At the heart of what makes an individual an anti-gun nut is their absolute, hysterical, irrational fear of guns which are seen -- always and in every way -- as evil and of no good use under any circumstances.
Usually accompanying such fanaticism is, of course, an utter and total disregard of the Second Amendment. All of which leads us to this month's Anti-Gun-Nut Maryland State Senator Barbara Hoffman, a Democrat.
In response to the raffling off of a 9mm handgun by Carroll County (Maryland) Republicans, Hoffman introduced Senate Bill 341 which would prohibit a person from operating a raffle in which a handgun is offered as a prize. In a statement regarding her bill, Hoffman said:
"There have been very few occasions in my life when I have been at a loss for words; yet this time I am, perhaps because the issue is so clear to me as it is to many others.... A handgun is not an appropriate prize for a raffle. It trivializes the tragedies of thousands of Americans.... As such, it is an appropriate response of government to take action.
"We do not allow alcoholic beverages to be advertised or used or sold everywhere, although it is a legal product. The same is true for cigarettes. The same theory should be true for a handgun, a legal product but one whose primary purpose is to do harm."
Well, now. Too bad Hoffman wasn't, literally, at a loss for words because what she says here is absurd. In no way do handguns, necessarily, "trivialize" anything. Indeed, raffling off a handgun could more likely be said to honor the hundreds of thousands of Americans -- some estimates say millions of Americans -- who use handguns every year in self-defense.
And Hoffman's analogizing handguns to alcohol and cigarettes is equally ludicrous because there is no Constitutional right to drink or smoke. There is, however, a Constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
But, as an anti-gun-nut, Hoffman could not care less about self-defense or Constitutional rights, as was made clear when we confronted her at the Maryland State Capital in Annapolis. Here's the way our brief interview with her went when we attempted to discuss her bill, the Constitution and self-defense:
Q: What about the US Constitutional Second Amendment protection for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
A : Why, I don't think it has anything to do with it. I mean, this bill has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. We regulate a whole lot of legal products. And saying that a group can't use a handgun as a raffle prize doesn't say anything about whatever your interpretation is of the Second Amendment.
Q: But [the Second Amendment would apply] to those people keeping the arms (to raffle them and to those winning the handguns).
A: No, no, no, no.
Q: Don't law-abiding citizens have the right to keep arms and sell (raffle them off) to other law-abiding citizens?
A: Only if they follow the law. And if we say by law that you can't raffle a handgun, then they can't. [Note: Her law would prevent anyone from raffling off a handgun.]
Q: You say that such a raffle trivializes the tragedy of thousands of Americans.
A: Yes.
Q: What about the hundreds of thousands of Americans -- some research says millions of Americans -- who every year use handguns in self-defense? Guns aren't used just to harm people. Do you care about the lives saved by people using handguns in self-defense?
A: Sure. And they can go buy their guns in a gun store.
Q: But who are you to tell them where they should buy their guns?
A: I'm a legislator, sir. If we pass a law that you can't raffle a gun, you can't raffle a gun.
Q: Really? So, there's no appeal from your law? Nobody can contest it in a court?
A: What do you mean contest it in a court? If you want to buy a gun legally, then you certainly have lots of places to buy the gun.
Q: In fact, the analogy you use -- you say guns should be treated like alcohol and cigarettes, which are legal to buy!
A: Yes, but not everywhere to every person.
Q: But your bill [would prohibit anyone from buying a gun from a raffle].
A: I'm finished.
Q: You're finished all right.
A: But, not the way you think though.
Q: Your bill's going nowhere. It's insane.
A: You know what? Let me tell you something. That bill probably won't pass here.
Q: You don't care about the Constitution of the United States.
A: You know what I care about? I care about the thousands of children who have been killed by people with handguns who don't take care of them.
Q: But not the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by handguns.
A: I don't believe that for one minute.
Q: That's because you don't do any research on it. You're ignorant.
A: And you, sir, are rude.
Q: Better than ignorant.
To make a long story short, Hoffman's bill, as predicted, was killed in a committee and never saw the light of day, thank God. But, there's a fascinating footnote to this tale which proves that handguns -- even those won at raffles -- are not, necessarily, always put to a bad or harmful use, as Hoffman seems to believe. As Maryland Republican State Senator Timothy Ferguson told us:
Someone called me from Allegheny County. He told me that some years ago he had won a handgun at a sporting event raffle held at a carnival. He said he subsequently used this handgun to save himself from being a victim of a violent crime on his property. He obviously believed he couldn't be here today if he had not had that handgun.
Ferguson says this man did not want to be identified by name "because he didn't want to be ostracized in this anti-gun climate where there is this sinking feeling among Second Amendment supporters that you will be treated as a second-class citizen if you believe in gun ownership."