As a key faction of the Republican base, hunters and anglers, often hailing from rural, culturally conservative areas, are seemingly the last people on earth who would call themselves environmentalists or progressives. The GOP has for years courted this demographic by stressing an unwavering support for gun ownership rights, and by vilifying urban Democrats who have pushed for modest gun… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (43)Page 1 of 1 pagesSo just great!! First the liberals want all the guns taken away now the repubs want to build friggin Wal-Marts on hunting land. I know I list my name as Redstate but I have no love for big-biz republicans. I hate both the left and the right in this country. I realy want a democrat to come out and stand up for the second ammendment and the right to hunt and fish and fight the corporate-ization of this country. I want a politician to stand up for everybody’s rights!!! even rights thay may not particularly agree with. We lose so much in this country daily and yearly to those who benefit most from dividing us and it makes me sick. This squabbling over rights just emboldens and empowers the people who want to take everything from us. This is not the country I grew up in.
Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 2:50 PM Only a couple of months earlier, however, Feinstein had gone on 60 Minutes to announce, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban…I would have done it.”
Moderate Gun Laws?
Posted by Kenneth L. Olson on Dec 14, 2004 at 5:09 PM I’m a democrat and angler. fished all my life and even write about it in major publications. you don’t want to end up like NJ...overdeveloped and so many deer that you have to watch out while driving even in the freakin city...black bears showing up in suburbia and even one case where a jogger was attacked. we are losing so much farmland that you turn around one day and there is another development where a farm used to be, and this has gone on under both dems and repubs. Good luck out there in them red states.
Posted by dan mazza on Dec 14, 2004 at 5:46 PM you are 110% right people like Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein and all the other radical anti gun zealots should be taken to task and dismissed from their positions in governmnent. They are sworn to uphold the constitution and have not done so. They are traitors as far as I am concerned and should be treated as such. these towns like Morton grove Ill. and the District of columbia and other anti gun feifdoms are in violation of the basic civil rights enshrined in the bill of rights.
Having said that I do believe that certain people should not have access to firearms. Doing a backround check and making sure that there are no felony convictions, mental or substance abuse problems and such should enable; just like a drivers license to have unrestricted access and mobility to excercise their right to keep and bear arms.
this one issue above all else has switched me from Democrat to republican. i will NEVER vote for an anti- gun politician EVER!
What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t these people get???
Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 5:52 PM Hey Redstate: which part of “a well-regulated militia” don’t YOU get?
Posted by winter patriot on Dec 14, 2004 at 8:05 PM the militia is the common person- not the national guard or anybody else. by any defintion of the word militia is a non governmental body of individuals. The right of the people to keep and beqar arms can and does stand by itself tho. you can write any other words around it aan it still means that the right to bear arms is an individual one not a collective one. any study of American History with respect to the second ammendment proves that the founding fathers of this country intended to have every man be armed and able to defend his family, his country, and himself without any interference from the government.
Hitler did it so did Stalin and every other tyrant. they took away the right to self defense and enslaved their people. China has gun control.
and do not dare call yourself any kind of patriot if you do not recognize and respect the second ammendment. Any one who does not help insure this right is a TRAITOR.
Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 8:28 PM Hmmm, my dictionary defines militia as “a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency”. Of course, its an off-the-wall brand of dictionary called Webster’s so not everyone may have access to it.
I believe every law-abiding person should have the right to own guns that have a legitimate purpose such as hunting. I think where we need to come to an agreement as a country is that there are certain types of arms in today’s modern world that your everday Joe doesn’t need. Can we all agree on machine gun control? Yeah, see that was fairly easy. How about assault weapons? Oops did I cross the line? I see your point. Ya never know when you’re gonna come across a heard of angry, charging moose (meese).
I apologize to anyone if my traitorous words have offended. Chill out Francis.
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 14, 2004 at 9:35 PM No one in DC, repeat NO ONE is going to rescind the 2nd amendment. Don’t let any scare monger tell you different. Red or Blue stater, ain’t gonna happen. Why? Weapon industry is one of the most powerful lobbies in DC. That said, is it necessary to have an AK-47 assault weapon to catch your limit? Evidently the NRA & rabid pro-gun lobby thinks so. I will bet that the majority of the people in the US, hunters and non do not think so.
