Idaho gun-nut lawmakers freak out over man with gun in state Capitol (irony alert)

This story is beyond priceless.  Idaho gun-nut lawmakers are very disturbed about an armed man who walked around the state Capitol building, alongside a tour of Cub and Boy Scouts, in part because he was armed.

And so what?  I thought guns made us safer.  Why should it matter if the man was armed?  He was simply exercising his Second Amendment rights, right?  Sure, he might have had plans to murder all the kids, or take out a few state legislators, but that’s the price you pay for our precious constitutional freedoms.

Shotgun via Shutterstock

Shotgun via Shutterstock

Seriously though, after you read through the story, it’s still not clear, from a gun-nut perspective, what the problem is here?  If the guy was creepy because he was tagging along with a bunch of kids, and going through legislators’ desks (another part of the story), then fine, he’s creepy.  But the fact that he was armed should have nothing to do with the creepiness because, remember, guns don’t kill people.  And in fact, the Idaho state Capitol lifted  an earlier ban on bringing firearms into the building, so what’s the problem?  He was simply following the expressed intent of the Idaho gun-loving legislature.

As for the Cub and Boy Scouts, there’s an easy solution to the creepy factor here.  Just arm the kids too.  And any of the legislators who were creeped out about their own personal safety should simply carry guns as well.  Then the entire building would be armed to the teeth and picture-perfect safe.

Look at some of the comments from the gun-nut legislators:

“Events like that should disturb all Idahoans,” said House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley. “It certainly disturbed me.”

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.”

Did you catch that?  Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill indicated that part of the problem was that the man had a “sidearm.”  So what?  He’s supposed to have a sidearm – he’s a gun nut, and in Idaho you don’t restrict a gun nut’s ability to parade around with his gun, even in the state Capitol.  So why did Hill mention it?  This is especially odd since  Brent Hill is a proud champion of the gun nuts.  Take a look at Brent Hill’s record on gun issues – 100% pure gun nut:

Idaho legislator Brent Hill on guns

So how dare Brent Hill even mention that the man had a “sidearm”?  Again, these jokers revoked the prohibition on carrying guns in the state Capitol, so what did they think was going to happen?

Oh but it gets better:

Hill has urged lawmakers to be careful about what they leave on their desks, but he is also concerned about larger security issues. “What happens when six people come and sit in the front row of the gallery with shotguns across their laps?” Hill said. “I sure as heck am not going to leave my senators in there with that.”

Anti-gun bigot.

I thought six people with shotguns across their laps was supposed to make us six times safer.  So what’s the problem?

Or are Idaho’s far-right GOP gun nuts experiencing a sudden case of Second Amendment NIMBY?

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | 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

181 Responses to “Idaho gun-nut lawmakers freak out over man with gun in state Capitol (irony alert)”

  1. howdyfanz says:

    ……..The only reasons you need a gun in public are:…….You are a COP……….You are Legally transferring large sums of money……..You are NUTZ…………

  2. wzrd1 says:

    An empire, by definition is ruled by an emperor, empress or oligarchy. None of which are true of the US.
    So, we are not an empire by definition.
    Additionally, while we maintain bases in many nations, we do not rule those nations.
    I’d be interested in hearing which major sovereign nations we’ve invaded and overthrown. I’m aware of small nations that had that happen, but few are the major nation that we’ve overthrown, Iran being one that springs immediately to mind.
    As for leaving a mess of things planet wide, we’re about equal with the USSR in screwing up major regions of the planet, both socially and politically.
    Few and far between are the saints, internationally speaking, but there are plenty of sinners.

  3. Won Word says:

    What’s good for the goose…

  4. Won Word says:

    I don’t know if you’ve been keeping up on current events, but we most certainly are an Empire. We have military bases in at least 36 countries, some antipathetic or hostile to us, we’ve invaded and overthrown several major sovereign nations since WWII, and we have the largest armed force in the world (n.b., China’s army has more personnel, but the US has more materiel).

