” did you get that misinformation? FOX? For my part…Want reasonable regulations possibly. close loopholes. Try and do something about high volume magazines and drums..if possible. Anti-gun? NO

  9. Mel Haun Sr says:

    Benghazi cover up? ( not ” Bengazi coverup? BTW, it has a h in it )..You have to be kidding. OH, I forgot about that Fox no news propaganda machine, WND, Rove balloon of ignorance. There were 8 attacks on embassies during the Bush admin, with 43 causalities ( 3 of the attacks possibly preventable ). There were several during the Reagan Admin… one of them preventable, but Reagan would not listen to his Generals and 300 dead, mostly marines. Where all this fake concern then.

    In any case, the National Debt is mostly Republicans doing,which you probably voted for, and will never go down till the Coingress of NO gets in gear. Be interested in who …and doing what is walking all over the constitution. Only in your mind.

  10. colleen2 says:

    Your grammar and spelling skill are consistently at a 6th grade level. Were you home schooled?

  11. KingCranky says:

    Seeing as how you’re the one who attributed a false argument to me, one I didn’t make

    “You act like he intentionally set up a gun free zone where there wasn’t one”…..

    Perhaps best not to criticize others as being “definitely short on brains”.

  12. colleen2 says:

    You’re a guy who is angry because we did not vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. (or, as you said somewhere in this thread, because we did vote for Barack Obama.) I do not hate you, you aren’t worth that much energy. Still, I hope you understand that your contempt towards most of the electorate, incessant whining and obvious control freak tendencies make you too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

  13. JackLinks says:

    Russel Miller
    The USS Cole was attacked right in the middle of a Presidential election! Can you imagine all the wailing and whining that the Bush campaign would have done if Clinton had attacked the attackers of the USS Cole, during the election?
    Here’s a question for you:
    Why didn’t Bush go after the attackers of the USS Cole right after his was inguration office? He wasn’t doing much of anything except spending time riding his dirt bike, at his dude ranch in Crawford Texas!
    I believe that 2 of the OKC bombers were brought to justice under Clinton! One was executed and the other is in a super-max for the rest of his life!
    Here’s suggestion Russell Miller, Turn off Fox!

  14. citizen_spot says:

    Armed security, like they had at Columbine? Did you forget this when you wrote in a previous post two hours prior “Because keeping schools “gun free” really worked at Columbine, UT..etc…”

  15. Frostiken says:

    So anyone who doesn’t think that this is the most unbiased, non-sensationalized bit of journalism, and doesn’t think John Avravois is just spouting masturabatory remarks that the ultra-lefts can circle-jerk to is clearly a conservative and thus part of a ‘filthy cesspool’?

    It’s funny how much the extreme left resembles the extreme right. Only while the extreme right is too stupid to know how ridiculous they are, the extreme left just can’t stop smelling their own farts long enough to see how covered in shit they are.

    Seriously, look at how pathetic these “liberal” blogs are. You post anything on PoliticusUSA that isn’t raw praise for Obama or anti-gun venom and you’ll get banned by the moderators and showered with insults.

  16. Frostiken says:

    Calling him a hypocrite is like calling gay rights demonstrations in states where gay marriage is illegal ‘hypocritical’ as well.

    The Capitol is the seat of the nation’s power. Staging a demonstration there is a good way to get attention. The entire Capitol is a ‘gun free zone’. Therefore any demonstration there is a ‘gun free zone’.

    You act like he intentionally set up a gun-free zone where there wasn’t one. You’re definitely short on brains, aren’t you.

  17. Frostiken says:

    What are you going to do when your campaign fails completely?

    My guess? You’re going to throw a whiny hissy-fit like the Republicans did after ’08 and ’12 elections.

  18. Johaely Payano says:

    If dipshits didn’t bring guns from the suburbs and the laws weren’t so full of loopholes and flaws, then there could be some improvement (guns is just a symptom of a larger disease). It’s the prisoners dilemma.

  19. Johaely Payano says:

    But if he doesn’t have a gun, he won’t be shooting up anything. All the guns in those massacres were all gotten through completely legal means. And the people were “crazy” (because that is the easiest way to also avoid responsibility ass a society). They would have shot the place up whether it were armed or not (more guns would have either done nothing, as Columbine showed or just exacerbated the situation).

  20. Guest says:

    It’s time to mount an organized campaign for the clean repeal of the second amendment. Anything less just enables these paranoid sociopaths. I’m tired of having to watch and listen to Wayne LaPierre as the chief apostle of the cult of death. Enough of these people. Their hysterical, robotic behavior is proof enough that they’re unfit to be in possession of lethal weapons.

  21. karmanot says:

    “Why the hell do you think he was impeached?” because he was a sea man?