Think of this whole issue as a variation on the shell game:
1. GOP hollers loud and often that all Democrats are liberal, gun-hating environmentalist commies.
2. Democrats say “we hunt, camp and fish too, have for years”!
3. GOP gets hunters, sportsmen to vote for them.
4. GOP sells that constituency out to the corporate donor class and blames the Democrats.
Remember the Pennsylvania hunting trip with Cheney & Scalia. It was like the old wild west days when “sportsmen” from all over the world were invited to the US to shoot thousands of buffalo from moving trains then leave their useless carcasses to feed the vultures.
This is how this bunch in the White House feels about people, nature, the elderly, children and VETERANS. They are to be “utilized” to garner riches from their corporate masters, because WE are inferior and THEY are superior.
Republicans and Democrats who do NOT agree with these policies need each OTHER, together we make up the LARGEST voting bloc in the US, and that is why the Radical Right in power keeps us at each others throats!!
Well-healed corporate think tanks like The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute et al do not represent America but Big Money. But they are dictating how Americans live their lives.
Let’s find other terms beside “liberal” and “conservative” to define ourselves because when you stop and think about it, today they don’t really have that much meaning anymore, do they.
And who let that happen? We did by listening to the wrong voices who were paid handsomely to drill it into our heads, day after painful day.
Posted by David T. Gray on Dec 14, 2004 at 11:59 PM I own two rifles and two shotguns which I keep securely locked and the ammo locked elsewhere because I have kids in the house. (what a nightmare thought, I get a terror-chill just contemplating that one!). Never had an impulse to buy a handgun, but I’m not against them in principle. However, I do favor some forms of regulation, and even prohibition in some cases. I think weapons that can out-gun cops should at the very least be severely regulated, and perhaps banned (caveat: prohibition of drugs hasn’t worked, so I’m not especially confident about prohibition of firearms). I’m definitely out on ammunition that is specifically designed for maximum destruction of flesh or to penetrate body armor, obviously not for use in a hunting scenario but only for purposes of mayhem. Crimes that use guns should get way higher sentences as well. I certainly appreciate that the 2nd Amendment was intended to make government tyranny as difficult as possible, and as for the Bill of Rights, I’m definitely in favor of keeping it as the active basis for law (or, more accurately, the basis for NOT making certain laws). The Constitution really must be the backbone of America’s legal structure (which is exactly why I think a Constitutional definition of “marriage” should never be allowed to form, but that’s an aside). I imagine someone will call me naive about weapons regulations, but I think the more likely outcome of shooting at soldiers or federal agents will be a furthur clamping down on all kinds of freedoms, gun-related or otherwise. The fact is, no one is going to be able to out-gun the US Government, no matter what. They’ll get whatever money and weaponry they need, recruit as many agents and troops as they need, and become more oppressive to the extent that they perceive a threat from an armed faction. Fighting tyranny with guns will increase tyranny. Seems to me that our liberty, such as it is, will be enhanced to the extent that citizens demand it in the public arena and vote out politicians who don’t uphold rights. I really think the day of protecting rights by arming ourselves against overbearing government has passed, and would just erode freedom even further than at present.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 15, 2004 at 12:28 AM I am always curious about the gun mania in the USA. It does have a grand archaic touch to it, I must confess. After all, in Europe (and white Americans are generally European, I guess), owning a weapon was a special right, if I remember correctly. So as “free people”, it’s not astonishing that owning a weapon was a constitutional issue in the eyes of the founding fathers. And then there were the militias, which were, perhaps, needed. But all that was at a time when the USA didn’t have a proper police force, nor really much of an army. And in 1790, the US population wasn’t even 4 million.
From the moral standpoint, in my books of course, owning a lethal weapon is not a right, it remains an inordinate responsibility on the part of the owner and the agency allowing him or her to own that weapon. And the statistics show clearly that many do not take that responsibility seriously. There are also a whole new bunch of elements that were not present 200-odd years ago, from road rage to intense drug use, PTSS, cities of humungous proportions, stress, Hollywood, etc… These are matters that must be considered by people supporting the right to bear arms. Our society has simply become too damned neurotic and psychotic to own guns that freely. That’s the point.