  5. Won Word says:

    The primary purpose of a gun is to sell it to another person in exchange for money. That’s why gun manufacturers manufacture guns.

    What gun nuts do with their phallus substitutes is another matter. Maybe it is to feel like one has long, hard, cold wood cradled in the crook of one’s arm?

  6. JonBoy says:

    The writer shows his ignorance and lack of understanding that results when one’s thinking is clouded by stereotyping and (purposely?) mis-characterizing the viewpoints of folks with whom they do not agree. Being a “gun-nut” (a definition and mis-characterization that throws our opponents thinking askew at the outset of any discussion) myself, and being surrounded by these “gun-nuts” in the rural hunting environment where I live, I can inform this writer that his conclusions re. hypocrisy are dead wrong. The comments that he mocks as hypocrisy are simply the level-headed thinking that prevails among my gun owning friends. We are for the right to bear arms. We know that there are many studies that bear out our positions, as opposed to the positions of our detractors that are, like this writer’s own position, driven solely by feelings, what-if’s, fears, and all manner of emotional steam, with small regard for the facts. This article smacks of similar diatribes that brand folks who do not want this country to progress farther into European socialism as hypocrites because they approve of, and receive, Social Security benefits and don’t have a problem with food stamps for those genuinely in need. It’s not hypocrisy, John, it’s the level-headed thinking that takes in many factors, weighs them, and attempt to come to a rational conclusion that is perhaps a little to complex for you to understand. Is your world always so black-and-white? I thought you lefties espoused shades of gray? Are you a hypocrite?

  7. UncleJohn says:

    In Idaho, nobody took Latin. I’ve been atrociously fast and loose dropping balderized Latin for 11 years now and I’ve only been caught at it once.

  8. Greener_is_better says:

    I think i understand; politicians never do “take a stand” for what’s not politically positive for votes & expedient.Especially like Andrew Cuomo from N.Y.S.

  9. Greener_is_better says:

    I think I now understand politicians never do take a permanent stand.

  10. Little John says:

    Cameras do kill and are killing more and more as they are connected to weaponry. Smart bombs need cameras. The real issue is Man (usualy the men) can use almost anything to assist in killing. As we advance into a far more technological age Cameras will become more important in the prcess of killing. Soon the military will have cameras that are far more sensitive than any eye Nature has created with the ability to attach these not to the Human mind but to a ‘mechanical’ minds even more powerful.

    The whole development of the USA war machine is to create an army of ‘drones’ that takes US personnel out of the firing-line. Overarching this military madness is the good old H-bomb.

  11. Little John says:

    Latin, Latin. Ad Infinitum.

  12. Little John says:

    Frighten people who do not know better.

  13. Little John says:

    I like words and prefatory tickled my fancy so to speak.

  14. Little John says:

    It did strike me that going into a Den-of-iniquity like the Capitol Building in Idaho that one would need a robust method of defence.

  15. Little John says:

    The just shut up got me on your side. lol

  16. Little John says:

    Totally wrong analogy.

  17. Little John says:

    the bee’s knees of hypocracy. I like guns as long as I am the one doing
    the aiming. If the UK had the same gun laws as in Idaho there would be
    far more people here killed by them. I can think of many occasions where
    I would have needed to use one and especially if guns were readily
    available to the general citizenry and defaco the crooks.

  18. Ookmon says:

    What the guy did was perfectly legal, but the press calls him a gun nut.

    You see the propaganda right there in your face.

  19. “Bags are subject to search. But there is no firearm ban.” So what are they searching for?

    Bombs, allegedly.

  20. Rick Lewis says:

    Violence is often the first recourse of the incompetent, as they have no logical or ethical steps to take first. As such it’s their last (and only) refuge once they’ve decided not to just shut up.

  21. Phaerisee says:

    It’s like rain on your wedding day

  22. UncleJohn says:

    That is the remedy and the ordinance where I live too, but it’s observed in the breach, not in compliance.

