Is Sarah Palin "Mainstream" on Guns?
The recent choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket came as a surprise to many and has created an uproar in the national media as reporters and bloggers scramble to learn more about this relatively unknown politician. While Palin's staunch anti-abortion stance has been well documented, less detail is known about her position on gun control.
The media's initial description of Palin as pro-gun stemmed primarily from comments she posted on her website when she ran for governor, including the following: "I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska's youth." Indeed, the National Rifle Association granted Palin its "highest possible rating" during her gubernatorial campaign and recently stated that she "would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history."
It was therefore curious to see UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh describe Palin's views on guns as "very mainstream" in Newsweek. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre echoed this assessment, stating that Palin "understands the values of the American public on [Second Amendment] issues."
But does she? A closer examination of her background reveals that Palin has embraced views on gun ownership that are ideologically extreme even by the standards of gun rights advocates.
For starters, receiving the "highest possible rating" from the NRA is not an indicator of mainstream thinking. The NRA has consistently opposed the renewal of the federal Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban expired in September 2004, a national Harris poll revealed that 71% of Americans were in favor of renewing it. The NRA has also consistently opposed closing the gun show loophole (which allows individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without undergoing a background check). A recent poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and The Tarrance Group indicated that 87% of Americans favor closing the loophole, including 85% of McCain supporters and 83% of gun owners. And so on and so on...
It is Palin's relationship with the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), however, that is truly disturbing. In addition to advocating for Alaska's independence from the United States (party founder Joe Vogler once stated he had "no use for America or her damned institutions"), the AIP makes the NRA look positively moderate on the issue of firearm ownership. Specifically, the AIP opposes any and all limits on who can own a firearm and what types of firearm(s) can be owned. In practice, this could mean convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, and the mentally ill (among other purchasers currently prohibited under federal law) walking around with fully automatic machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers. AIP's official position is that "gun control is hitting your target."
Equally troubling is AIP's embrace of insurrectionism--the belief that the Second Amendment grants individual citizens the right to confront their government with force of arms when they feel it has become "tyrannical" (the same view which Timothy McVeigh used to justify his attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City). AIP founder Vogler once stated, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." AIP Vice Chairman Dexter Clark recently hinted at the potential for a violent uprising at the Second Secessionist Convention in 2007, stating, "The longer this situation continues, the harder it's going to become for a peaceful solution."
Sarah Palin attended the AIP's annual convention in 2006 and addressed their 2008 convention through a videotaped speech while serving as governor, calling their gathering "inspirational" and telling the party's members to "keep up the good work." Her husband, Todd Palin, was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party for seven years between 1995 and 2002.
Palin has also endorsed an insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. In February of this year, she signed Alaska on to a multi-state amicus brief authored by the State of Texas in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief reads, in part: "The Framers were understandably wary of standing armies and the powers of a potentially oppressive government ... The introductory clause [of the Second Amendment], properly understood, confirms the primary benefit of the operational clause -- a citizenry capable of defending its rights by force, when all other means have failed, against any future oppression."
When Sarah Palin took the oath of office as governor in 2006, she swore to uphold the United States Constitution. Her association with the Alaska Independence Party, and embrace of insurrectionism, is an anathema to this oath. The claim that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government was last tried out by the Confederate States of America and settled at the conclusion of the Civil War.
President Abraham Lincoln--whose name was invoked by Republicans on the very night that Palin was officially nominated as their vice-presidential candidate--made no bones about his views on the subject, stating, "It is safe to assert to no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." When he asked Americans to go to war to protect the nation's sovereignty, he added, "And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States ... It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration...can always...break up their government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth." Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court adopted Lincoln's view in the case of Texas v. White, making it clear that the Constitution did not countenance armed rebellion against the federal government.
Sarah Palin "mainstream" on guns? Not even in the well-documented mythology of her own political party.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Palin has also endorsed an insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. In February of this year, she signed Alaska on to a multi-state amicus brief authored by the State of Texas in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller."
O.bama's failure to endorse this amicus brief is yet another reason to vote McCain.
Indeed, I would shudder to think of what America would look like if Sarah Palin were truly "mainstream" on guns. As to her insurrectionist credentials, the last thing that America needs at present is another civil war---we are a nation, not a federation of states for a reason! We found out long ago that central government is needed in order for our nation to function, hopefully that is not a topic that the U.S. needs to painfully review. Sarah Palin needs to be taken very seriously, for, especially in a position of power, such as that of Vice President- she (in-step with John McCain) pose a very grave threat America's future. Violence is very rarely the solution, as a great deal of 20th century history (and now, 21st century as well) can attest to, and hopefully, this nation, the first to be founded on human rights, will remember that come this November election.