For myself, I have always abhored weapons. I have lived in slums and never felt really threatened. You knew the wiseguys and they knew you. I feel more threatened by some over-stressed, envious, frustrated, white middle class dude who can’t seem to get his life together even if he has a nice job and sweet kids at home. But my opposition to weapons also derives from another partially personal event: a close friend of mine was involved in one of those nutcase shootings at the college where he teaches. One professor, whom I knew, and two students were killed—several injured as well—by some weirded out student who bought an assault rifle by mail from, as it happens, a red state.
I don’t think the mourning of those families will ever cease. It’s not like Hollywood, where after some massive killing, the hero and heroin take off their close and hop into the sack while the triumphant violins scratch on. When death strikes like that, it’s permanent. I think of the thousands of families who have lost members to wackoes with guns, to the six year old playing with daddies 9mm, to that frustrated boob who wants to impress some vapid actress… That’s why I believe in extreme regulation.
A right is something, after all, you earn. And it is also something you can dis-earn. We, as a collective have dis-earned the right to bear arms, because we did not act responsibly when it was time to do so. Maybe that right can be returned at some later stage.
And for the gun maniacs out therre, I am neither a lefty nor a righty, nor do I belong to any political party or affiliation. (In fact, I always get myself a cigar or two from the shooting stands, or a rose for the gal at my side, because I happen to be a good shot.) I just ask that these thoughts be considered in the scales.
Thanks
Posted by Talleyrand on Dec 15, 2004 at 3:21 AM mi·li·tia
n.
Militia- definition of from American heritage dictionaryAn army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That says it all and it means exactly what it says and so do I. I am willing to be flexible and open minded on most things but this second ammendment issue is non- negotiable. No compromise on this- ever.
sorry about your neighborhood but in mine EVERYBODY owns guns and you know what it is safe to let the kids play outside and we can walk down the street at night without fear.
Posted by redstate on Dec 15, 2004 at 6:18 AM “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.” - Aren’t those called insurgents?
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. - Isn’t that National Guard
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. - Isn’t that “cannon fodder”?
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Dec 15, 2004 at 6:26 AM A right is something you were born with- remeber the part about certain unalienable rights and being born with them? A right is NOT something you earn!! A right is only something that the government can take away-- if you let them.
maybe your socity has become unhinged and neurotic and crazy- sorry to hear it.
I guess that is why in our founding fathers wisdom they sought to free America from the bonds of Europe.
I don’t know where Talleyrand’s views come from but I find them, with all due respect frightening and well, just plain wrong on so many levels.
Posted by redstate on Dec 15, 2004 at 6:30 AM Nice try L&P;but No, No & no to answer your queation. Despite what they told you in liberal school the militia is not the national guard. and please don’t tell me you don’t need an assault weapon to hunt ducks!! the Second Ammendment ain’t about ducks or deer hunting.
Posted by redtstate on Dec 15, 2004 at 6:33 AM “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That says it all and it means exactly what it says and so do I. I am willing to be flexible and open minded on most things but this second ammendment issue is non- negotiable. No compromise on this- ever.
sorry about your neighborhood but in mine EVERYBODY owns guns and you know what it is safe to let the kids play outside and we can walk down the street at night without fear.”--redstate
I just wish redstaters were as passionate about the other 26 amendments to the constitution…
After all....the articles to the constitution says nothing about one amendment being worth more than another (or one part of an amendment).
Posted by Nazgul 35 on Dec 15, 2004 at 2:51 PM That is all I ask for - have the government follow the constitution!!! the right and the left are both guilty of gross civil rights violations. We need a REAL civil rights commision in this country to protect everybody’s rights not just a few select groups. No more bureaucrocies- no more BS give us back our country and governmnent!
The ammendments are only good if ALL are followed as directed by the founding fathers. they only work together.
Posted by redstate on Dec 15, 2004 at 3:05 PM I think people in Aspen, Basalt and Carbondale which are all part of the Roaring Fork Valley would be very surprised to be referred to as “a traditionally conservative area. Piikin County ranks right up there with Boulder as a ultra-liberal enclave.
However it shouldn’t be surprising that environmental issues are gaining support in mountain states and communities where land and water use have always been the prime issues. The difference is that people there are waking up to the fact that Republicans who pander to corporate wealthy interests are working against local interests.
Posted by Elaine Calzolari on Dec 15, 2004 at 3:10 PM I’m thinking unhinged and neurotic and crazy pretty much sums it up.