  23. UncleJohn says:

    I have a much simpler concern – USPSA stages can have up to 32 rounds in a long course. Mag changes take time and reduce your reliability (because you (well, I) drop them).

    And I shoot with men and women who can drop a mag and reload while running and aiming – they measure their mag changes and 1.5 seconds to reload and take the next shot is not unusual. Me, more butterfingery, 4 seconds. A swift mag change is merely technique.
    Once again, it’s the shooter, not the tool.

    But you are correct on the wasting bullets. When I first started shooting (as a further left liberal than most of the posters here), I learned to load mags short so I’d focus on aiming instead of shooting. A great savings in ammo!

    Thank you for your post – that’s maybe the most civil and least antagonistic comment I’ve gotten here. Nobody is more intolerant than a liberal with a cause, except maybe a conservative with a principle.

  24. Actually….they require fences around backyard pools in our area to stop just such a thing.

  25. Eric Lilly says:

    Here’s the deal Uncle. No one is coming to take your guns. However if they do limit you to a smaller magazine size, does it really bother you or take away your freedoms to shoot at the range? Do you not like loading your weapon more often? Do you shoot better when 30 rounds go out within seconds? Take it this way. The only affect of of the “ban” will be saving you money on all the extra rounds you can’t shoot off every second.

    Now, that’s not sniveling mind you…. just common sense. Only thing you can come back with is “It;s my right to shoot off more rounds per second dagnabbit!”

  26. Eric Lilly says:

    You can do that with a BB gun.

  27. UncleJohn says:

    A little money invested in therapy can go a long way, AngerMan. Just sayin’.

  28. UncleJohn says:

    I am none of those things and the people I know who are would be absolutely appalled at the suggestion.

    But thanks for showing me the true colors of civilized conduct.

  29. You’re part of the problem. You’re a gunloon just for trying to pretend that “gun nut” is some how inaccurate or demeaning. Christian terrorism is the problem here, and you’re part of the problem.

  30. Republican theofascism at its best.

  31. That’s the thing. These right wing elite corporate crooks don’t live out in the real world with the rest of us, they are protected in their corporate rich bubbles. Once these Christian fascists find out what the real America is like, they don’t want to live in it, even if it’s the theofascists committing this dystopian theocratic Jesusland lunacy.

  32. Behold the Christian Republidiot IQ.

  33. Would have been better if the NRA gunloon had slaughtered a bunch of Republican law-making terrorists, taught them the lesson that 90% of Americans already know: NRA terrorism is an epidemic. Christian terrorism is killing our country, killing our kids, destroying our country from the inside out, no need for Islamic terrorists when Christian Republinazis are doing it for them.

  34. Steve Clark says:

    Do you have data on drowning deaths vs shooting deaths for other ages?

    As a parent of children in the demographic highlighted in this case, and as a one-time lifeguard, I can tell you that this group is the HIGHEST risk group for drownings, and although I don’t have the data I’m pretty sure I can surmise that the under-10 set is NOT the most at risk group for gun deaths.

    So this case is apples and oranges in the bigger debate on why it’s considered an affront to the 2nd amendment to keep certain types of weapons/accessories away from the general public.

    If you have a pool your personal liability insurance may increase unless you have it fenced and locked, and even with these precautions people have been successfully sued for wrongful death even after someone trespasses and gets hurt or dies. I am not a proponent of mandating per-gun liability insurance for gun owners, mainly because of the logistics involved, but have no problem with removing NRA-Drawn provisions from state and federal laws that prevent a gunshot victim from suing the registered owner of said gun. Don’t lock up your gun and a whacko steals it and uses it? YOUR FAULT! Prepare to be sued. Hope you bought liability insurance when you purchased that gun. Accidentally shot someone in the face while bird hunting? YOUR FAULT! Legal trouble for you!