  22. karmanot says:

    “This writer is fairly stupid” We figured that out with your first sentance dude.

  23. karmanot says:

    “can we agree that the last decade has been detrimental to what the Constitution is?” Absolutely. Let’s start with the suspension of Habeaus Corpus and move on to the security state.

  24. karmanot says:

    “you had considered other possible reasons for their choice of venue” I have a theory that it may be the cafeteria, because it was shit-on-a-shingle day.

  25. karmanot says:

    “he probably would have had a mental breakdown a long time ago.” He probably did, but in Texas its often hard to discern.

  26. karmanot says:

    You, yourself make a good case for animus.

  27. karmanot says:

    “your going to give me a lesson on spelling.” Point taken

  28. karmanot says:

    Benghazibots are so easy to herd!

  29. karmanot says:

    It’s good to start with the basics.

  30. karmanot says:

    “helping the struggling America..” Poor struggling America. I just get a sad thinking about America’s victimization.

  31. mike31c says:

    What he is saying is that the gun nuts he takes $$$ from are the same people he does not want to be around with because they are gun nuts :D

  32. Russell Miller says:

    Who are you trying to kid? I had fellow sailors murdered on the USS Cole and watched that slime of a President Clinton do absolutely NOTHING!!!! OKC was also on his watch…so was Waco…are you that ignorant you don’t know your timeline? Why the hell do you think he was impeached?

  33. Tony Mac says:

    Well Stockman could have held his meeting at NRA headquarters…no, wait, NRA headquarters is a “gun-free” zone. No guns allowed…

  34. Russell Miller says:

    There is no belief system in place bro…open your eyes and watch what is going on….and I’m not saying watch the news….that goes for NBC and Fox

  35. Russell Miller says:

    Great job…glad that English class paid off for you…did you get a good job with these skills? Look at me, I can spell but know nothing else…

  36. BeccaM says:

    The GOP 2nd-Amendment fetish — especially in its new, extreme form — is a fairly new development for their party. True, they’ve always been cozy with the NRA, but then again, so are lots of Dems, especially in conservative-leaning states.

    As Naja Pallida points out below, the Republican party used to be fine with passing gun regulations, including no-gun zones. What we’re seeing here now is an anti-government, anti-establishment movement of the far right, which has become increasingly radicalized since the mid 90s.

    There are, of course, the true believers, the ones who do want the right to carry firearms anywhere they like — including into state and federal gov’t buildings, and perhaps even onto planes. Then there are those who don’t want THEIR rights to be infringed upon, but are just peachy with everybody else being denied them. And then there are those who simply haven’t thought it through very far, and can’t resolve the abstraction of their right to carry firearms everywhere with the discomfort they themselves feel when seeing someone else toting a Glock on their hip or an assault rifle slung over a shoulder while shopping at a department store.

    But then there are also the cynical politicians, the GOPers, who are pushing these ardently pro-gun extremist measures without thinking them through, and then panic when they see the real world results as crazy-eyed “patriots” want to visit and rummage their offices and come to town hall meetings. At which point some of them probably realize, “Hey, I don’t KNOW that that guy won’t want to shoot me or anybody else here.” Why wouldn’t they feel that way? After all, they’ve been telling these mouth-breathers for years now that government is evil and wrong, and they themselves ARE the government, even if not currently in the majority.

    What’s funny is they know they no longer steer their party, and have no choice but to be hypocrites in private, while publicly proposing repeals of any gun control laws.

    (Aside: Just a few years ago, Wayne LaPierre said the NRA was squarely behind the idea of universal background checks. Now he’s not. The difference? The radicalization of the rightist GOP, coupled with the undeniable sense he must have that the goalposts have been dug up and are all set to be moved to the other end of the field.)

    Anyway, I’ve made this sad prediction before and will once more: There will be more mass shootings, and in all likelihood one or more incidents on the scale of Oklahoma City. Which the right will refuse to call ‘domestic terrorism.’

  37. Russell Miller says:

    As a gun advocate, I’m for back round checks…I’m actually for the Hippa law to not apply for those who want guns…Limiting mag capacity though is retarded…And I would say it is closer to 50-50 than say 75-25

  38. citizen_spot says:

    OK, I guess I have to spell it out for you. The US shares a BORDER with Mexico. A boarder is either someone who rents a room, or someone who rides a board, such as a skateboard or snowboard. And to make it perfectly clear, this time I am giving you a spelling lesson. And this is your civics lesson. Michele Bachmann is a member of the United States House of Representatives, not Minnesota Governor. But thanks for playing.

  39. Russell Miller says:

    Or Chicago….strictest gun laws in the country….people murdered by the hour there….good call!