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 15, 2004 at 3:39 PM No redstate, my views may not jive with yours, that’s ok, but frightening they are not. I am just opposed to having guns completely deregulated in a very nervous society. And many people see it that way, especially the victims of gun violence. The Founding Fathers, by the way, were not trying to unbond from Europe, but rather from a feudal social and political system. No Taxation without Representation. That was the reason for the American Revolution, and, being a by and large educated bunck of guys, eggheads, if you will, they had picked up on the Enlughtenment, which was sweeping Europe. Being way out in the boondocks, their revolution was an easy one, and they got help from the French, lest we forget. The French, about 25 years thereafter, shook off their shackles but faced the unified armies and flotillas of 5 kingdoms and empires. But I digress.
Yes, redstate, my society did become unhinged and neurotic. So I left it. I live in cities with almost no crime rate to speak of, I and my family can walk about day or night without fear, especially from some unhinged character waving a gun he bought at the local 5 and 10, or ask someone the time without getting mace sprayed in our faces. We can sit around and discuss politics and philosophy and religion and the weather with complete strangers in peace. We have good health insurance coverage, too. It’s just a better, more exciting life. For me, personally.
But there was more. I left at the beginning of Reagan’s second term, because the atmosphere was so stifling. Each time I returned to that society (USA), it got worse and worse. Over 75% of the people I met were on some kind of medication last time I was there. Hardly anyone could make it through the day without joints, beer, or other drugs. No one read anything, TV was the dominant source of information. At least five times a day people were telling me Jesus loved me, which I find obnoxious. It was staggeringly dull. monotonous, spineless.
Secondly, to answer your comment, there are rights that are inalienable. I agree. Owning a gun is not one of them. It would be like saying, I have an inalienable right to own a car. I don’t. With the anger and frustration you spread in your missive, I wouldn’t trust you with one, to be honest. But maybe it’s just show.
What does America have to fear? In 1790, yes, there was something. In 2004? Give me a break. You might fear some liberal president and hordes of liberals running amuck, I don’t know. But we always seem to need something to fear, don’t you think? Red Scares.... they began in.... 1871!! And because of them, we, in the states, have somew of the most backward labor laws of any industrialized nation. Politics of fear work well, and always have. And we have become a surprisingly timorous nation because we don’t ask our leaders, our politicians serious questions. For example: Complete panic after 9/11. That’s all it took. One well placed terrorist attack. And Mister bin Laden is sitting back, twiddling his beard and watching the country unravel. Michael Moore is asking those questions, as a good muckraker. Those questions are more powerful than guns. But we just slump back, become ideologues for this or that side, vote for this guy or that because he either supports guns, or supports whales… And because of that, we have lost our right, nay, our privilege, to being a democracy.
One of the most enlightening pieces ever written on the subject was by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, it’s called “The Paranoid Style.” Sounds worse than it is: It’s about political rhetoric. I recommend it highly. It was recommended to me by a staunch southern conservative, by the way, a professor of rhetoric and a fine debater. Anyway, the piece has little to do with guns, but the energy behind owning a gun is fear. And fear has never been a good adviser.
Guns or no guns, our democracy has become a corporate dictatorship and the (mainstream) media, as the Fourth Pillar, have aided and abetted in the process. They were the fifth column.
Sorry I am running off here, one more thing: Remember the film Network? That great scene where everybody is at their windows screaming “I am sicjk and tired of it and I won’t put up with it anymore”?
With that voice, the country will once again get back to its democratic roots, and we will start having presidents and congresspeople who respect us. Right now, they don’t give a flying fuck. It’s profit, power and pissing (on us). At least 95% of them.
Whew
Posted by Talleyrand on Dec 15, 2004 at 3:49 PM Correction, that pretty much sums it up. Awesome post.
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 15, 2004 at 4:14 PM well I agree with you on some things namely America is becoming a corporate dictatorship.
I never said NO regulations just once those criteria are met then leave me alone.
You say that you would not trust me with guns well I think that if you or one of your loved ones were in dire trouble you would be happy that I as one of the good guys was armed. Case in point . afew yeaqrs back my girlfriend and I were come back from the coast when ahead of us this woman was half naked and coming out the passenger window @ 60mph. She was freaking out. I pulled in front of the truck and forced this nut to slow down and stop> this poor girl JUMPED from the truck while staill about 25 mph- rolled on the ground. I stopped ,my girlfriend ran to her and I pulled my vehicle in front of his and say him get out with a large knife in his hand- Now I am not a brave man but I had to do something so I reached in my bag and pulled my 45. Long Colt- cowboy gun circa 1890 or so. this guy was covered in blood-hers. I told him to chill and he did a little but it were’nt good. To make a long story short the police came - this guy had raped and tried to kill her - she was all cut up and beat up. The cops said we were heroes and had saved her life and I would do the same thing again. So think twice before you judge.
