We Democrats here in Southeastern Connecticut must hang our heads in shame. The only two Democrats to vote against the gun bill in the State Senate are from our part of the state: Cathy Osten of Norwich, and Andy Maynard, whose district includes my home. Andy, some may recall, cast one of the votes that delayed the abolition of the death penalty. Now he’s taken a brave stand in favor of gun kooks, advancing an argument which refutes itself:
Everyone wants to make sure that another tragedy does not occur, but “I think in my view this bill runs a little off track,” Maynard said. “I just don’t have a comfort level with a bill that goes that far.”
Maynard said he was not given enough time to thoroughly review the bill because it came out this morning and that constituents from his rural community who are “proud” sportsmen and traditional folks had valid concerns about being able to protect themselves from intruders and the government.
“It is their right to feel that,” Maynard said. “I don’t share their same weariness of the government because I have the privilege of working in the government.”
But he said his neighbors and friends feel passionately about the erosion of their Second Amendment rights.
“I will defend them on principle, not because they are gun nuts or fringe elements, but because this is who we are as a people, this is what was established as a Bill of Rights when the Constitution was ratified.”
Democrats “jealously guard” a woman’s right to choose after that hard-won battle, he said.
(via theday.com Mobile Edition)
It does refute itself, but a few comments are in order nonetheless. First, it seems passing strange that a state legislator, sworn to uphold both the state and federal constitutions, feels he has an obligation to preserve the “right” of gun nuts to rebel against the government lawfully constituted under those constitutions. But perhaps most offensive is his comparison of this non-existent right to the right of a woman to control her own body.
Well, I don’t regret voting for Andy, because the alternative, at least the last time around, was so much worse. I give him credit for the intelligence to know that his reasoning is specious, so I can only conclude he acted out of fear. He may even get my vote next time, as the alternative will once again probably be worse, but my checkbook will be closed, and I’ll certainly encourage others to follow my example. Presumably the folks itchin’ to take up arms against the government can make up the difference for him.
Oh wait, I forgot, they only vote for Republicans.
As for Osten, I really don’t know her. I give her credit for matching the speciousness of Andy’s argument.
One final observation. Isn’t it strange that it is only when it comes to guns that otherwise sensible legislators resort to the argument that if a bill cannot completely solve a problem then it can’t possibly be worth passing?
One Comment