  40. Russell Miller says:

    Used to work with a Rep. Senator, then decided to go Democrat and now is a blogger….just another first hand story of how the Dems create jobs…LOL

  41. Charles Rowe says:

    I guess the writer didn’t know that ALL of Washington is a gun free zone. Hence the high crime rate.

  42. Charles Rowe says:

    This writer is fairly stupid. All of Washington is a “GUN FREE ZONE” Hence the higher crime rate!! Stupid!! Also stop blaming the GOP for your failed life.

  43. Russell Miller says:

    I use facts, and questions while Colleen2 uses hatred….This is why this country will never be able to come together as 1 to correct issues…..If you can’t even have a simple debate with someone, then how are you going to help fix any issues? Whatever you stand for will not be heard due to your hateful remarks…

  44. Russell Miller says:

    I never said arm the children or the teachers….But why not put armed security at schools? that’s right, because you are close minded and anyone thinking opposite of you is a moron republican….You should be happy that you live in such a country that allows people like you to be in it…you would have probably been killed already in over 100 other countries….but hey, keep hating…it may get you places

  45. citizen_spot says:

    “So does this make me a right winger because I question these things?”

    No, it makes you a right winger because you believe these things to be true.

  46. colleen2 says:

    There are many things I want to change. Arming grade school teachers or allowing the George Zimmerman’s of the country, guns and access to children to shoot are not ‘solutions’, they are policies that will inevitably result in MORE dead children. Now fuck off.

  47. Russell Miller says:

    I agree with this above all else…this is a case of Irony more so than Hypocrisy…

  48. Russell Miller says:

    Thats happening now…so lets not change anything and expect different results right?

  49. Russell Miller says:

    She was talking about the Mexico, US boarder….she did this while being the Gov. of Minnesota…a very large step in the wrong direction of Jesse Ventura…

  50. citizen_spot says:

    What kind of “boarder”?

  51. Russell Miller says:

    So you are just going to blindly hate on everyone that has a different viewpoint than your own? That’s a good way to go through life…not! How are my notions about the Constitution changing the subject, when the subject at hand is gun control aka, the 2nd Amendment? Don’t bother replying to this….You are obviously a close minded person who I wish to never see, hear, or read of again….People like you are destroying this great nation, and from what I have read, you don’t care….do this world a favor and go hide in the woods for the rest of your meaningless life

  52. citizen_spot says:

    Have you looked at the polls recently? Majority of Americans are for mandatory background checks and limitations on magazine capacity. The country is not as divided on this issue, and many others, despite how much you want us to think it is. After 40+ years of failed republican policies, the people are swinging the pendulum back to the left. Eventually the government (both the new dems = moderate republicans and the republicans) will follow, kicking and screaming. Boy, I hope this doesn’t upset you.

  53. colleen2 says:

    First, it’s ‘You’re’, not ‘Your’.
    Second, I WAS precisely and specifically speaking of Republicans and their political party. Lack of personal responsibility and zero substance are defining characteristics of present day conservatives. They =

  54. colleen2 says:

    Because I have absolutely no interest in your notions about the Constitution or in helping you change the subject.

  55. colleen2 says:

    What’s wrong with getting rid of gun free school zones?

    The inevitable dead children.

  56. Russell Miller says:

    I have reasons…you have done nothing on the blog but put people down…I don’t associate myself with a party as I have stated already…I fight for the Constitution, not peoples feelings on a subject…I’m simply calling out the Author for having the power to get a word out there, and choosing to do it on this subject…that is between me and him, not you…I have no agenda as to set back or stomp on the human rights of people of color, the GLBT community or the women community….I may disagree with some of the things they do and stand for, but that does not make me an oppressionist (just made that up)…and instead of calling me a dumb republican man, why don’t you state reasons on why you disagree with me and what points you have…then we can actually have a legit discussion….

  57. colleen2 says:

    why would you think I’m Republican?

    You reason as poorly as a Republican and are blatantly attempting to control a conversation on someone else’s blog. You could be a Libertarian, of course….or, worse yet, a ‘third way’ Democrat, trying to heal the divisions by making the Democratic party more attractive to fox news watchers sacrificing the human rights of people of color, the GLBT community and women.

  58. Russell Miller says:

    Your thinking of degenerate people…they span all political alliances…those who have to blame someone else because they did something they shouldn’t have

  59. Russell Miller says:

    What is your hatred towards men? more so, republican men?

  60. colleen2 says:

    Stockman is from Texas – if he was worried about being around citizens
    carrying firearms he would have a nervous breakdown a long time ago.

    It does not take any courage at all to carry a gun.We all understand who gets killed in the sick fantasy lives of Republican men.

  61. colleen2 says:

    Right, and Republicans are all about healing divisions and finding common ground. Do you even listen to yourself?