    There will be no single way to prevent gun violence, but doing nothing is what’s killed nearly 2,000 people in this country in the month and a half since Sandy Hook.

  35. UncleJohn says:

    Thank you for your efforts to teach this unworthy one. I regret that I did not make a better pupil.

  36. KingCranky says:

    Since I didn’t say “you attacked me”, or even use the word “attack”, then your arguments are still projections and pathetic spin in an attempt to deflect from your false equivalence of cameras, Syria & a nightclub fire and you’re still flailing about trying to make a coherent argument.

    You were the one who brought up race, therefore it makes sense to conclude you have a problem with non-whites and are projecting your obvious insecurity in a further display of pathetic spin.

    But you’re right, I’m so scared of everything that I don’t possess a firearm or feel the need to purchase and carry any weapons around when out in public.

    Perhaps best not to accuse others, who don’t own guns, of being scared when you publicly claim you own guns yourself.

    So great job of debunking your own blather, is that something you do all the time, or only on special occasions?

    By all means, please do continue with the pathetic spin, projection and self-debunking, don’t get bogged down by that whole “logical consistency” thing now.

  37. wzrd1 says:

    I can’t earn $10k per year in competition winnings with a paper punch.

    An interesting comparison you made, can’t differentiate between a gun and a camera. So, you saw the video of the reporter that was killed when visiting an active firefight in Iraq and ignore the hell out of the AK47’s and RPG, then proclaim intellectual superiority.
    Way to suck.
    Goodbye you’re not worth my time.

  38. wzrd1 says:

    Why, thank you for your imperial proclamation. Fortunately, we’re not an empire.

  39. wzrd1 says:

    If you shoot bottles and cans around me, when you wake up, you’ll find yourself alone and with a broken firearm.

  40. wzrd1 says:

    Actually, I have firearms that are not designed to kill anything, they’re competition firearms, designed for precision competition shooting.
    They’d suck for hunting, they’re lousy for concealed carry, they’re rubbish for open carry.
    They’re designed for one purpose, precision shooting.
    The rest are designed to kill game or humans, depending on the model.

    And as an owner of a dozen firearms (a handful were inherited), I also hate gun nuts. No reason, only hyperbole.
    When it comes to any form of firearm, reason should prevail, not the lack of reason and rationality.

    That is why I advocate for taking every semiautomatic firearm that is derived from selective fire military service rifles and their magazines and placing them under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

    As well as pistol magazines that protrude more than one inch below the end of the magazine well (a few pistols use the magazine base as part of the grip).

    The NFA is extremely effective, since 1934, there has only been one crime committed with an NFA firearm.

    And reclassification has a precedent, the infamous “Street Sweeper” was placed under the NFA as a destructive weapon a handful of years ago.
    It’s legal, it’s constitutional, it has quite a lot of supporting case law and it’s effective.

  41. UncleJohn says:

    So you only care about kids lives when a gun is involved?

    You’re not alone, but I find that position completely baffling.

  42. Ginny_in_CO says:

    Ya know how other things than guns can kill people? I have one really heavy duty paper punch. The four legged security system went to play with her predecessor, so I need to find a substitute until I can cover vet bills. The beauty of the punch is it would not be seen as a weapon, while the gun is quickly recognized …. Damn, this Idaho dilemma is too sweet… Even better than the Morrison nut getting arrested in front of his uber secured and armed house, unable to fire a single shot. :) :) Tomorrow will be practice the right hook paper punch day.

  43. Greener_is_better says:

    Self defense

  44. David Duprey says:

    this is the solution! occupy the legislature with guns! force the gun nuts to admit that they feel LESS safe with 6 people sitting in the front row with shotguns. bring the fight to them.

  45. Joe Bosse says:

    ughh, I won’t up this one, but yeah, it kind of looks that way.

  46. kamrom dechu says:

    I wish the republicans would go.. a day without contradicting themselves. But its just not gonna happen, is it?

