On LeFavour and Fear

Rep. Nicole LeFavour (D-19) representing Idaho’s most far left districts writes about scared Conservative lawmakers:

1. Wolves: not for their teeth but for the fact that, to a sizable number of us as legislators, they embody the Federal Government. They represent that struggle locals feel as the back country is designated wilderness and federal law changes to reflect coming population demands, pollution and contamination and human health problems already urgent in cities. It is a struggle over change and over power. Some fear the wolf because we are accustomed to being almost invincible in the wilderness. We are accustomed to grazing sheep and cattle and making of wild places what we will, not what another creature wills.

Translation: Stupid conservative prefer over people and don’t like having their property destroyed in the wilderness.

Even if we implant birth control devises in wolves and see their populations level, there will be tension. Even if we watch them strengthen elk herds, culling the weak and making wild game meat lean and strong, there will be those who still will wish wolves exterminated. Even if we are able to use federal dollars to pay for losses to ranchers, pay to cover investment and the future market value of calves, there will be some who will never see a wolf as magnificent or sacred, only scary.

Because federal tax dollars are free money. We don’t even pay federal taxes in Idaho. State legislators don’t help our national deficit when they go, “That’s okay, let’s just get some of that great federal money.”

If the wolves are sacred, doesn’t that imply some sort of religious worship, and if so does that not constitute an establishment of religion with federal tax dollars? At the very least, words like “magnificient” and “sacred” imply personal preference being used to set policy. Finally, if wolves are so sacred, why aren’t they sacred enough to release into Hyde Park. I’ve suggested the idea a couple of times (in jest of course) to some people who handle wolf policy, but with a serious point. Liberals from urban districts advocate releasing wolves into other people’s backyards (particularly less represented rural Idahoans) but would never dream of having the “sacred wolf” running around their neighborhood. Kind of like how Rep. LeFavour’s constitutents will claim the mantle of compassionate liberalism, but oppose a shelter for homeless people in their neighborhood. They’re all for compassion and sacredness-just not in their back yard.

Finally, it says something about the moral banrkuptcy of ultra-liberalism that the life of the wolf is sacred, the life of the unborn child is not.

Moving on, Rep. LeFavour continues onto a bill about guns:

2) Being without a gun. Unless recent legislation is only about the politics of gun rights, then I suspect that it is frightening for some of my colleagues to picture their own son or daughter on a college campus without a gun. Let’s set aside that moments of passion and drunkenness are perhaps the greatest threats to public safety, even for those who remain sober, and to insert guns into such an environment might not help make it safer. Never mind that suicide by a fire arm may be one of the higher risk factors of allowing concealed weapons on campus. I suppose too we had best set aside the notion that a concealed weapons permit is an adequate test for emotional stability or any indicator of its owner’s ability keep that gun out of the hands of others on a small campus with shared dorm rooms, open doors, and many parties. This week, as the legislature debates prohibiting colleges from banning concealed weapons on campus, we will contemplate what we fear and what we don’t fear. Will a change in the law create more fear or less?

It seems to be that Rep. LeFavour fears an armed citizenry. She also takes a stand that you and I can’t be trusted with firearms. In short, what Rep. LeFavour fears is you: armed with means of your own self-defense.

This is the ultimate outcome of a political philosophy that says we are unable to control ourselves in other areas of our lives and not responsible for our actions. We are also incapable of freedom under such scenarios. Guns prevent far more problems than they cause and those who are intent on making trouble with guns on campus will do so without or without a permit, but they may think twice about it if they know someone may be armed to stop them.