  62. Russell Miller says:

    Sorry man…I have no idea what you are asking

  63. KingCranky says:

    Since Stockman didn’t rush from his self-pity party to immediately introduce the legislation, then yes, he’s a complete hypocrite for railing against gun free zones from a gun free zone, and yes, he’s screeching and caterwauling, a hyperbolic description to be sure, but you’re not the only one allowed to use hyperbole in this thread.

  64. Russell Miller says:

    Do you know how long a decade is? If so, then why would you think I’m Republican?

  65. citizen_spot says:

    Snow or skate?

  66. colleen2 says:

    No, we cannot agree to that.

  67. colleen2 says:

    Contempt for the filthy cesspool of humans and ‘ideas’ of the present day American conservative movement has nothing to do with the US constitution.

  68. Russell Miller says:

    I can go the other way too….Why are we not talking about the Patriot act (anti patriot act), the increase in federal jobs that have created so many reports that the people reviewing them have openly said, they have to trow away over 60% of…but Obama had a chance to get rid of the patriot act, but extended it…he has the ability to get rid of the TSA, but doesn’t…He talks about taking weapons away from law abiding citizens, yet gave these same weapons to drug lords who went and used them to kill innocent people…so does this make me a right winger because I question these things…if Mitt Romney was in office and the same stuff was going on I would still ask these questions…at that point would I then be a left winger?

  69. colleen2 says:

    One of the problems with Republican men is that they never take personal responsibility for ANYTHING.

  70. citizen_spot says:

    I am not trying to give you a lesson in spelling. I am openly mocking your motivations for your enthusiasm to embrace right wing talking points.

  71. Naja pallida says:

    I found some documents listing your salary during that time… you really should have demanded more money. :)

  72. Russell Miller says:

    Michele Bachman has no right to say anything!!! After her, “I don’t know why Arizona passed an immigration law like that, it’s not like they live on the boarder” comment…She should have been outed out of every Government entity and not allowed to come back

  73. Russell Miller says:

    Good to know….can we agree that the last decade has been detrimental to what the Constitution is? And that bickering over small issues only covers up the big issues that really need to be discussed….Gun rights is an issue, but to bring this topic up serves no purpose…

  74. citizen_spot says:


  75. karmanot says:

    I’m suprised you left out ‘ad hominim’ considering the phrase , “Hopefully people are smart enough to realize his argument is garbage.”

  76. Russell Miller says:

    You can’t even spell my name right when it is in front of your face and your going to give me a lesson on spelling…cute! I’m not a right winger…If you noticed in that rant, I blame the republican party for a lot of our issues too….

  77. karmanot says:

    screeching and caterwauling—–how else would you describe the communications of say—a Michele Bachman or a Virginia Fox?

  78. Russell Miller says:

    Again, you bring up nothing….this country is going to hell in a hand-basket, and all you can come up with as a rebutle is a spelling error?

  79. citizen_spot says:

    Russel translated: “Why won’t you write about things that only the right wing bubblesphere is having a hissy fit about? Why don’t you tailor your blog to ME ME ME?? Benghazi also!! Yargle Blargle!”

  80. karmanot says:

    “poutrage’ delightful word. Can I borrow it?

  81. karmanot says:

    “.I simply pick the Constitution!” Cool, then we are on the same side!

  82. caphillprof says:

    So how prithee does that justify the courthouse? the House office buildings? Or for that matter public accommodations?
    Subject: [americablog] Re: No guns allowed at GOP meeting blasting “ gun free zones”

  83. Russell Miller says:

    Has nothing to do with the blog…blogging is great…it’s gets information out there…but to bring this up serves no purpose in helping the struggling America….Only gets people upset on the 2 sides, further dividing this country

  84. citizen_spot says:

    What are you doing to help fix it? Hmmmm? If you don’t like the blog, then by all means don’t bother to read it. Simple is as simple does.

  85. karmanot says:

    I was directly quoting your mispelling ,:”How about the Bengazi coverup” I should have used an (sp) in that quote. Thanks for catching your mistake. Further, I couldn’t agree more with that last line.

  86. karmanot says:

    I know what you are, but what am I? Pee Wee Herman

  87. karmanot says:

    I know NP, but some commenters just can not change the things they cannot accept or change the things they accept. or something.

  88. karmanot says:

    —to whom are the hysterics in this disscussion attributal.

  89. Russell Miller says:

    Most Democrats in the Senate, and House of Reps, plus our President, and VP, etc…so, I don’t read the drudge report, I don’t watch fox news either…I have a mind of my own…turns out, you don’t have to pick sides…I simply pick the Constitution!

