What Could Possibly Go Wrong By Bringing A Gun Into A Haunted House?

Filed in Delaware by on October 21, 2015

I’m going to let TBogg set the scene:

Outside of going to the gun range and blasting away at paper targets while pretending that they are Muslims or black teenagers, there is nothing Armed-Americans enjoy more than showing off their guns in public. Open carry rules!

No self-respecting NRA member would think about making a grudging late-night emergency run to CVS to pick up some tampons for his wife without first pulling on some camouflage pants, strapping a Glock to his hip, and pulling the whole ensemble together with an AR15 dangling from his neck.

Because…. Something Might Happen.

It’s always Something Might Happen with this group – that would shoot their own shadow, or toddler. But this is a story happening in our own backyard – at Frightland.

So when the owner of a popular Delaware haunted house was quite adamant that nobody — including off-duty cops — pack heat while visiting his attraction, gun nuts reacted as if the amusement park operator dug up Zombie Reagan and dressed him up in a Mao jacket and let people throw poop at him as part of the Halloween hi-jinks.

A week ago an off-duty Delaware cop named Nick Roll took his son to the Frightland in Middletown, Delaware — an enormously popular East Coast attraction — and was told that he couldn’t bring his service weapon in with him. Although his hosts graciously offered to lock it up for him in lieu of him locking it away in his car, Roll demurred. He then did what all good American’s do when confronted with tyranny — he complained about it on Facebook in what is known as a “rant” that went “viral.”

Could someone explain why anyone would think it’s a good idea to be armed in a place designed to make you jumpy and frightened? A place that’s dark and full of people jumping and screaming?

It is reasonable to believe that people who live in such constant mortal fear of being attacked that they can’t go out to get the newspaper in the driveway without dashing for the cover of the agapanthus first, would have no need of a haunted house to get their heart racing. Going to Frightland seems like overkill… in a manner of speaking.

On the other hand, making a big show of saying you are boycotting the cancer-fundraising haunted house — particularly when you live on the other side of the country and couldn’t find Delaware on a state map of Delaware — over guns is kind of lame.

Here’s the truth with these ammosexuals. The 2nd Amendment trumps every other amendment, and their right to be armed (even on private property – which is something they only care about when guns aren’t involved) are more important than than anything else in the world. And it’s this obsession with all guns, all the time that makes them one of the biggest dangers out there. Seriously, if you need to be armed while taking your child through a haunted house with a ton of other people, you have a big problem. You also disqualify yourself as a responsible gun owner.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason330 says:

    It is a slippery slope. If frightland is allowed to abridge my 2nd amendment rights, the next thing you know I will not be allowed to carry a side arm in Leg. Hall or on an airplane.

    Good thing we now have a NRA supported bi-artisan gun nuts caucus in Dover ready to remedy this kind of affront to freedom.

  2. mediawatch says:

    … or in a school, or in a courthouse, or in a church … Geez, if you can’t carry it anywhere you want, what’s the point of going over to the shooting range for some target practice?

  3. Brian says:

    “Ammosexuals”. hahaha. I love it.

    “You cannot have guns in your private business establishment”, well yeah that can be an infringement on your 2nd Amendment rights. But if I do not want you to bring guns into my private business establishment that should be okay- “MAH FREEDUMS!!! 2A 2A 2A !!!!”

    “You cannot have guns in your private residence”, also could be 2nd amendment infringement, but if I don’t want you bringing firearms into my private residence that should be- “MAH FREEDOMS MAH FREEDUMSS! 2A 2A 2A!”

    As long as THEIR rights aren’t inhibited, everything’s awesome. If someone else’s rights stop theirs at the door? Well that’s just downright unconstitutional! Wake up sheeple!!!

    BTW, when they start abbreviating 2nd Amendment to 2A?

  4. puck says:

    As long as the spooks don’t reach for their waistbands, they’ll be relatively safe.

  5. pandora says:

    I can’t take credit for the term “ammosexuals”. But it’s so flippin’ perfect!

  6. Dan says:

    The basis of the appeal of open carry to this crowd is incidents like this:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/feds-probe-fatal-police-shooting-black-man-ohio-wal-mart-n210646

    Some people can walk around CVS openly armed with their own guns while others can’t pull a gun off the shelf in the store that sells them without getting shot to death. Guess which is which? In a world where we all have to drink from the same water fountains and no one’s giving up their seat on the bus in Montgomery, the hysterical reaction from some quarters to the news that they won’t be able to wear their privilege on their hips at Frightland is hardly a surprise.

  7. BullMooose says:

    Jeff Spiegelman, Pettyjohn and the rest of the newly formed Gun Nuts Caucus are drafting legislation right now to fix this! I thought Bryan Townsend’s Facebook post about that new group made some very good points about how ridiculous it is.

  8. Geezer says:

    “BTW, when they start abbreviating 2nd Amendment to 2A?”

    When they realized a lot of their members couldn’t spell a word as long as “amendment.”

  9. Prop Joe says:

    For as much some of you like to “pee in his Corn Flakes”, I absolutely love his statement and hope its a small window into how he’ll operate if he moves on to smellier pastures


    Today some of my colleagues in Dover announced they are forming a Gun Caucus. When I saw the headline, I had hoped this would mean the formation of a group committed to solving senseless urban gun violence and taking every possible step to prevent a mass shooting in Delaware by people with mental illness or violent records. Instead, it is a group whose press release ignores those tragedies altogether and relies on spoon-fed political rhetoric from the NRA that completely ignores the will of the vast majority of Americans who believe common-sense gun policies are compatible with preserving the constitutional rights of sportspeople and others.

    All Delawareans, especially victims of senseless gun violence, deserve better policies and more courageous politics. I welcome any legislators who want to join me in forming a Gun Safety Caucus that will build upon some of the progress we made this year to get guns out of the hands of those who pose a real threat to the safety of others.”

  10. Jason330 says:

    Bryan Townsend got it right.

  11. Steve Newton says:

    I’m curious about the response to this story. When the issue came up, a couple years ago, about mandatory background checks on all gun transfers in DE, I brought up the question of why retired cops (or even cops purchasing weapons for private use) should be exempted from this law, pointing out the high rates of alcoholism, depression, suicide, and spouse abuse among our police. I pointed out the then-recent theater shooting in Florida perpetrated by an armed, retired cop. I pointed out the case of a Rehoboth Beach cop with multiple domestic restraining orders against him. I was told that it was effectively a gun-nut argument, and that cops always had legit reasons to be exempted from the law.

    Now an off-duty cop, who is more or less mandated to carry a weapon by both written and unwritten departmental policies, makes an issue of being restricted, and he’s suddenly, abruptly, a gun-nut 2nd Amendment case who draws no sympathy. I do realize that the recent rash of (finally being reported) police shootings may have had something to do with this, but it nonetheless strikes me as an interesting reversal of course, and I wonder if anybody else sees it that way.

    Or is it indicative of the fact that something fundamental in this conversation HAS changed over the past 2-3 years?

  12. Anonymous says:

    “Delaware Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus” That is what it is called, not a “gun Caucus”. Of course Bryan Townend is trying to get elected to the next step and is stretching the truth, again. Just as he did with the issue at the University of DE. Again, we don’t need some elected official like Bryan to open his mouth, just to get elected!!!