The Gun Controlling Governor Who’s Never Shot One

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

As people (mostly gun rights advocates) line up to testify on gun control legislation as if they’re low-income people caught up in the UHIP debacle or Providence drivers nabbed by speed cameras, I thought I’d highlight this interesting detail from Ted Nesi’s latest weekend roundup column (emphasis added):

Governor Raimondo, meanwhile, has been devoting a lot of her public appearances to promoting gun control. In an interview with Kim Kalunian on Thursday, she said she supports her daughter’s plans to join an upcoming school walkout – and has never shot a gun herself.

We would err if we cultivated the standard that only people who know about a thing can ever comment on its use, but the fact that the governor has never, ever shot a gun seems unusually relevant in this case.

To Our Readers: We need your support to challenge the progressive mainstream media narrative. Your donation helps us deliver the truth to Rhode Islanders. Please give now.

After all, she’s pushing legislation to forbid people from buying particular guns and accessories and to expand the ability of government to take guns away even though she has no personal experience with how they might handle differently.  She has no basis to say, “You don’t need that gun instead of this gun,” because she doesn’t know what practical difference there might be.

Moreover, she’ll probably never have to consider firing guns for anything other than sport, because she’s followed around by people with taxpayer-funded guns, and she’s wealthy enough to afford various forms of security even after she leaves public office.

So, the fact that the governor of Rhode Island has never pulled a gun’s trigger doesn’t remove her right to opine on gun ownership.  However, it should encourage some humility in somebody seeking to limit access to a constitutionally protected tool when she hasn’t ever used the tool herself and can expect always to be able to rely on hired help to use it when she needs it.



  • guest

    Great analogy, Justin. BTW, have you ever had an abortion?

  • Merle The Monster

    I think humility should start at home. Katz denigrates police officers and National Guard troops as “people with taxpayer funded guns” and “hired help”. Those people who serve and protect the Governor have had background checks and extensive training and are part of organizations that have protocols for the use of those “guns”. Katz also enjoys those protections too.

    • Justin Katz

      It isn’t denigration to note that taxpayers fund armed police and military personnel. Indeed, it is absolutely essential to freedom for both citizens and those personnel to remember that fact.

      And you should read more closely. I noted that Raimondo will always be able to afford private security. In either case, the guns are hired.

      As for my enjoyment of those protections, I just looked around my office and just outside the door, and I don’t see any police standing guard or making people walk through a metal detector before they enter. The equivalence of my protection with the governor’s is just silly.

      • Merle The Monster

        The large majority of people who do not own guns are not wealthy and do not require personal security and that should not prevent them from entering the ongoing debate about the reasonable limits of others access to guns. This Governor and any Governor in this country needs and deserves protection by qualified and trained professionals because well you know (it’s obvious) there are millions of guns and enough angry and disturbed people that have access to lethal weapons and sometimes will point them at Governors, Senators, Representatives, etc. Gun owners and non gun owners should approach this debate open to hearing each other and I’ll agree that possibly this Governor has a closed mind on the subject.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      Yes, does enjoy those protections. Just like those school kids in Coward County. By the way, is the Do Not Call Registry working as well for you as it does for me?

      • Merle The Monster

        I have absolutely no idea of the meaning of your words but don’t feel the need to explain at time soon.

  • Mike678

    The argument that the Gov needs to have to have handled a gun to make a decision on guns is pretty weak. I assume she makes her decision(s) based on a reasonable, rational fact-based argument vice the fact-free emotion we see all too often in the media. If you find that not the case, then that would be newsworthy.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      The governor needs to know that “gun control” means hitting the target.

  • Christopher C. Reed

    The Guv makes her decisions based on which way the narrative blows.
    “Guns for me, not for thee.”

Quantcast