  47. It is just starting. There will be a harvest of blood if we keep sowing this insanity!!!!

  48. henrythefifth says:

    When some asshole walks into a school and kills 20 defenseless kids with a swimming pool or a camera, be sure to let us all know.

  49. Auntie1947 says:

    I laughed so hard I almost wet my pants!!!

  50. lazadar says:

    pro-extreme gun folks are plain scared of everything: societal change, gays, powerful women, people of color, presidents of color, loss of masculinity, loss of control, loss of power and fear itself. Being denied the right to carry a weapon of mass destruction strikes extreme fear in their hearts. There’re feeling cornered so they’re gonna rise up amongst themselves and scream any insane thing that makes them feel empowered.

  51. UncleJohn says:

    You’re saying we should keep the dirty water, just throw the baby out?

  52. UncleJohn says:

    But you know what’s weird? Backyard swimming pools kill more children than guns every year but nobody seems to care. I haven’t been able to get any anti-gun person to respond to the following from economists.

    The problem is that they are often scared of the wrong things… The facts they do manage to glean have usually been varnished or exaggerated or otherwise taken out of context to serve an agenda that isn’t their own.

    Consider the parents of an eight-year-old girl named, say, Molly. Her two best friends, Amy and Imani, each live nearby. Molly’s parents know that Amy’s parents keep a gun in their house, so they have forbidden Molly to play there. Instead, Molly spends a lot of time at Imani’s house, which has a swimming pool in the backyard. Molly’s parents feel good about having made such a smart choice to protect their daughter.

    But according to the data, their choice isn’t smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.

    Don’t you think that’s weird that you fear the less deadly object?

  53. UncleJohn says:

    True enough – I’m applauding the violence or deaths at all. I wish these nutjobs would settle for traditional suicide instead of taking other people with them in some insane blaze of bullets.

  54. UncleJohn says:

    I don’t believe I attacked you, unless you find bullet points threatening too.

    But I hit a nerve with the racism card, didn’t I?

    You should go put some more extra locks on your front door.

  55. UncleJohn says:

    fair enough, but I didn’t snivel.

  56. No they just expect you to be armed to protect yourself in case the nimrod opens fire on you in Walmart and if you and the other customers were not armed, that was your fault.

  57. No it’s FASCISM. Smell that!!!

  58. In Fitzwalkerstan, that IS the law, including not being able to bring SIGNS into the Capital either since the protests. Concealed guns? OK. Cameras, recording devices, signs and cell phones when they always used to be legal? Not anymore!! Can’t be with more then 5 people w/o a pre-approved permit as that is considered organized assembly now and of course who do you have to get that pre-approved permit through? Walker’s Administration created DOA so good luck with that. There have been over 350 citations issued by Capital police for this alone that people are fighting all on the WI taxpayer dime but “WI is too broke to pay teachers”. I don;t know where I live as it sucks so bad here.

  59. Is there a better word to describe this then just plain old hypocrisy? You made your laws and now you have to live with them and no “exceptions” just because you’re the wingnut legislatures who just got your “liberty, freedom and my 2nd Amendment rights shall NOT be infringed upon” shoved right back in your faces. Suck it up or do what you’re always recommending the rest of us do and arm yourselves. After all, “more guns make US ALL SAFER!!” Start following your own law and your tired old talking points.

  60. djulien says:

    You might take note of one small difference between guns and cameras. Each year guns kill more than 20,000 people and each year, cameras kill zero people. Just sayin’..

  61. OBforObama says:

    Clearly ancillary, and prefatory, to the primary design function.

  62. OBforObama says:

    No cameras, no porn. Just sayin’.

  63. emmagee says:

    In NH they’d have given the guy a medal. The Republicans are still miffed that the rules were changed to prevent guns inside the state house.

  64. OBforObama says:

    Disagree. All too often the first or second.

