Op-Ed’s Disingenuous Attack on Uthmeier’s Stance Over Disarming Felons

When there’s a political thing happening, I get that not everyone is a big fan of every decision people make. I’m more than willing to engage with good-faith arguments about a bunch of topics. That’s especially true when it comes to restoring gun rights to non-violent felons. They never should have been stripped in the first place, and when Florida AG James Uthmeier had a change of heart on that, I agreed.

I get that not everyone is comfortable with that, and while I think their fears are misguided, I understand we need to address them and try to change those minds.

I’m willing to talk about that calmly.

However, what I don’t have any interest in doing is sitting still and seeing the most inanely disingenuous attack on Uthmeier go without comment, and that’s exactly what I came across in an op-ed by someone named J.C. Bruce.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier apparently hates rainbows.

He’s been doing his level best to wipe them out — well, repainting them — all over the alleged “Free” State of Florida.

As the state’s top lawyer, he says he’s enforcing rules that ban political messaging on state-mandated roads. Signs with his boss’s name on them are fine. Roads renamed after Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump are fine. But rainbows are not fine.

This is a little odd considering Uthmeier teaches religious education classes in Tallahassee. He should know that the rainbow, according to the Bible story, is the gift God gave Earthlings as a promise never to drown everybody on the planet again. (Everyone except Noah and a few friends and animals, of course. I’m still unclear how dinosaurs and mosquitoes fit into that picture.)

So, what’s not to like about rainbows? Because rainbows are woke, of course.

And in the “Free” State of Florida, you are free to agree with Uthmeier and his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, or you are free to leave. And in Florida, infamously, we Don’t Say Gay. And the gay rights flag comprises the colors of the rainbow. As do all those colorful sidewalks.

Now, to be balanced and fair, while Uthmeier has a burr under his saddle about rainbows and what they represent in popular culture, he’s all about guns.

He couldn’t wait to endorse a court decision opening up the state to the open carry of firearms.

And now, he’s campaigning to allow criminals to carry guns, too. Yep. Our state’s chief law enforcement officer thinks crooks should be able to pack heat.

Catch them painting a crosswalk with rainbow colors, and they’re off to the slam. But that Colt on their hip? That’s fine and dandy.

Now, let’s not pretend this was ever about rainbows. This is about political statements being on streets that are paid for, at least in part, with state taxpayer money. The rainbows in question weren’t some monument to the flood story from the Bible, but were part of a political statement about gay rights.

While it’s mentioned ever-so-briefly by Bruce, he still starts off by pretending it’s just some ambiguous rainbow that Uthmeier has a problem with, especially after flippantly invoking the biblical meaning of rainbows. Then again, he’s also peddling the “Don’t Say Gay” conspiracy theory–you can still say gay anywhere you want in Florida, you just can’t use the classroom to indoctrinate people into a certain view on the topic–and then just blanket claims that he wants criminals to have guns.

Let’s understand what we’re talking about here: If a private individual starts painting a crosswalk with rainbow colors, that’s vandalism and yes, that’s a criminal infraction. They could go to jail for that. As it stands right now, unless it’s felony vandalism, they still can have a gun. That hasn’t changed. And yes, even if it’s a felony, Uthmeier’s stance would indicate that, yes, they should still be able to get a gun. Because this kind of vandalism is non-violent. I haven’t seen anywhere, though, that he’s actually going after people painting pride flags on crosswalks for criminal prosecution. 

Not thinking that every criminal case should come with a lifetime of being stripped of your rights isn’t somehow a contradiction to thinking that some things should be illegal or, at a minimum, just shouldn’t be done at all. 

These “rainbows” are political statements on public roads. They weren’t authorized by the authorities, and the mandated removal of them covers all unauthorized street art. But that didn’t make it into Bruce’s little screed, now did it? Why is that, I wonder?

Look, I want people to be able to live and let live. I don’t care if you love the same sex as you, the opposite sex as you, or you have a romantic fondness for your front doorknob. As long as you keep whatever you’re into among consenting adults, it’s not my place to stop you. Just so we’re clear about where I am on all of this.

But the reality here is that Bruce is pitching a fit because a certain kind of unauthorized street art–you know, vandalism–isn’t being protected, even though none of it’s being protected, and to lash out, he also misrepresents what Uthmeier actually said.

What he wants you to think is that Uthmeier is just targeting Pride flags on the crosswalk while also wanting to allow convicted murderers to get out of Prison at noon and have a gun in their hands from a gun store by 12:15 that same day.

There’s literally nothing in this screed that accurately reflects reality beyond, maybe, the byline.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.