TFT:
Good point. Oh, I think you'd have to say he "did it." As to slant, well, bias is generally not in what you report, but rather what you don't report ...in other words, choose to leave out.
If you ask most anyone in local govenment, they'll tell you that their roles are frequently made far more difficult by the actions of state (and federal) legislatures (unfunded mandates, exemptions, and the like). Greg perceived that the state had opened up local government buildings to handgun carry, but still exempted many, if not most, state government buildings. From what I understand, he made it clear at the meeting that his point was to draw attention to yet another example of lawmakers exempting themselves (or in this case their workplaces) from laws that they enact for others to obey. That emphasis was omitted in large part from the press report upon which the furor has been based.
I and all the folks with whom I generally associate agree that the preemption statute which was strengthened considerably in this year's General Assembly (with much work and support from the ISRPA and the NRA, I might add) is a very good thing. But it shouldn't be applied only where some are expected to obey the new law while others are exempt.
This just happened to be about firearms but I think Greg's anger would have been the same at any new law that he felt the legislature was creating for everyone but themselves. Unfortunately, he probably chose a poor way to draw attention to it and the media did nothing to help the situation-- but rather, through omission, only fanned the flames of the always "hot" (in the press) gun issue.
I’d be happy to invite him. Don’t know whether he’d come or not (what with everyone here being so friendly and all towards him ...just kidding) but if not, I can say with some certainty that it wouldn’t be due to an aversion to firearms or to any who legally carry them.
Look, just saying that this is actually a good guy -- and a solid conservative -- who may not have had the brightest idea for making his point but it was then slanted by a reporter and ended up in an understandable-but-undeserved sh**storm over here.
And coming from a gun rights person, I just thought you folks should --and would want to -- know.
I realize how "newbies" are often treated on similar boards and the tendency to distrust their opinions, especially if they happen to be contratry to the prevailing winds on a given issue. That's understandable to a degree. It's really the only reason I included some of my background in my initial post -- to attempt to show some bona fides that I wasn't an "anti" in sheep's clothing so to speak. Not trying to impress anyone, certainly, just hoping it would help allay any "troll" fears among the members.
The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.
Look, just saying that this is actually a good guy -- and a solid conservative ....
...I definitely believe he'll be more sensitive to how his actions are perceived....