When it comes to gun control, no one is more hypocritical than liberal celebrities and politicians. While these people promote the end of gun rights for ordinary Americans, it’s often the case that they are protected in public and in their homes, by cadres of highly trained and armed bodyguards. They reap the benefits of the Second Amendment, while treating the rest of us like children who can’t be trusted with a gun.
However, it’s not just prominent liberals who are hypocritical when it comes to gun rights.
Republican Congressman Mo Brooks, who survived the recent shooting in Virginia that left Congressman Steve Scalise severely injured, has been promoting a new bill that will allow lawmakers to carry a gun anywhere in the country, including Washington D.C., regardless of local laws. The only exceptions, are when lawmakers are in the US Capital building, or in the presence of the President or Vice President.
“I’m going to be introducing legislation this week … to allow congressmen to carry a sidearm, should they so desire,” Rep. Mo Brooks said in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Members of Congress are “high-profile targets,” the congressman said, adding that they have “absolutely no way to defend ourselves because of Washington, D.C.’s rather restrictive gun laws,” the Alabama congressman said.
“I want congressmen to be treated as if they were law enforcement,” Brooks said, “given that we are high-profile targets for the bad guys, the lone wolves, the terrorists.”
That makes sense. Politicians are high-profile individuals who routinely face death threats from members of the public. They should absolutely have the right to arm themselves in public.
But what about everyone else? What would it say about our country if this bill passes? That lawmakers should have a special right to carry a gun wherever they want? That they are above the local and state laws that keep millions of Americans from protecting themselves in public? Politicians are supposed to have the same rights as us. They’re not special in that regard, but some of Brooks’ recent statements might suggest that he thinks otherwise.
Brooks said the measure doesn’t include any particular training requirements for members.
In an interview with WHNT News 19 Tuesday afternoon, he said members are capable of deciding on their own if they need any firearms training.
“I defer to the judgment of our elected Congressmen and Senators,” Brooks said. “They are adults. They are targets, they are high-profile targets of terrorists and lone wolf attackers, and as such they are in a position to make their own decision about how much training they believe is necessary.”
But our judgement can’t be trusted?
Last I heard, most Americans have to undergo some form of training if they want to receive a conceal carry license. But congressmen suddenly don’t need training? Sorry, but I could think of a few politicians who would make me nervous if they were packing. If they’re mature of enough to make that decision themselves, then so is every other adult American.
The point I’m trying to make, isn’t that this bill is wrong. I do think politicians should be allowed to arm themselves in public, and I don’t think they should have to beg the government for permission to carry a gun. But neither should the rest of us. That’s exactly what millions of Americans have to do if they want to conceal carry. Depending on where they live, they need to pay fees, obtain permits, go through background checks, and undergo training before they can carry a gun. They have to convince the government that they are responsible adults, before the government gives them a permit to exercise their rights. They don’t get to decide for themselves if they have enough training. It would be absolutely sick if the political class didn’t have to jump through the same hoops that many of us have to jump through to obtain a concealed carry permit.
The bottom line is this. Whether you’re a politician or a private citizen, no law abiding American should have to beg the government for permission to carry a gun in public. It’s a right that should be taken away from citizens who abuse it (criminals), but nobody should need permission in the first place.
Congressman Brooks, if you really support the Second Amendment, as you so eloquently claimed after the shooting in Virginia, then you’ll promote laws that enhance everyone’s rights, and not just the rights of your colleagues.
