Jim Spencer of the Denver Post claims that the act of bearing arms exposes the "gap" in gun logic. He slams a gun rights activist, Don Ortega, for carrying his gun to City Council meetings, and claims that because the Council became frightened and immediately voted to ban firearms from their meetings, it is proof that "gun nuts" (as he calls us) are actually helping prove their case by demonstrating people's irrational fear. He also cited a GFW politician (who claims to be pro gun) as further evidence. (emphasis mine)

"An openly carried weapon is intimidating," said [Colorado] Springs Councilman Jerry Heimlicher, a gun-rights supporter who voted for the ban. "We have teachers who bring schoolchildren to council meetings. We had a group of Eagle Scouts there the night we voted on this." [...]

"These are things that should not happen in public meetings," Heimlicher said. The citizens, he added, have a right to safe public meetings and city workers the right to a safe workplace.

Notice the non sequitur. Spencer and Heimlicher think that just because someone has an irrational fear of something, it must be okay to ban it. Also, I don't believe for a minute that those Eagle scouts were intimidated or afraid of a gun. As a former scout, we learned archery, shotgun shooting and rifle shooting. Scouts were taught to respect firearms, not to fear them. Personally, I find Councilman Heimlicher's assertion that scouts would be inherently afraid or intimidated by firearms to be offensive.

Likewise, any children that fear guns probably have parents that fear guns. And as I said before, guns are a inanimate objects. Just because someone has an irrational fear of an inherently harmless object, is no reason to ban it. If it were, policemen and the military shouldn't be permitted to display firearms either. After all, we don't want people to fear those that are there to protect us.

Second, I don't buy into Spencer's foolish claim that by carrying his firearm, Ortega actually furthered the anti-gun movement by encouraging a ban. If anything, Ortega served to demonstrate just how reactive and irrational GFWs can be. The council had no real reason to fear Ortega, or the firearm that he carried. But that didn't stop them from manifesting their irrational fear into a spur of the moment restriction on personal freedom. Plus, their new rule does nothing to enhance their own safety.

Overall Spencer has done a nice job of twisting his "evidence" to fit his gun grabbing agenda. Normally I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but his condescending tone, and use of terms like "gun nut", show his true anti-freedom colors. Spencer also calls Mr. Ortega "outside the mainstream", recommends "shock therapy", and tells Second Amendment supporters that "he's one of yours." I'd rather have Ortega on my side then a fearful wussy like Spencer. Mr. Ortega recognizes that guns are merely a tool, and that it is people who have the potential to be dangerous. Mr. Spencer, on the other hand, has a school girl phobia of an otherwise inanimate object, whose only job is to discharge a projectile at high speeds whenever a lever is pulled.

UPDATE: It should probably be noted that Ortega's shotgun was unloaded and disassembled when he attended the meetings.