Posted by redstate on Dec 15, 2004 at 8:16 PM Congratulations, in that particular instance it may have worked well. In the case of around 30 women a day who are raped at gunpoint, it looks different. Or the thousands of families damaged by self-owned handguns. Or the families of the police officers who get shot in the line of duty. And the 38,000 (around half are suicides: Owning a handgun increases the risk of suicide fivefold) or so who die each year from hanguns, not to speak of those injured (we always think it’s “just an injury,” but injury can be very traumatizing).
And to be perfectly honest, your story does support my claim. There you are driving around with a big colt. You’ve tried it, it works. It could have caused three deaths and an OK Corral on some highway had the other fellow also had one. Or two. Now you’ve seen it work, will the next situation be as clearcut? Was there no other way out? What were your feelings in the heat of the action? That is what I mean by responsibility.I remind you of what I wrote above: “From the moral standpoint, in my books of course, owning a lethal weapon is not a right, it remains an inordinate responsibility on the part of the owner and the agency allowing him or her to own that weapon.” So this story only confirms my misgivings. We live in a society that adores violence. Movies can be violent beyond belief, but it’s a bit of Janet Jackson’s breast that riles the gizzards.
But you may be right, and guns are a necessity. We could argue for years, each providing their own horror story. The limpwristed anti-gun liberals will look funny when the Red States come after them armed to the teeth. Maybe the American opposition should start forming militias to defend the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution.
As for the Second Amendment, it is open to instense debates. It says “well-regulated” militias, by the way, and I simply do not see that point today, when we have an army, national guard, the police force and the rather effective FBI. What I find bothersome, however, is the fact that one big group of people led by a powerful lobby is willing to choose a president who is trampling on other amendments (including the crucial Fourth Amendment, which has lost none of its actuality in 22 years!), simply because they are virtually obsessed about unregulated gun ownership. I miss the holistic consideration of facts, the balance, the compromise. That same kind of compromise that ended up giving us our Bill of Rights. It’s essential to the democratic process. You can’t pick and choose, here, alas, and you have to be courageous in saying: Either the whole constitution, or nothing. That’s why I am for regulation.
Posted by Talleyrand on Dec 16, 2004 at 2:41 AM All right-
This is getting a little ridiculous, if an individual is willing to rape a woman do you honestly believe a law that prohibits them from having a gun is going to keep it out of their hands?Look, I’m all about regulating what kinds of guns have a practical use in society and who should own them, I see absolutely no need for a Tommy gun personally. How do you define an assault weapon? I love shooting a 10/22 but it’s semi automatic with a rotary clip and by some defintions it’s an assault weapon. I use the thing for squirel hunting, I mean this is just getting out of hand. Yeah I could use something else but I enjoy using that and who am I hurting? Bottom line is if we enact a ban on specific types of weapons then the only people that won’t have them are the ones who don’t get them to commit a crime.
I would like to add a M-1 Garand to my collection. I store my ammo locked up seperatly from my weapons, I have trigger locks, and keep the bolts or firing pins out of my guns when stored. I’m responsible, why should I have to pay the price for some other morons. If your argument about the sheer number of accidents is why we should regulate gun ownership more how come nobody on this site is calling for more stringent standards on who can get a driver’s license? There are many more deaths attributed to cars than guns.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 16, 2004 at 1:53 PM Liberal and Proud-
The National Guard is a part of the regular Army also. Just ask my old unit if their not a part of “The Army”, if you can get a hold of ‘em in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 16, 2004 at 1:55 PM How do you define what the speed limit should be on a given road? How do you define who is able to buy alcohol and who is not? You make laws that try to balance the freedom of individuals to do what they want with the freedom of individuals to be safe from the actions of others who would abuse those freedoms.
