There is a very touching bit of sympathy-searching in the Union Leader’s My Turn editorial today. Eric Merklin, husband of State House Rep Tara Sad (D-Walpole) cranks up the left wing fantasy-template on State House violence and goes fishing.
He is ‘worried’ that someone in the gallery could shoot his wife.
Does Eric realize that his wife, the third term House member, sat there in the well for years under the sights of armed observers while the democrats controlled the body, and no one tried to shoot anyone? Given what the progressives did you’d think that was the threshold opportunity for all those right wing crazies. Balloon fines, bathroom bills, gay marriage, fines, fees, taxes, more taxes, yet no gun battles. He does troll out the HCR6 shouting to make the point that yelling is the gateway drug to gunning down innocent people in the House chamber despite the lack of evidence to support it, but if yelling leads to gun violence why are there still progressives walking around heating up the planet with their exhaled exhortations to ban guns? They should have wiped themselves out by now?
So we have several years with nobody crying a public river about the risk of bloodshed in Concord’s hallowed halls until it appeared to be politically convenient, which makes the “it’s all about safety” shtick smell like rovers little donation to renewable fertilizers–which I think got a green energy grant through RGGI if I remember correctly. Its got that disingenuous feel that reeks of populist fear-mongering of the sort only the right can ever be guilty of.
This also leaves us wondering what’s next after a State House ban we didn’t need then…but have to have now? (Well, not really. We know what comes next but just play along.)
If you can ban guns in the State House, where our ‘rights’ are supposed to be protected above all else, where next? The list of places a liberal might decide are unsafe for a firearm are only limited by their ability to imagine them as unsafe and to then write touching letters to the editor about the perceived risks, followed by laws, which means there are no safe places. The goal is to disarm the populace. We already know this.
So I would like to think of this as both drawing a line for the right to self defense in the sand, and legislators putting their money where their mouths are. We’ll take the same risks as you. Besides, and you can ask Dan Eaton to confirm this, bars are far more contentious places to be than the floor of the New Hampshire House, armed or not.
Then there is the letter itself. It (conveniently) follows the formula laid out in Boo Hoo Hamster and by Mike Farley in Manchester,(template provided by the DNC, patent pending) which is not surprising for a letter from the left. It goes like this.
House reps in the midst of an honest yet heated debate about (contentious social issue) gunned down by …. All we need to do know is wait for the Lifetime ‘Tear-Jerker’ Movie adaptation.
Forget that law abiding gun owners save their own lives and lives of others every day. No, let’s use one very public tragedy to advance our agenda to create more tragedies–after all it helps us grow the government so we can create that violent underclass we’ve always wanted.
So I’d like to offer Mr. Merklin a compromise. If a side arm and a few lessons for Tara seem inappropriate I’m willing to concede from this moment forward that no democrats or progressives should be allowed in the State house armed with a gun, or a knife, and no car keys either or pencils. In a fit of rage over some budget cutting bill one of those left wing lunatics might go on a rampage and try to poke out an eye with one of those things.
And if that doesn’t work for you, she can resign. I bet some Republicans would be more than willing to take her place without all the drama.