Re: A Case for Boebert’s Gun
The Daily Sentinel recently published an opinion piece titled, “The Case for Boebert’s Gun” which offered a perspective on Congresswoman Lauren Boebert’s gun rights advocacy.
In this article, it is argued that Boebert is allowed to fight for her gun rights and should be allowed to carry a weapon with her on Capitol Hill.
Most of the article is centered around her ability to carry her weapon where she works. I had a problem, however with the article’s presentation of her opposition, mostly painting her detractors as anti-Boebert for her pro-gun stances.
But it’s not about the guns. The majority of Boebert’s critics are not trying to revoke her second amendment right. Instead, the criticisms of Boebert’s political identity is that the gun is her only political dimension.
I believe wholeheartedly that Boebert believes she’s fighting for the gun owners in her district from a threat of disarmament that she believes is real. Have your guns.
I do ask, however, that she does something else on the congressional floor other than lobby for weapons on Capitol grounds. This is what our elected congresswoman is doing with her time that we have afforded her.
While Boebert makes a spectacle about her lack of gun rights, there are more pressing matters plaguing her districts like water, health care and access to higher education. Her campaign stressed these issues but lacked any solid plan on how she was going to achieve her goals. Her Pueblo Chieftain “op-ed” on healthcare that she asks interviewers to refer to when asked on the matter is half an attack on her then opponent Diane Busch and half a vague promise about expansion in the program.
We desperately ask for action beyond guns. This district needs serious representation on Capitol Hill if it is to survive the critical decade ahead of it. We don’t need reactionary politicians that are against whatever left-wing initiative is in the spotlight. We need proactive representatives that can help push the district forward with comprehensive and robust policies.
Her gun policy is a gimmick and once again she is using it to draw attention. It might have worked to garner attention and votes, but soon enough her constituents will realize that her gun stance will not tackle issues that matter to them.
As the Sentinel mentioned, she’s been the owner of a gun-themed restaurant and has made headlines by adopting such a brazen gun stance. In my opinion, she’s a pro-gun grifter. Boebert didn’t get to Capitol Hill through strong platforms and innovation. She got there off the back of a pro-gun movement that people in this district are quick to resonate with.
Apart from Trump talking points and QANON conspiracies, Boebert has nothing to offer her supporters. During her campaign, she stood on no original platform. Her website has nothing but pro-gun, anti-socialist rhetoric with zero tangible ideas displayed.
Her opposition has never been about the guns. It’s been about getting someone with interesting and relevant ideas to represent us on Capitol Hill.
I am not a critic of Boebert for her gun stance. I am a critic of Boebert because that’s all she has to offer.
Lastly, there is a more concerning part of the Daily Sentinel’s opinion piece. In the article, the Sentinel writes, “Wearing a gun is a part of her political identity, not so different than wearing a hijab, which Capitol Police would never attempt to restrict.”
The hijab is not part of political identity. It’s not a political tool. Capitol Hill cannot restrict the wearing of the hijab because it’s tied to a person’s identity. A gun on the other hand is a hobby. Although both are protected under the constitution through freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, it is embarrassing to assume wearing a hijab is anything akin to owning a gun. To publish online such an opinion is at the very least an ignorant take while Islamophobic at the worst.
It should be known that the Sentinel published such a disgusting opinion. The bulk of the article is fair play, but the aforementioned sentence should have never made it past the editing process.
