Matt Gaetz Wants Guns At Voting Stations To Protect Against 'Intimidation'

During a Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz said that he likes the idea of voters carrying firearms with them into polling stations so that they can protect themselves from "intimidation." Voter intimidation is already a crime, but it definitely isn't a crime punishable by the death penalty. Not to mention the fact that his Party is the one planning massive voter intimidation, as Farron Cousins points out.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

Late last week while the house judiciary committee was debating legislation that would, of course enact the common sense gun laws that are actually supported by more than 80% of people in this country. Republican representative, Matt gates decided to open up his stupid mouth and say one of the dumbest and of course, most dangerous things. I think I've ever heard come from a sitting member of Congress. Matt gates said this, I sort of like Massey's legislation referring of course, to Republican representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky, that maybe everyone who's a voter or on their way to vote, ought to have the opportunity to carry a firearm, to ensure that they're not subject to any intimidation.

Now, most states in case you're not familiar, do not allow any weapons whatsoever inside of a polling station for obvious reasons. And Matt gates says, well, hold up now, what if we actually made it to where people had to carry guns in there to vote, you know, to stop all the intimidation, voter, intimidation and harassment for the record is illegal, but it's not a capital offense. So why would you need a gun? Because you wanna murder somebody, you wanna straight up shoot them. If they try to intimidate you at the polls, do you realize how many dead Republicans that would leave in this country? Matt gates, you idiot. Because as we reported just the other day, the other day, there is a leaked plan from the Republican party to Institute what they're calling an army of poll workers to harass and intimidate voters. So Matt, if you want people to carry guns, you realize your party is the one literally in the crosshairs in this instance, because your party has a plan to do exactly what you're saying.

People should be shot for doing, or at least implying that people should be shot for doing you didn't explicitly say it let's be clear, but you said to protect from intimidation. So, you know, the obvious interpretation of that is that you want them shot. Well, there goes a lot of your base man, because your party's the one that actually has a plan to intimidate voters, not to mention, of course, the obvious dangers of people walking into polling stations with firearms, which in and of itself is usually seen as an act of intimidation, but it also gives somebody a very easy area where they can just shoot a bunch of people. You know, you could walk into a area where, you know, it's filled with democratic voters, you're allowed to walk in with a gun. They don't know you're not from that precinct yet. And just open fire or vice versa. Democrat could go into a Republican

Area in open fire. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. But again, Republicans think the only solution to gun violence is more gun violence. The only way to stop people is to shoot. 'em the only way to protect yourself, your family, whatever it is, is to shoot them because in the minds of Republicans, everything is a capital offense. Everything, you know, I would think that a very skilled attorney, probably with more skill, even than some of the best lawyers we've seen today. But when we talk about the second amendment, when we look at these plans from Republicans, that basically say, Hey, we want everybody to have a gun. So if you inconvenience mething that can shoot you. Wouldn't that be a violation of somebody's right to a trial you're instituting the justice on the street. How is that constitutionally allowed? If you're just straight up killing somebody because of your second amendment, but you're over there violating other parts of the bill of rights, because you've now robbed that person of a right to a trial, right? To a jury of their peers. Huh? Again, I think a really skilled attorney might be able to successfully make that argument in court. That is, of course, if there are any courts left, that Republicans haven't packed to the point of being absolute clown shows, which I don't think is humanly possible.