  90. karmanot says:

    ‘Apart of Congress?’ Well, yes you might say that. Oh btw, What makes you think most Democrats are anti-gun? If you can’t bring a tad more intelligence to the table, then stay under your bridge and stop reading the Drudge Report until you have figured it out.

  91. Russell Miller says:

    first, it’s spelled Benghazi…second, is that the only thing you got out of my rant? There really is no hope for humanity

  92. richmomz says:


  93. Russell Miller says:

    That’s the only argument ignorant people have…”why u mad?”…I’m mad because morons like those are voting for President and helping them stay president…Lets give a guy who has done nothing for this country the last 4 years, 4 more years to screw it up even more….sounds legit!

  94. karmanot says:

    Well true, to the extent that my comtemp for your ideas reminds me of number 2.

  95. richmomz says:

    What irony is there in choosing a convenient venue for discussion? This wasn’t just one of many equally plausible venues – the Capitol building happens to be the nexus for all legislative activity in Washington DC. It’s not like Stockman imposed the gun ban, or deliberately sought out a “gun-free” forum.

  96. Russell Miller says:

    Because keeping schools “gun free” really worked at Columbine, UT, Sandy Hook, VT, San Diego, Taft, etc….the list is forever long…when are you morons going to realize that only law abiding citizens follow the law…if a guy is going to shoot up a place, there is no law that is going to stop him/her….

  97. richmomz says:

    The author provided no factual basis for his assertion that Stockman’s venue was chosen out of safety concerns. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

  98. karmanot says:

    I shudder to think you have children.

  99. richmomz says:

    Indeed you are.

  100. karmanot says:

    The author put up, now you can shut up.

  101. richmomz says:

    What’s wrong with getting rid of gun free school zones? Obviously they’re not doing anything to deter school shooters, and only serve to keep teachers/administrators from protecting their kids.

  102. richmomz says:

    Pardon my emphasis on inconvenient points of fact.

  103. karmanot says:

    “why bring up this topic.” To incourage BENGAZI TROLLS?

  104. Naja pallida says:

    I don’t doubt for an instant that their choice of venue was simply one of convenience, but that doesn’t mean we can’t point out the obvious sad irony of it. What’s next? Hold a meeting of alcoholics anonymous at a bar?

  105. richmomz says:

    People asking why a member of Congress is hypocritical for having a meeting at the Capitol building is “screeching and caterwauling”?

  106. richmomz says:

    Your contempt for the 1st Amendment is as deep as the 2nd.

  107. richmomz says:

    I asked you what the basis of your assertion was, and whether you had considered other possible reasons for their choice of venue, and all I’m getting in return is a bunch of name-calling. I think it’s quite evident who the hysterics in this discussion are attributable to.

  108. John Brehm says:

    It doesn’t help our cause to knock over straw-men. The Capitol is not a gun-free zone in the same way that an elementary school is a gun-free zone. There are armed guards protecting those inside, just like the wingnuts are advocating for. You are arguing straight into their hands!

  109. ARP says:

    Umm, you just contradicted the NRA’s ad against Obama. Remember the ad where the NRA thinks the the Obama children face an identical risk to all the other children out there.

    Here’s some help:

  110. richmomz says:

    You might want to review the definition of that big word yourself – there is no irony here.

  111. Russell Miller says:

    If anything, the only hypocrites are those who claim to follow the
    constitution yet walk all over it….Yes, this goes for all parties of
    late! I’m am disappointed in our government and people like you are
    doing nothing helpful to fix it….why bring up this topic…how about
    bringing up the topic of a long standing unemployment rate too high,
    national debt at an all time high with no spending cut bill being presented, still fighting in Afghanistan even
    though we have killed Bin Laden? How about the Benghazi coverup? how
    about anything useful? No, you guys only bring up a guy drinking water,
    or how this guy held an anti gun ban rally at a gun controlled
    location….WORTHLESS!!!! ALL OF YOU!!!!

  112. richmomz says:

    Of course there is – Stockman is a member of Congress, and chose to hold the discussion in a forum that was convenient for other legislators and interest groups to attend. Stockton also from Texas, so if he actually had a fear of civilians carrying firearms he probably would have had a mental breakdown a long time ago.

  113. ARP says:

    But the first Amendment has limitations. For example you can’t protest on the floor of congress, you need to obtain a permit for a large rally, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, you can’t make certain kinds of threats against people, you can’t disclose state secrets, etc. That’s what strikes me as odd about the gun debate. We accept reasonable limitation on what is is supposed to be a “unlimited” right because we understand its necessary for our society and government to function. Yet, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t appear to have that limitation in the minds of gun-lovers and I’m interested as to why.

  114. richmomz says:

    I’m not the one making accusations of hypocrisy here – the burden is on the author/commenter to put up or shut up.

