This story is beyond priceless. Idaho gun-nut lawmakers are very disturbed about an armed man who walked around the state Capitol building, alongside a tour of Cub and Boy Scouts, in part because he was armed.

And so what? I thought guns made us safer. Why should it matter if the man was armed? He was simply exercising his Second Amendment rights, right? Sure, he might have had plans to murder all the kids, or take out a few state legislators, but that’s the price you pay for our precious constitutional freedoms.

Seriously though, after you read through the story, it’s still not clear, from a gun-nut perspective, what the problem is here? If the guy was creepy because he was tagging along with a bunch of kids, and going through legislators’ desks (another part of the story), then fine, he’s creepy. But the fact that he was armed should have nothing to do with the creepiness because, remember, guns don’t kill people. And in fact, the Idaho state Capitol lifted an earlier ban on bringing firearms into the building, so what’s the problem? He was simply following the expressed intent of the Idaho gun-loving legislature.

As for the Cub and Boy Scouts, there’s an easy solution to the creepy factor here. Just arm the kids too. And any of the legislators who were creeped out about their own personal safety should simply carry guns as well. Then the entire building would be armed to the teeth and picture-perfect safe.

Look at some of the comments from the gun-nut legislators:

“Events like that should disturb all Idahoans,” said House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley. “It certainly disturbed me.” Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill said: “To think that somebody is bold enough to have followed these children around with a sidearm in plain sight — who is also bold enough to go through trash cans, take pictures of representatives’ desks and shuffle their papers — all of that created a great deal of concern.”

Did you catch that? Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill indicated that part of the problem was that the man had a “sidearm.” So what? He’s supposed to have a sidearm – he’s a gun nut, and in Idaho you don’t restrict a gun nut’s ability to parade around with his gun, even in the state Capitol. So why did Hill mention it? This is especially odd since Brent Hill is a proud champion of the gun nuts. Take a look at Brent Hill’s record on gun issues – 100% pure gun nut:

So how dare Brent Hill even mention that the man had a “sidearm”? Again, these jokers revoked the prohibition on carrying guns in the state Capitol, so what did they think was going to happen?

Oh but it gets better:

Hill has urged lawmakers to be careful about what they leave on their desks, but he is also concerned about larger security issues. “What happens when six people come and sit in the front row of the gallery with shotguns across their laps?” Hill said. “I sure as heck am not going to leave my senators in there with that.”

Anti-gun bigot.

I thought six people with shotguns across their laps was supposed to make us six times safer. So what’s the problem?

Or are Idaho’s far-right GOP gun nuts experiencing a sudden case of Second Amendment NIMBY?