On the Gun Debate; or, why there isn't one...
...so, there was a bit of an uproar over the weekend.
Not because an NFL player decided to kill his girlfriend and himself.
No, because a sports broadcaster deigned to talk about the role firearms might have had in the act.
And they weren't even Bob Costas' words. He cites numerous times the author of the piece he recited on air during halftime of Sunday Night Football: Another sportswriter, Jason Whitlock, formerly based in Kansas City, now (probably soon-to-be-ex) sportswriter for Fox Sports. He makes some salient points in the article.
Problem is, gun owners don't wanna hear it. I'm not just talking about gun nuts, here. No gun owner wants to hear even the possibility that perhaps easy access to firearms had a part to play in how the Jovan Belcher incident played out. They mask their total defiance as a "too soon" argument: "Can't you wait until the bodies are cold first?"
...no, we can't. Because you don't want to talk about the possibilities even when the field is neutral.
Or, I could ask: If not now, when? When will it be an "appropriate" time to talk about the role guns play in most crimes?
But I already know your answer. Never. Because, to many of these owners, restricting gun rights is always bad. Always.
...if that's so, then explain the recent actions of the NRA and its membership in a couple of recent scenarios.
Scenario 1: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed an extensive assault weapons ban, angering the state gun advocacy group, the Gun Owners Action League. Meanwhile, as president, Barack Obama has set his own beliefs on such weapons aside, so much so that his first term saw the most extensive broadening of gun rights we've seen in 30 years.
The NRA not only backed Mitt Romney; they also tried to whitewash GOAL's reaction to his signing of the ban, where it said he had "Betrayed Gun Owners". Why would it do this?
Simple: Because Romney is a Republican, and Republicans are always better than Democrats on guns. Even when the reverse is actually true.
Scenario 2: S.3525, the Sportsmen's Act, was authored and introduced by Senator Jon Tester of Montana. The bill would have given huntsmen broader access to public lands and loosen EPA standards of bullets used on public lands. Previous procedural votes gave the measure broad bipartisan support. Then came the election. After which the bill was blocked on procedural grounds on a party-line vote, 50-44 (60 votes were necessary to pass.) Only one Democrat voted against it: Barbara Boxer of California. Only one Republican voted for it: outgoing Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. And why would the Republicans be in lockstep against it?
Because of a small raise in the fee of a stamp that allows you to hunt on public lands. One which would reduce the deficit by approximately half a billion dollars a year over ten years, or $5 billion total. A drop in the deficit bucket, to be sure, but one that the supposed "fiscal conservatives" should always get behind.
But there's likely another factor. The procedural vote might have been reversed (Democrats against, Republicans for)...had the bill not been written and introduced by Jon Tester. Democrat, from Montana.
The NRA, after championing the bill, barely mentioned its defeat...and many members, naturally, blamed Democrats. Because Republicans are always better than Democrats on guns. Even when the reverse is actually true.
If you're truly serious about your gun rights, truly serious about protectiong your right to keep and bear arms...you cannot support the National Republican Association. They are not truly in it to protect your 2nd amendment rights. If they were, they'd fully support efforts by President Obama and Senator Tester to broaden gun rights, even though they happen to be Democrats. If they were, they'd call Mitt Romney out for signing a permanent assault weapons ban for Massachusetts, rather than whitewashing his involvement in it. They'd stop yelling that Obama's gonna take yer gunz, and only voting for the looniest Republican candidates we have can stop him. And instead of trying to yell at Bob Costas for deigning to discuss the role guns play in NFL players killing their girlfriends and committing suicide, the NRA would be working for truly responsible gun ownership...rather than just being yet another partisan pawn of the Republican Party.
Sure, there are responsible gun owners out there. Unfortunately, they're being drowned out by the "gun nuts" like Ted Nugent, AKA the Great Yellow Buffalo, and his ilk, who will continue to back the Republican Party even when they pull stunts like on the Sportsmen's Act. And worse, the fears of the "gun nuts" are rubbing off on them, making them paranoid, slowly turning them into "gun nuts", too. The problem is, most of society thinks these "gun nuts" are liable to snap at any time and go "2nd amendment" on innocents. That's the main reason why there's a gun control advocacy in the first place: to counter people who so casually toss out lines like "2nd amendment solutions" and "we came unarmed (this time)" at the slightest provocation. These are not the signs of a healthy mind...but, as long as they're part of the core of the National Republican Association, they're treated as normal...even patriotic. Thus, they attempt to block even treating the "gun nut" mindset as anything other than "patriotic", and tell people that the only way they can be free is to have several assault rifles and a small armory of handguns. Y'know, for protection. Or hunting. As long as those sorts of "gun nuts" exist, there will exist a backlash of groups opposed to it. And when the tipping point is reached, the one where these groups finaly turn radical and attempt to use any means necessary to make their point...you might be surprised at just how many guns those groups own.