  115. Russell Miller says:

    Are you going to tell me that everyone inside courthouses, white house, congress, etc. are all republican? If anything, the only hypocrites are those who claim to follow the constitution yet walk all over it….Yes, this goes for all parties of late! I’m am disappointed in our government and people like you are doing nothing helpful to fix it….why bring up this topic…how about bringing up the topic of a long standing unemployment rate too high, national debt at an all time high, still fighting in Afghanistan even though we have killed Bin Laden? How about the Bengazi coverup? how about anything useful? No, you guys only bring up a guy drinking water, or how this guy held an anti gun ban rally at a gun controlled location….WORTHLESS!!!! ALL OF YOU!!!!

  116. Naja pallida says:

    Show me a shred of evidence they didn’t.

  117. Naja pallida says:

    There is really no basis for the opposite assumption either… but if you were holding a meeting where you want to encourage everyone to open carry, wouldn’t you go some place where that would be possible? That would only make some kind of sense.

  118. Russell Miller says:

    Edit: I have now educated myself, and realize you were only a consultant for a Senator…therefore, I rebuke my first statements…however, my last statements still stand

  119. Naja pallida says:

    Most of the current federal regulations on where one is allowed to carry a firearm on federal property, and how firearms are to be transported across state jurisdictions are a result of the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. The Senate bill was sponsored by Republican Jim McClure, the House bill was sponsored by Democrat Bill Hughes. Both had multiple Republican co-sponsors, and passed with an easy majority vote. The Senate was controlled by Republicans at the time, and the bill was signed into law by none other than that raging liberal who wanted to take away everyone’s guns, Ronald Reagan.

  120. Nukemiller says:

    John…You speak because you say you were apart of Congress…Obviously, because you are now a blogger, you have been fired! The people who voted you in couldn’t stand you and voted you out! Therefore, any rhetoric about anything coming from you is negligent…You are probably anti gun…how is that, most democrats are, yet have armed security surrounding them 24/7? I will gladly give up my guns if the President does first…

  121. Justmy2cents says:

    Technically, Government does not have the right to ban an American citizen their rights to bear arms. A private building could, however, ban your right if it was on private property, non-government affiliated. The constitution was written for the Government to follow, not private citizens enforcing it on one another. Meaning….a private citizen does not have any obligation to make sure your rights are upheld. Example would be you can picket and protest at a Government building and they have to allow you your first amendment rights, but if you were doing it at the mall, on private property, you can be escorted or arrested since it’s a private establishment.

  122. question says:

    I love how everyone is bashing the other for his opinion and not the fact that a congress man is trying to get rid of gun free school zones

  123. karmanot says:

    Sorry Manobs, but your reasoning is not logic. It’s called sophistry.

  124. karmanot says:

    Colleen hyperbole second to none. Richmon ‘I’m a dude’ zero substance. Score: Coleen 5, Dumb dude Richmon 0.

  125. colleen2 says:

    and yet zero substance and screaming, irrational hysterics is precisely what we’ve come to expect from Republicans of either gender.

  126. richmomz says:

    Why is everyone assuming that safety concerns were even a factor in their decision to hold their forum at the Capitol? I doubt Stockman even considered (or cared) whether it was in a “gun-free” area, and focused solely on choosing a forum that was convenient for both representatives and interest groups to attend. That doesn’t make Stockman a hypocrite. And really I don’t even care about defending him personally, but I’m more irritated by the fact that people complain about not being able to have a rational debate about gun control, but then write some baseless, hyperbolic tripe like this article rather than trying to stimulate public discourse on gun issues of actual import.

  127. karmanot says:

    “I do not think it is fair to compare the security of a Congressman with that of elementary school students.” You just don’t have a clue do you? “A Congressman is a much, much higher priority target than some kindergartners” Seriously?

  128. karmanot says:

    ‘Bed wetting,’ ‘pulling shit out of your ass’ now isn’t that adult. Does your Mommy know you are due for a diaper?

  129. karmanot says:

    It must be Turd Hurling troll Day Colleen.

  130. karmanot says:

    “you are just pulling shit out of your ass.” Projecting? Or do you understand the big word ‘irony?’

  131. karmanot says:

    If you think John Avravois is an intellectual wasteland then stay the hell off his blog and learn some manners you pathetic troll.

  132. citizen_spot says:

    Of course people can express their opinions at the Capitol building. Of course it isn’t wrong for Stockman to have his meeting in the Capitol building. Not wrong at all, but it is hypocritical given that he has a choice to hold his meeting in a guns for everyone “zone” somewhere else. That is the point. But it is not like it matters that he gets called out on his hypocrisy because he can’t be shamed. He doesn’t really give a shit what people who are not giving him a fundraising check think. I would guess that he also doesn’t give a shit about your poutrage in an attempt to defend him.