For example, say that instead of a 10/22, you preferred shooting squirrels with an AK-47 semi-automatic. Now you’re not really hurting anyone, though the squirrels might argue that point. The balancing act comes into play when Patrick Purdy opens fire on a Stockton schoolyard, squeezing off 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes. In that 2 minutes he took away 5 small children’s right to live their life and 29 other children’s right to not be wounded by such action. Not to mention the emotional scarring suffered by numerous children who escaped “unscathed”, and the 5 kids’ parent’s right to see their kids grow up and to live their own lives absent the living hell of having lost their kid to such an act of stupidity.
To me it’s a pretty easy choice, but then again I have a 4 year-old kid and don’t hunt squirrels.
Posted by Mattdog on Dec 16, 2004 at 3:57 PM Mattdog-
I agree with you that gun sales should be regulated, absolutely. But making the comparison between a 10/22 and an Ak-47 is like trying to compare a Yugo to a Ferrari, both will accomplish the goal but one is overkill. My friend is a collector of military weapons and owns a semi-auto version of an AK-47. For every one individual that commits an act of stupidity there is probably one hundred that don’t. Why punish the minority?As for the speed limit comparison that is regulation, but outlawing assault weapons (which the 10/22 can fall under the very ambiguous legal definition)is similar to outlawing any vehicle that can go over the legal speed limit. All I’m saying is that there are even more accidental deaths attributed to cars than guns, why don’t we regulate driving more?
As for my squirel hunting, I know I might be considered a red neck for it but hey I enjoy it. I’m also looking forward to my daughter joining me when she’s old enough.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 17, 2004 at 1:31 PM You guys want to correct me about my tongue in cheek remark...fine. No problem.
The extremists on the left and right can continue to diddle themselves with non-sensical discussions on mindless and in the big scheme of things IRRELEVANT issues like this one, while the elitists complete the ransacking of public funds and the nation.
Take a look at the so-called budget that our so-called President is putting out, and his call for a “flat budget”.
Flat describes the condition that the average American is going to be in when these wonderful pro business, elitist scumbags are done.
I hope all you red staters are happy. Good luck losing the subsidies on your family farms, and tryin to help our your 16 year old pregnant daughter on your dual income Wal Mart salaries.
This country deserves the government it has gotten.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Dec 17, 2004 at 2:33 PM Stop arguing non-sensical ideology America and get back to work putting in your 55 hour week at your 1980s level salary…then go home and sit in front of the org and ingest the government line about the evils of public programs…then go to bed clutching your Bible praying for Jesus’ return so he can feed your starving town with 12 fish.
It is now official…this country is essentially populated with morons!
IDIOTS!!
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Dec 17, 2004 at 2:44 PM http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6729009/
Here’s the link.
The man runs up the largest deficits in history and then says we need fiscal responsibility!
He hands out public money to private corporations and the top 2% of the income population, and then turns around and says we need to limit “discretionary” spending...that’s Republican speak for the poor deadbeat individuals who didn’t have the good fortune to have the right birthlines, corporate or family connections to avoid having to toil at minimum wage or had the misfortune to get incurably sick with no healthcare coverage.
Compassionate Conservatism. It’s not an oxymoron...it’s a strategy.
WE’RE the morons!
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Dec 17, 2004 at 3:23 PM And now to continue my nonsensical discussion of the mindless issue at hand:
Giantsox,
I do know of the difference between a 10/22 and an AK-47. I am pretty sure that the 10/22 was not subject to the ban instituted in 1994, which recently expired, whereas the AK-47 was. And while Patrick Purdy could still have gone on a rampage with a 10/22, good gun control legislation could have limited his ability to fire off such a massive quantity of rounds during his rampage. If this had saved even 1 of those kids, to me that is worth it. Even if it took away the rights of 10,000 or 100,000 responsible gun owners to add the AK-47 to their collection.
I don’t really care that you shoot squirrels and I think labeling you a redneck because of this would be counterproductive and unnecessary. I think we have a major problem connected to labeling in our country these days. Just because I have liberal views on issues such as gun control and don’t support the reasons for going to war in Iraq doesn’t mean anybody needs to call me a traitor (not referencing you here). That’s just bullshit.
I enjoy the discussions that go on here, even when they are with someone like you, who doesn’t share my views on nearly anything, but who also don’t resort to gratuitous name-calling.