  65. “I’m a competition shooter as part of the United States Practical Shooting
    Association – tens of thousands of good people. That’s the primary
    purpose of my guns and it doesn’t involve killing.

    You’re pretty comical claiming the high moral ground while sniveling
    insults instead of dialogue. Out of curiosity, how old are you?”

    The last part sound like an insult to me!

  66. John Zaffino says:


  67. Jenny Yasi says:

    Ah, well done Mr. Aravosis. That was a pretty satisfying chew.

  68. KingCranky says:

    Interesting, and hypocritical, how you decry “false equivalence” when playing that card yourself.

    Right, you’re the only person who cares about the Sandy Hook victims and survivors, and you show that “concern” with your caterwauling-false equivalence-about cameras, Syria and the nightclub fire, none of which has anything to do with the Idaho gun nuts and their hypocrisy highlighted in this blog post.

    Since I can’t physically control your actions, beliefs and utterances, then it’s not my fault you flail wildly and stumble about trying to make a coherent argument with the most pathetic of spin, lashing out when called on your lack of logic.

    I’m guessing your last two statements apply far more to yourself than anyone else, guns being involved and only if the kids are White Americans, it’s clear you’ll try any argument to deflect away from the use of guns in these massacres, but fail every time.

    I’ll repeat, if your aim is as faulty as your “logic”, then it’s definitely best for society if you don’t handle a gun, please leave that to people who know what they’re doing.

  69. UncleJohn says:

    I’ll try one more time. I’ll give you credit – your name is well chosen.

    The false equivalent argument is an interesting tactic but has no place in an honest debate, any more than tears or declaring that your opponent can’t use verbs. It’s a pre-emptive strike against an argument you don’t want to or can’t deal with. I don’t accept your basic position of false equivalence.

    Here’s how I view it:

    – guns and cameras are mechanical objects made by humans
    – they can both be used for good or ill, depending on the use and user
    – neither of them can act on their own with bad intent
    – the common element is the human
    – Humans have to choose between good and bad every minute of the day
    – Some humans suck at it, from a ‘we’re all in this together’ perspective, and make selfish, bad and crazy choices
    – Sometimes they go off and hurt or kill other beings
    – The vast majority of people do not do this

    – From your statements, I take it you wouldn’t care if the Sandy Hook a-hole had burnt the school down with the kids inside.
    – You only appear to care if there’s a gun involved,
    – And if the children are white Americans

  70. KingCranky says:

    You still can’t put a rational spin on your camera comparison, or your Syria reference, or your Brazil nightclub mention, your attempts are still pathetic and you still know it.

    If your aim is as faulty as your “logic” then it’s definitely best for society if you don’t handle firearms, other than the type with a “BANG!” flag that unfurls from the barrel.

  71. UncleJohn says:

    It sounds like a tragedy to me. What was your point?

  72. UncleJohn says:

    Ha! I missed the connection in our icons. Very good. Is that a real Irish quote?

    I used to use this one as my tagline – “Is this a private fight or can anyone jump in?” Old Irish saying.

  73. UncleJohn says:

    I care about all of them, in a remote sort of way. I care about you too, about to the same extent. And I know the graveyard of history is vast and yet not full and we all lay down in the end.

    How about the 321 killed in that Brazilian nightclub last week? Do you care?

  74. Hoopty says:

    Yes, and today, and yesterday, in the news, Israel has been bombing Syria. Bet you are all happy about that, Uncle John, despite caring about “the Syrian chiiiiiiillldddreeeeennnn”.

  75. Toprameneesha(click) says:

    Hah. You go liberals! See, I’ve read “The Official Leftwing Liberal Handbook”. The comments are comical. I MUST be a gun nut. Fapfapfapfap…

  76. karmanot says:

    Just pulling your tale, take it easy. And I do love some Nietzche anytime.

  77. karmanot says:

    Two people would have built a brick house with a metal roof. And old Irish saying.

