Cindi Scoppe Doesn't Like "Gun-Toters"

Cindi Ross Scoppe at The State would like all you bitter-clingers to know how much she holds you in contempt. She tries to hide her contempt at first, but she just gives it away at the end of her opinion column in today's paper about the current bill pending in the SC Senate to allow CWP holders to carry into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol on the premises.

I haven't done a good fisking in awhile, so if you can't get past the pay-wall at The State, I'll hit all the high points for you below the jump.

Ms. Scoppe starts her column with a few paragraphs discussing how pro-gun South Carolina is. Ok, that's certainly fair. I'm sure it burns her up that she's surrounded by so many neanderthal gun-owner, redneck types, but hey, there's nothing stopping her from moving to Boulder. During her little intro, she demonstrates that she doesn't know the difference between a tax holiday and a subsidy, but her judgment is probably clouded by the fact that guns are involved.

In any event, after her little preamble about how much South Carolina is pro-gun, she gets to the bill. The bill in question is S.308. You can read the actual text of the bill here.

To give you the lay of the land, the bill proposes making it lawful for a CWP holder to legally enter an establishment that serves alcohol on the premises. Currently, it is against the law for a CWP holder to walk into Mr. Friendly's because they serve delicious wine there. It is important to note, that the law also entirely prohibits the CWP holder from consuming any alcohol at the establishment. If the CWP holder has a sip of wine while carrying at a restaurant they can go to jail for two (2) years.

Additionally, if the establishment doesn't want CWP holders coming in. All they have to do is put up a sign. If a CWP holder disregards a valid sign, they go to jail for two (2) years.

So basically: If you carry, you can't drink. If the establishment has a sign, you can't go in. Only establishments that want CWP holders can have them, and then the CWP holder cannot drink.

Ms. Scoppe starts her argument as follows:

I have nothing against concealed-weapons-permit holders; they tend to be law-abiding citizens. But goodness, where is the logic here? We don’t go around encouraging drunks to drive home; we do the opposite. So why in the world would we encourage people to carry loaded guns into bars? The same thing that makes usually responsible people dangerous when they get behind the wheel after drinking too much also makes them dangerous when they go out drinking with the boys, with a loaded pistol in their belt.

First, just take out the words "concealed-weapons-permit holders" and insert any other group of people. Let's just throw in "black people" for fun.

If someone started an essay by saying I have nothing against black people, they tend to be law abiding..." What's the first thing you would assume? That's right. You would naturally assume that they are prejudiced against black people, and the rest of their argument is simply tailored to meet their end conclusion of whatever they have against black people. So she starts off with that gem. Ok Cindi. We gotcha. Nothing against "those people." Right.

After that wonderful opening clause, she compares this bill to "encouraging drunks to drive home". Seriously, Cindi? How is that analogy even close? Encouraging an intoxicated person to commit a crime that endangers themselves and others is not even close to allowing a CWP holder to enter your establishment. In the end, that's all this bill does. It allows a CWP holder to enter a restaurant or bar, and only if the restaurant or bar chooses not to put a sign up.

So Ms. Scoppe is assuming that CWP holders are going to drink when they go into such an establishment? Fine. Call the police. They'll arrest that idiot and he'll face two years in jail. Ms. Scoppe does make a point that two years is less than three, but hey, two years is a long time to spend in jail. I'm pretty sure Ms. Scoppe wouldn't take two years in jail very lightly.

The bill does give bar owners the right to order gun-toters to leave. Isn’t that generous of our lawmakers? To allow bar owners to kick out armed drunks? Of course, I wonder how many bar owners will want to try that? Unless they’re armed too. And a pretty good shot. (Note to self: Stay away from bars, and restaurants that sell alcohol, if this bill becomes law.)

Here Ms. Scoppe is just displaying either her ignorance of the actual bill or is being willfully deceptive. She neglects to mention that the restaurant or bar can simply post a sign. Oops, I guess she forgot that part of the law. Oh well, it's not like she needs to be well-informed to comment.

Also, notice the "gun-toters"? Why not say "person carrying a concealable weapon"? Simple; the mask has slipped a bit. She's looking down her nose at you gun-toters. She thinks that you gun-toters are stupid for even wanting to carry a concealable weapon, and she's mocking the very idea of it. It's a dig that she's getting at you to convey her moral superiority to you, because she doesn't carry those icky guns. To her, it's a matter of moral superiority. Kind of like your annoying vegan friends who love to comment on how they couldn't possibly eat chicken wings.

Also, note her use of "armed drunks". She's again assuming that every one of you gun toters are going to get drunk. Ms. Scoppe fails to set forth any facts about crime and CWP holders here in South Carolina that might support her argument. That's probably because the facts don't support her argument. No matter, she just instincitvely feels like this is a bad thing to do, so she starts writing a little rant.

Finally, she throws in a cutesy little "note to self" in her column that says she should avoid bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. I guess she can't possibly bear the thought that she would have to dine next to some of you gun-toters.

Ultimately, Ms. Scoppe disregards the law, the merits, the facts, and the idea itself, and just decided to write a column trashing gun-toters.