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 17, 2004 at 3:49 PM Matt-
I’d never imply that you don’t know something (like the difference between a 10/22 and an ak-47) people have a way of eating their words when it comes to that. Yeah I truly enjoy talking (or in this case posting) with people who have different views than me also without insults.
Bottom line is if Purdy would’ve wanted that gun and ammo. he would’ve gotten it no matter the regulations put in place. I’d like to own an AR-15 just because I’m so familiar with it and want to use it for tournament shooting. This definetly fits the assault weapons definition but as long as their are provisions in this ban for eligible people who understand the responsibility of owning such a dangerous piece, I’ll have no problem with it.
It’s a tragedy what happened and I shudder (sp?) at the thought of my daughter being in there with those kids, but it’s still true that more accidents occur from stupid drivers going too fast in residential areas and school zones than guns. If we follow the logic of the assault weapons ban than all performance cars should be the next ban. People that own them don’t intentionally go out to hurt people, but how many kids that owned things like Camaros and Mustangs cracked them in high school? I could think of four I knew right off the top of my head. To me these kids are more dangerous than guns. We don’t have any regulation in place for that, if you’ve got the money, you’ve got the car. I don’t truly agree with a performance car ban I’m just using it as an analogy.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 17, 2004 at 4:37 PM Despite what the 2nd Amendment says, I think that every American should be able to own firearms for any reason they want, to hunt, protect themselves from the police and criminals, discourage government over-reaching, or as interior decoration to hang on the wall.
Furthermore, pursuant to the 2nd Amendment, I think that every American has not only the right to keep firearms, BUT THE DUTY TO KEEP FIREARMS. In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is part of the checks and balances scheme, needed to keep the government and it’s corrupting influences (read: commerce - big business), in its place.
To me, the notion that the GOP supports limited government is a fraud, like pretty much everything else the GOP has to say. The GOP is a whore house. GOP politicians are pimps and giant corporations are their whores. GOP politicians will employ the power of government in the service of their whores when necessary (ie: eminent domain for private purposes), and will try to limit the power of government when it impairs corporate profits ie: the ability of the little guy to drag General Motors, Pfizer, Exxon, etc., into court to answer allegations on a level playing field.
Frankly, I would think that the GOP would prefer to abolish the 2nd Amendment. After all, once the GOP has abolished the civil justice system, the only remedy the little guy will have is self help. And it’s pretty hard to exact self help without firearms.
Posted by Lefty on Dec 18, 2004 at 11:19 AM hey liberal (but) proud- you need to get back on your medication -soon. This is an important issue! The second ammendment is probably THE most important issue. Tyrants love unarmed serfs.
Posted by redstate on Dec 19, 2004 at 7:04 PM You guys don’t get it.
Is the second amendment going to be changed? Duuuuh...nooo.
Is the law going to be written in such a way that no one can own a gun? Duuuuh. NOOOO.
There is no pro or con gun debate. It’s another governmental red herring.
The issue is simply one of degree. Should automatic weapons be banned? Well, what’s the argument for keeping them? Are they for hunting and fishing? Duuuh...no.
Should certain people be prevented from owning guns? Duuuuh.. YEAH..the same way that we regulate who can drive, etc. And PLEEEEASE...don’t give me the driving is a privilege but gun ownership is a right bullshit. No one is talking about taking away rights. What we are talking about is keeping guns out of the hands of minors, out of the hands of people incapable of handling them, and keeping them out of the hands (in terms of AUTOMATIC WEAPONS) of people that don’t NEED them.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Dec 20, 2004 at 12:16 PM Ah poor liberal(and) proud. You know so little of the world. And so little of the Constitution. With all due respect the second ammendment in NOT about hunting!!
Owning a waepon is a right- not EVERYBODY is capable or cognizent to own a gun you are right.
I differ on your opinion of a right to drive a car . I feel if the governmnet charges you with taxes that fund the roads you have a right to drive. I think driving is s a right and reject the opinion that driving is a privelage. the government as limited by the Constituion is only able to and guarantee rights not grant priveleges.
Posted by redstate on Dec 20, 2004 at 12:35 PM Which part of the Constitution gives you the right to drive? Freedom of expression? Because if your going that route...you may want to rethink some of your other positions on Freedom of Expression.
And I didn’t say that owning a gun wasn’t a right. I said that the debate is about where we draw the line on what TYPE of guns people can own. The Constitution protects the right to own a gun...it DOESN’T say ANY TYPE of gun. Or are you now saying we don’t need ANY gun regulation?