  133. citizen_spot says:

    The rep is not introducing his legislation, he is having a meeting of like minded gun advocates, probably as a fund raiser. He could easily have held his meeting against gun free zones in a non gun free zone, thus allowing his attendees to bring their binkies, oops, I mean big bad guns along with their checkbooks.

  134. richmomz says:

    Yet more hyperbole, and zero substance. So much for “legitimate criticism”.

  135. colleen2 says:

    I’m a dude, BTW.

    Wanting to be ‘taken seriously’ by Republican men makes Republican women vicious and stupid.

  136. richmomz says:

    Way to take a stand for rational debate. I’m a dude, BTW.

  137. KingCranky says:

    Sure enough, the blithering gun fetishists show up, screeching and caterwauling in an attempt to deflect away from Stockman’s obvious hypocrisy.

    Please do carry on, any such spin attempted to this reply will just prove the point completely.

  138. richmomz says:

    Stockman is from Texas – if he was worried about being around citizens carrying firearms he would have a nervous breakdown a long time ago. No, it’s the bed-wetting gun grabbers that have a problem with people having a means to defend themselves.

  139. manoflogic says:

    So by that logic, no pro-gun party should ever hold a meeting at the Capitol building, for fear of being called a hypocrite? By your logic, are anti-gun democrats not hypocrites for having armed security escort them around?

  140. colleen2 says:

    I have never wanted to be ‘taken seriously’ by Republican women.

  141. The problem I have with this is that the US capitol building is a secured federal facility, much like military installations and (most) court houses. If a US Rep is introducing legislation, it doesn’t matter what the legislation is… It’ll be at the US Capitol building and it’s a secured facility, This isn’t something that the GOP rep has any control over and it’s apparent the article was written to create controversy. The fact that it’s a Pro Gun bill has nothing to do with this, and he can’t explicitly authorize anybody to carry a firearm on federal property.

  142. colleen2 says:

    Do you really think they want to change the ‘gun free’ zoning that protects their lily-white Republican asses?

  143. richmomz says:

    What exactly IS the “legitimate criticism” here? That they are afraid to hold a hearing in a non-gun-free zone? What is the basis for this assertion, and more importantly why weren’t other factors considered (like maybe they wanted to have it at the Capitol building because, you know, its where our federal representatives hang out and federal laws are debated and passed). Obviously it’s easier to slander your opposition than engage in reasonable debate, but you at least have to have some shred of evidence to back your nonsensical claims if you want to be taken seriously.

  144. richmomz says:

    Show me one shred of evidence to back up the claim that they picked this venue because they were afraid to have it in a non-gun-free area. Anything.

  145. manoflogic says:

    I bet the author was just sitting there waiting for any republican to host a meeting at the Capitol building so he could write this garbage. If the author of this article really had a leg to stand on he wouldn’t need to resort to so many logical fallacies to ‘support’ his argument.

    -Argument from authority
    -Appeal to ridicule
    -Appeal to spite
    -Straw man
    -Hasty generalization

    Now, if Stockman picked a venue that was NOT a gun free zone, then turned it into a gun free zone while he was speaking, THAT would be grounds for an article like this. However, just because Stockman chose the Capitol Building for his meeting, does not mean he is a hypocrite. Unless the author has proof that Stockman chose it for that reason, he does not have a leg to stand on. That is why he has to use so many fallacious arguments to try and make his point. Hopefully people are smart enough to realize his argument is garbage.

  146. shawn says:

    the issue isn’t just ‘gun-free’ zones, its ‘gun-free’ zones that do not have armed security protecting them. The capitol has metal detectors, armed police officers, etc. despite it being a safe are because someone puts up a sign.

    There’s no such thing as a gun-free zone. It’s just a question of who you want to have guns.

  147. colleen2 says:

    There is no basis for the implication that they chose this venue because
    they were seeking the “safety” of a gun-free zone – you are just
    pulling shit out of your ass.


  148. colleen2 says:

    Criticizing a congressman for having a meeting at the Capitol Building?

    Sadly I think we must always assume that all Republicans will fail to understand and misstate the point of every legitimate criticism.

    A normal person, a person who has or cares about children would read this and understand the obvious: the lives and persons of republican legislators are to be protected at all costs. The lives and persons of grade school children are disposable and it’s legitimate to endanger and sacrifice some of those lives to bolster the arguments of wealthy, authoritarian bullies.

  149. jimbo says:

    You are right that Stockman should have chosen an “off-campus” site if he did not want to be viewed as a hypocrite. However, I do not think it is fair to compare the security of a Congressman with that of elementary school students. Stockman is a celebrity and there are numerous people who oppose his views which might wish to harm him. Kindergartners, on the other hand, generally do not make people hate them they way politicians do.