  78. karmanot says:

    Ah, I get it now. Thanks

  79. karmanot says:

    The Church at its most dangerous and righteous.

  80. karmanot says:

    You are welcome.

  81. karmanot says:


  82. EdA says:

    “What happens when six people come and sit in the front row of
    the gallery with shotguns across their laps?” Hill said. “I sure as heck
    am not going to leave my senators in there with that.”

    You mean in case they want to exercise their Second Amendment remedies?

    THAT’S easy. Six of Hill’s senators take out THEIR shotguns and keep them pointed right at them. Or, because there are six people in the gallery, the senators take out their assault weapons and launch a pre-emptive attack.

  83. KingCranky says:

    I wasn’t aware that we’re at war here in the US, so by your logic, you must not care about the children killed at Sandy Hook.

    Your spin is still pathetic and you still already know that.

  84. Ginger_FL says:

    Because the 2nd amendment was designed to raise an army in times of NEED. we were not supposed to have a full time military with bases et al. So the 3rd Amendment is there to deal with housing soliders.

  85. UncleJohn says:

    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent – Isaac Asimov

  86. AngstIsOptional says:

    It’s one way of life in Idaho. Don’t speak for us all, please.

  87. UncleJohn says:

    I did not attack you. I have been civil throughout, despite your aggressiveness.

    Unless you think that people who don’t agree with you are attacking you, in which case, well, Tally Ho!

  88. UncleJohn says:

    Two people in a burning house should not stop to argue – old Africa saying

  89. UncleJohn says:

    More attacks. You sound just like the anti-abortion people.

  90. UncleJohn says:

    What about gun cameras?

  91. UncleJohn says:

    More attacks and arm waiving. You can do better, if only for your own sake.

  92. UncleJohn says:

    And you really believe you have the moral high ground with your words. To my ears, you sound just like a conservative being nasty.

    Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. Nietzsche.

  93. UncleJohn says:

    Ad hominem. And thanks for the snicker.

  94. UncleJohn says:

    The day after Sandy Hook, 36 people were killed in Syria, including over 20 children. Did you know? Do you care? If not, why not? Because they look different? Because it’s far away?

  95. TuxedoCartman says:

    Nope. If that was a primary purpose, it could be done using a lot less lead and gunpowder. Might I suggest a BB gun, or air soft rifle, if target shooting’s your thing.

  96. Bcre8ve says:

    That’s rich, coming from the same people that wre passing this picture around to “prove” that “teachers” should be carrying guns, after Newtown.

    But, of course, they were never known for their intellectual consistency.

  97. karmanot says:

    That’s true, but Mormons and religion in general draw dedicated, outraged cracked-pot faithful.

  98. karmanot says:

    Make that a three snap, shoulder raise and head bobble.

  99. KingCranky says:

    Since massacres aren’t committed with cameras, your spin is still pathetic, but you already know that.

  100. karmanot says:

    “having feinting spells” Is that like a false equivalency?

  101. karmanot says:

    I promise not to inflame myself more that twice a week. no, really!

  102. nicho says:

    “Kill them all; let God sort them out.” –Cistercian monk Arnaud Amalric

  103. karmanot says:

    ‘generally’? Does that mean you pack with a wide stance?

  104. nicho says:

    If I saw that, I would, as you say, head for the exit — but I would also call 9-1-1 and tell them a man with a gun had just entered the store. After about a couple of hundred of those calls, and the store being locked down, the stores might enforce their own policies.

  105. karmanot says:


  106. karmanot says:

    Cool, a right hook paper punch!

  107. karmanot says:

    Sniveling insults are truly the lowest of the low, when compared to roaring, gratuitous, ad-hominids are much more satisfying.

  108. karmanot says:

    “Name a primary purpose of a gun that is not killing.” Disturbing the tensile integrity of a paper target, glass bottle or tin can?

  109. karmanot says:

    It does call for a trench coat.

  110. karmanot says:

    eh :-)