What about cop killer bullets? Do shoulder launched missiles count too?C’mon..you want to talk...fine...you want to just be a smart ass...enjoy YOURself.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Dec 20, 2004 at 3:53 PM “cop killer” bullets eh? well that is just another scare tactic by the anti-gun wackos. Just about every deer rifle in the US shoots bullets capable of penetrating a “bulletproof vest” .
You spout off about what you no NOTHING about- typical liberal and the main reason people don’t like liberals- except other liberals of course.
Posted by redstate on Dec 21, 2004 at 4:17 PM I remember when I was in the 3rd grade, I got in this argument with one of my classmates. He thought Stabler was a better QB than Tarkenton. I told him he didn’t know nothing, that he was a retard and nobody liked him, except the other retards. Years later, when I had matured, I felt bad about that. But I realized it was just youthful stupidity. I had grown up.
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 21, 2004 at 10:10 PM I know that what I am about to say has nothing to do with the topic but I feel I must speak. You liberal scumbags have hit a new low with the cartoon about the vibrator creche scene. You bitch and moan about disparaging minorities and women and all that crap then you turn around and put a cartoon like that up on your website. Hypocrites - you are the worst kind of hypocrites imaginable. I remember the gays all bitching about Scharwzanegger and the girlie men commment. You liberals are always so “offended” by such trivial bullshit and then you go and put something like that up. That is why people HATE liberals with such passion- you are the scum of the earth and the biggest lying hypocrites to ever disgrace the face of the earth.
Posted by redstate on Dec 22, 2004 at 3:53 PM Hey, here’s an idea. Why don’t you just not visit this site any more. It would save you lots of grief apparently. It’s a pretty simple concept really, one that even you should be able to grasp onto.
Hope you have a vibrant Xmas!
Posted by Matt Harris on Dec 22, 2004 at 8:01 PM I enjoy exposing liberal scumbags for what they are - liberal scumbags. and it’s MERRY CHRISTMAS you multicultural- diversity- pro fag twit. I hope you get some sense in your pointy little head matt harris and may santa shit in your stocking.
Posted by redstate on Dec 22, 2004 at 8:21 PM Hello.
I came upon this rather late, months after this piece was written.
I will confess to not having read Sirota’s entire piece, but, I had to scroll to the comments. And, I’m glad I did.
To the one who is addressed as “redstate”: I’m sorry you hate liberals so much. I guess that means you hate me, too, because I identify myself as a liberal. And, yet, you don’t know me at all.
It seems that when issues such as guns, abortion, gay rights, and Christianity are featured in a blog, and, when it comes time to comment, the worst in people comes out.
Now, with regards to guns: I live in the city and therefore don’t feel the need to own a gun, nor do I *want* to own a gun. I’ve had conversations with friends who’ve asked me, “Now, suppose you want to go out at night, OK? Wouldn’t you feel safer if you carried a handgun in your purse?” I always reply, “No. If anything, I’d feel more vulnerable because of the feeling that there would be a *need* to carry a gun with me every time I left my apartment after dark.”
Other conversations I’ve had with law-abiding gun owners were along the lines of them agreeing with the “registration leads to confiscation” phrase. Yet, when I say to them, “But, if you’re law abiding, and, if you’ve been a gun owner for so many years, why in the hell would your gun(s) be confiscated?” And, guess what? I never get an answer! It gives me the impression that they just want to own guns.
Look, I choose not to own a gun because, frankly, they make me nervous. And, perhaps I’ve been lucky, but I have never been in a situation where I’ve been threatened, or continually stalked, or beaten or raped. Hence, I don’t feel as vulnerable as some people out there must feel. Now, I’m not implying that some people have no reason to not feel vulnerable, because I’m not in their shoes; I’m sure they would feel better protected if they were gun owners.
But, to be a gun owner, you have to be not only responsible, but level-headed. I can’t see a society of nervous, tense, pissed-off individuals carrying pistols in their purses or shotguns in their backpacks.
I’m not against the Second Amendment; I would not be nervous in the company of anyone who is a responsible, law-abiding, level-headed gun owner, even if he/she is a gun collector.
But were I in the company of a *volatile* gun owner? I’d run the other way.
Posted by Lisa on Mar 8, 2005 at 6:24 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