    Before the incident at Sandy Hook no one thought that the kids were “clearly” in danger. Sandy Hook was a random act. Adam Lanza was insane and if there had been someone else with a gun around maybe they could have brought him down before he finished his spree.

    A Congressman is a much, much higher priority target than some kindergartners unless you are insane or a terrorist. In either case, i’d prefer to be able to defend myself.

  150. richmomz says:

    You are implying that Republicans are responsible for this policy – can you back this up?

  151. richmomz says:

    This is completely ridiculous. How did the author come to the conclusion that this venue was chosen because Stockman et. al. wanted to hold their meeting in a gun-free zone? Is it possible that perhaps the venue was chosen because the federal Capitol building HAPPENS TO BE WHERE FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS DEBATED AND ENACTED? Nah… they must be hypocrites.

  152. richmomz says:

    Have you considered the possibility that maybe the venue was chosen because it happens to be where federal laws are debated and enacted, and that the selection of said venue had nothing to do with some alleged fear of being in a non-gun-free zone?

  153. richmomz says:

    So, now people can’t express their opinions at the Federal Capitol building if the Capitol building’s policies are in conflict with their views? Is it wrong that Stockman just wanted to have a discussion at the venue where federal gun control statutes are being debated?

  154. richmomz says:

    There is no basis for the implication that they chose this venue because they were seeking the “safety” of a gun-free zone – you are just pulling shit out of your ass. I have an alternative theory – and it’s really far out so bear with me – but MAYBE they picked that venue because IT’S WHERE FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS ENACTED. Furthermore, why is it hypocrisy to hold a meeting in a venue that doesn’t agree with your views? Was Martin Luther King Jr. a hypocrite for holding civil rights rallies in racist southern states? Is it also hypocrisy for a women’s rights group to protest at a state capital building that enacts anti-abortion legislation? Do you even understand what “hypocrisy” means?

  155. BenTheGuy says:

    Because it’s totally unreasonable to have an event with your constituents in a government building.

  156. Because Republicans are fine risking your life, less so with their own.

  157. Oh, and which one doesn’t entail massive gun-nut hypocrisy for attacking everyone for being afraid of guns, while wetting their pants every time someone tries to bring a gun into their workplace?

  158. He had a choice. We held events all the time in other venues that were not the US Capitol building or the Senate office buildings. We’d go to a non-profit, or a public park even. Stockman chose instead to have an event excoriating gun-free zones in the cozy comfort of his own little gun-free zone.

  159. He does get to choose where he holds his PR events. I worked in the Senate for years, we held events in other venues, not the Capitol, all the time. Stockman didn’t bother, because he’s a hypocrite.

  160. Actually, I worked in the Congress and am guessing you didn’t. We used to hold meetings like this all the time off-campus, as it were. There’s no reason Stockman couldn’t have held this anti “gun free zone” PR event at a venue that wasn’t a gun free zone. But he chose to cozy confines of gun-free-landia to have his event. He’s a raging hypocrite, as are far too many gun nuts.

  161. Akula765 says:

    Really? Criticizing a congressman for having a meeting at the Capitol Building?

    This is the stupidest shit I’ve read all week. I’m apparently in the wrong business if an intellectual wasteland like John Aravosis can get paid for writing this drivel.

  162. RationalPerson says:

    >that protects schools

    oh my god my sides

  163. PierParty says:

    Great Article. GOP needs to be called out on the utter HYPOCRICY! He chose to hold the meeting at the Capital vs somewhere without the “Gun free Zone”. Hypocricy should be written in GOP Platform!

  164. BenTheGuy says:

    I don’t think he gets to make up the rules that govern the capital building any more than you can. I see more nitpicky BS by you than any hypocrisy by him.

  165. Houndentenor says:


  166. LogicOtter says:

    Your point is valid about the Idaho hypocrisy, but the Texas example you start with is no more hypocrisy than holding a gay marriage rights rally in a state where gay marriage isn’t allowed. Obviously if you want to do away with something you’ll have to lobby during the period it still exists. If the Representative had said he was holding the meeting in the Capitol “for security reasons” that would be hypocritical, but I see no mention like that.

  167. The author apparently can’t figure out the OBVIOUS difference between a gun free zone where people are searched before going in (like the Capitol or getting on an airline) and gun free zones where there is no search and it depends on the voluntary compliance.

  168. caphillprof says:

    I’ve never understood why this supposed 2d amendment right to bear firearms somehow miraculously stops at the courthouse door. Or at the House office buildings. Or for that matter, boarding an aircraft.

  169. Do as I say, not as I do!

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS