***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at: PO Box 112 Sioux Center, IA 51250

Debate during House File 2502 was quite interesting on Monday during an Iowa Senate Judiciary committee meeting. Much of the criticism of the bill came from Sen. Tony Bisignano (D-Des Moines).

House File 2502 provides little, if any, change to Iowa law. The bill will simply reinforce a law that has existed for 30 years.

The major component that drew Bisignano’s ire is the fact the bill requires any political subdivision that wishes to make its buildings gun-free zones must provide screening and armed security.

10. “I think we are making our communities frightful for our kids. I don’t see the incidents that is a groundswell of public tragedies and public buildings.” – Sen. Tony Bisignano (D-Des Moines)

OK, but if that’s the case, then how do other Democrats see incidents of a groundswell of public tragedies and public buildings to justify various gun control efforts?

9. “This is punitive and I wish this legislature would finally have some respect for local government and quit giving us the sidetalk that you’re doing all these wonderful things for local government and property taxes to help them when you take every authority they have away.” – Sen. Bisignano

OK, but local government can still make a decision to institute gun-free zones if they wish. They just simply will shoulder the burden of the costs in doing so.

8. “Everybody I know who wants to carry a gun carries one. A lot of people have guns I don’t like, and shouldn’t have a gun. But that’s what we have police for. That’s what we have law enforcement for, not the Iowa legislature.”- Sen. Bisignano

OK, is this another argument that also applies to any potential bills that would restrict current Second Amendment rights in Iowa?

7. “I don’t go anywhere on Saturday to do my errands with the intent that the women in Victoria’s Secrets is carrying a gun. I don’t go to a mall to shop and I expect people to be armed in there waiting to kill somebody. I think we have a good society and your mentality is trying to take me to a darker place than I want to think that we live in.” – Sen. Bisignano

I’m sensing a pattern here. Again, does this argument apply to efforts to restrict the Second Amendment as well?

If most people are good, is there any reason to not want most people to own a gun?

6. “I have a concealed carry permit, I don’t carry that often, I’m not that scared of people myself, but if I was and I couldn’t carry in this particular hardware store that I want to go in and buy something, I just wouldn’t go in that store.” – Sen. Rich Taylor (D-Mount Pleasant)

Almost every time I have gone to a county or city building it has been because I had no choice. I do have a choice when it comes to which hardware store I go to. There are certain things I’m required to do that require me to visit county buildings.

Big difference.

5. “There we go, unconstitutional mandate. To know how to operate a killing machine, it’s my constitutional right to be stupid enough to buy a gun, carry it everywhere I want to go once I get my permit to carry, correct?” – Sen. Bisignano

This was in response to Sen. Jason Schultz (R-Schleswig) answering if Iowans have to pass a proficiency test to carry.

Just a unique choice of words…” constitutional right to be stupid enough to buy a guy, carry it everywhere I want to go once I get my permit to carry…”

4. “That’s our fundamental difference. You have no faith, no trust, no consideration for the citizen to take it upon himself to know what he’s going to do. You cannot force a mandate on a constitutional right, otherwise, it’s not a right. Then it’s a test of permission being required.” – Sen. Schultz

Personally, I find it difficult to believe there are people out there going through the process of getting a permit to carry, buying a gun and not wanting any education or instruction on how a firearm works.

3. “You’re saying, ‘Well, that’s just tough. We’ve got police and they’ll be there in, I don’t know, 15-20 minutes maybe. So, how many people get killed in 15 or 20 minutes? The point is, you’re telling me, I can’t protect myself. You’re going to allow people to prohibit me from protecting myself and if something happens, tough luck. That’s just the way it is. Folks, that’s not acceptable to most law-abiding citizens.” – Sen. Julian Garrett (R-Indianola)

Not much I can add to that.

2. “Such a simple solution. Let law-abiding people protect themselves because you’ve just explained there isn’t any other good solution. There’s no other way to do it.” – Sen. Garrett

Unless, what if, and follow me, we created laws against killing other people? Maybe that would be the magical solution.

Oh, wait.

1. Here is an exchange between Sen. Jason Schultz (R-Schleswig) and Sen. Tony Bisignano (D-Des Moines) from the debate. It provided to be the highlight of the conversation.

“We’re here to do the fundamental purpose of government, which is to protect and preserve rights of the citizen,” Schultz said.

“In your opinion,” Bisignano said.

“That’s not,” Schultz said. “That’s pretty fundamental. That’s not my opinion. That’s the purpose of government.”

If the purpose of government is not to protect and preserve the rights of citizens, then what exactly is it?

Author: Jacob Hall