Not because an NFL player decided to kill his girlfriend and himself.
No, because a sports broadcaster deigned to talk about the role firearms might have had in the act.
And they weren't even Bob Costas' words. He cites numerous times the author of the piece he recited on air during halftime of Sunday Night Football: Another sportswriter, Jason Whitlock, formerly based in Kansas City, now (probably soon-to-be-ex) sportswriter for Fox Sports. He makes some salient points in the article.
Problem is, gun owners don't wanna hear it. I'm not just talking about gun nuts, here. No gun owner wants to hear even the possibility that perhaps easy access to firearms had a part to play in how the Jovan Belcher incident played out. They mask their total defiance as a "too soon" argument: "Can't you wait until the bodies are cold first?"
...no, we can't. Because you don't want to talk about the possibilities even when the field is neutral.
Or, I could ask: If not now, when? When will it be an "appropriate" time to talk about the role guns play in most crimes?
But I already know your answer. Never. Because, to many of these owners, restricting gun rights is always bad. Always.
...if that's so, then explain the recent actions of the NRA and its membership in a couple of recent scenarios.
Scenario 1: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed an extensive assault weapons ban, angering the state gun advocacy group, the Gun Owners Action League. Meanwhile, as president, Barack Obama has set his own beliefs on such weapons aside, so much so that his first term saw the most extensive broadening of gun rights we've seen in 30 years.
The NRA not only backed Mitt Romney; they also tried to whitewash GOAL's reaction to his signing of the ban, where it said he had "Betrayed Gun Owners". Why would it do this?
Simple: Because Romney is a Republican, and Republicans are always better than Democrats on guns. Even when the reverse is actually true.
Scenario 2: S.3525, the Sportsmen's Act, was authored and introduced by Senator Jon Tester of Montana. The bill would have given huntsmen broader access to public lands and loosen EPA standards of bullets used on public lands. Previous procedural votes gave the measure broad bipartisan support. Then came the election. After which the bill was blocked on procedural grounds on a party-line vote, 50-44 (60 votes were necessary to pass.) Only one Democrat voted against it: Barbara Boxer of California. Only one Republican voted for it: outgoing Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. And why would the Republicans be in lockstep against it?
Because of a small raise in the fee of a stamp that allows you to hunt on public lands. One which would reduce the deficit by approximately half a billion dollars a year over ten years, or $5 billion total. A drop in the deficit bucket, to be sure, but one that the supposed "fiscal conservatives" should always get behind.
But there's likely another factor. The procedural vote might have been reversed (Democrats against, Republicans for)...had the bill not been written and introduced by Jon Tester. Democrat, from Montana.
The NRA, after championing the bill, barely mentioned its defeat...and many members, naturally, blamed Democrats. Because Republicans are always better than Democrats on guns. Even when the reverse is actually true.
If you're truly serious about your gun rights, truly serious about protectiong your right to keep and bear arms...you cannot support the National Republican Association. They are not truly in it to protect your 2nd amendment rights. If they were, they'd fully support efforts by President Obama and Senator Tester to broaden gun rights, even though they happen to be Democrats. If they were, they'd call Mitt Romney out for signing a permanent assault weapons ban for Massachusetts, rather than whitewashing his involvement in it. They'd stop yelling that Obama's gonna take yer gunz, and only voting for the looniest Republican candidates we have can stop him. And instead of trying to yell at Bob Costas for deigning to discuss the role guns play in NFL players killing their girlfriends and committing suicide, the NRA would be working for truly responsible gun ownership...rather than just being yet another partisan pawn of the Republican Party.
Sure, there are responsible gun owners out there. Unfortunately, they're being drowned out by the "gun nuts" like Ted Nugent, AKA the Great Yellow Buffalo, and his ilk, who will continue to back the Republican Party even when they pull stunts like on the Sportsmen's Act. And worse, the fears of the "gun nuts" are rubbing off on them, making them paranoid, slowly turning them into "gun nuts", too. The problem is, most of society thinks these "gun nuts" are liable to snap at any time and go "2nd amendment" on innocents. That's the main reason why there's a gun control advocacy in the first place: to counter people who so casually toss out lines like "2nd amendment solutions" and "we came unarmed (this time)" at the slightest provocation. These are not the signs of a healthy mind...but, as long as they're part of the core of the National Republican Association, they're treated as normal...even patriotic. Thus, they attempt to block even treating the "gun nut" mindset as anything other than "patriotic", and tell people that the only way they can be free is to have several assault rifles and a small armory of handguns. Y'know, for protection. Or hunting. As long as those sorts of "gun nuts" exist, there will exist a backlash of groups opposed to it. And when the tipping point is reached, the one where these groups finaly turn radical and attempt to use any means necessary to make their point...you might be surprised at just how many guns those groups own.