Back during the many years I taught political science at the U.S. Air Force Academy, I especially enjoyed teaching the 4-degrees, the term we used for the incoming freshman class (because they were fourth year), and we called our seniors “firstees” to really make things confusing for civilians. The course was American Government and National Security, and it was required of all cadets. It was fun to get the kids fresh from high school, with their short new haircuts and (usually) excited attitude about finally being at the Academy.

And usually around the first weekend in September, we’d have what we called “parent’s weekend” at the Academy. On the Friday of that week, parents could attend classes with their kids, and there were lots of fun events for the families over the weekend. I liked having the parents in class, because quite often, parents’ weekend turned out to be the day I taught what you might call “introduction to rights.” 

I would tell the parents that since they were in my class, they had to take part, and then I’d ask about Jefferson’s famous “unalienable rights” idea in the Declaration of Independence. Which rights, I would ask the parents and their kids, are, in fact, truly unalienable? Which rights are fundamental and absolute? Then, as they tried to answer the question, I’d be a stinker and challenge pretty much everything they said. 

If they offered up “life” as such an unalienable right, I’d ask them to explain support of the death penalty, or even the existence of an armed military designed to fight, and, well, kill people if necessary. They would sometimes offer up religion, and I’d ask about human sacrifice. And if they offered up guns, I’d ask if it was OK for their odd neighbor back home to have a flame thrower, or perhaps even an antrax cannon? All rights, it seems, are subject to limitations.

Which, of course, brings me to U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert.

A recent CP article regarding Boebert speculated that she fancies herself the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the right. Now, putting on my grumpy old man hat, I find it both women irritatingly young, as I have socks older than either of them. That said, as you might guess, I share more views with AOC than I do with Boebert. But the CP story noted what has been widely reported: that Boebert wants to carry her handgun, well, pretty much everywhere, in spite of long-standing congressional rules banning weapons from the floor of the House, and limiting the ability to carry a weapon on Capitol grounds.

I kind of wish that Boebert had been in one of my classes on a parent’s weekend. Had she been there, she might now understand that to live in a civil society (though it seems much less civil these days) we all make compromises. Boebert, for example, likely does not demand that she can carry her weapon openly (or concealed) on airliners taking her to D.C. and back. Why? Well, rules. 

Now I’m not anti-gun. I have several myself, I’m a former military cop, and I have a concealed carry permit of my own. But I do not expect to be able to carry that weapon everywhere I go. Boebert, it seems, thinks she has a rich and profound understanding of the Second Amendment and the Constitution generally, but, frankly, she does not. I’m not going to attack her for being a high school dropout (who later earned a GED), as I don’t know the circumstances and I shan’t judge. But had she attended college and taken a course or two on the Constitution, she might realize that the Founders were fully aware that they were creating a system of rights in conflict with each other. Sometimes some rights are impacted by the rights of others. Your right, say, to free speech doesn’t mean you get to yell fire in a crowded theater (unless, of course, the theater is actually on fire, in which case, please do yell).

And I would gently remind her that she is now, amazingly, a member of Congress. The rules of the body are created by the members. If she really believes she should be able to carry her gun on the floor (and, heck, on airplanes?), she can decide to just spout off and grab for headlines, or she can work within the system she was just elected to, and try to change the rules to her liking. As she is in the minority, she’s not likely to be too successful, but I’d respect her more if she tried.

I’ve written before about elected officials being either workhorses (like Bennet) or show horses, who only want attention and camera time. At this point, Boebert appears far more interested in getting attention than in actually working. 

And that’s a pity, but, perhaps, not a surprise.