Ange--Sarah Palin is mainstream on guns as demonstrated by how badly Dems do when gun control is on the table--notice HR1022 is going nowhere just like the renewal of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban
The best indicator of how mainstream Gov Palin's views on firearms is what happens when gun control is a factor--Democrats do not do well in elections--they lost Congress in 1996, Al Gore and John Kerry lost their presidential runs--are you sure you want a repeat?
Can we have serious enlightenment and accountability in an election season?
Let's ask a few questions to the candidates:
******************
The DC Court of Appeals released an opinion on March 9, 2007, in Parker et al. v. DC Government. After many pages in which the court fabricated an individual right to be privately armed outside of any militia or military context and struck down DC's gun control law, Judge Silberman arrived at these conclusions:
"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought
consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The
registration of firearms gives the government
information as to how many people would be
armed for militia service if called up.
Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would
both promote public safety and produce better
candidates for military service. Personal
characteristics, such as insanity or felonious
conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous
to society also make someone unsuitable for
service in the militia."
http://pac
p. 54
These are the makings of a firearms policy. Do you support Judge Silberman's conclusions? Will your administration work towards a national firearms policy based on these conclusions?
**********
Judge Silberman's conclusions are a devastating repudiation of the gun lobby's core doctrine that the
purpose of all those guns in private hands is to maintain an anarchic balance of power between a privately armed populace and any and all government. The Supreme Court did not overturn them.
http://www
Let's quote the whole paragraph, shall we?
On the other hand, it does not follow that a person
who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and
bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not
be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized
militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and
bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women
would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally
excluded them from membership in the militia. As we have
explained, the right is broader than its civic purpose. See
Volokh, supra, at 801-07.17
Let us just ask the candidates if they accept and support Silberman's conclusions.
GEErnst
http://www
If the restrictions are truly based on someone being convicted of felonies (especially if the felonies are violent) or there has been a well vetted judicial process that a person has mental problems that put others in danger) you have my support. If it is the usual gun control argument for laws that would severely restrict law abiding citizens--I have a major problem with that.
The D. C. court of appeals did not "fabricate an individual right to be privately armed outside of any militia or military context". It correctly concluded that second amendment grants citizens that right. The Supreme Court confirmed this by upholding their ruling.
Furthermore you notice the third paragraph says "Reasonable restrictions also MIGHT be thought
consistent with a "well regulated Militia." Notice it says that such restrictions might be consistent with the second amendment. It does not presume that all such restrictions are.
And finally, just because certain guns regulations do not violate the second amendment doesn't mean we should have them in place. Our democratic institutions can still chose to reject any gun law we wish, even if they do not conflict with the second amendment. For example, SCOTUS ruled that states could prohibit carrying concealed weapons, but the majority of states have chosen not to do so. All but two states allow some form of CCW, and this has not changed since the Heller decition.
GE--how is relying on the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" fabricating a right?
"In law language is subject to construction"
--G. Gordon Liddy.
Whatever rights are enumerated in a Constitution and secured by the courts have to be consistent with what a constitution is. A constitution is a frame of government not a treaty among sovereign individuals.
I agree with Sarah Palin's view of the 2A and strongly disagree with Barack Obama's horribly offensive "Elmer Fudd" interpretation of the 2A. The 2A was written to give people the opportunity to fight against tyranny, not hunt ducks and wabbits. To fight against tyranny, your best bet is an "assault weapon". A shotgun, revolver, and single shot bolt action rifle are nothing compared to the M16s and M4s carried by the modern soldier. You would be dead before you could get a second shot off. At least with an AR-15 or WASR-10 with a couple of high capacity magazines, you have a fighting chance.
If Barack wants to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals, he should stop letting criminals out of prison. I for one enjoy my RIGHT (not privilege) to buy "assault weapons" legally. That's why I pay my taxes and obey the laws: To enjoy my rights as a citizen and not be a ward of the state. And for that reason, I cannot vote for Barack Obama and I will vote for Sarah Palin.
More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt.
The MSM and many pundits appear to be stuck in a 1950's paradigm of gun owner demographics. In fact, only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts, based on hunting license data, and many, perhaps most, hunters also own nonhunting guns.
Contrary to popular belief, "assault weapons" are NOT military automatic weapons like M16's or AK-47's; those are tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act and have been since the 1930's. "Assault weapons" is Brady-speak for non-automatic, NFA Title 1 civilian guns with modern styling, primarily small-caliber rifles. And they are the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States.
The AR-15 DOMINATES centerfire target shooting in the USA, both competitive and recreational; it is also the most popular civilian defensive carbine in U.S. homes. The SKS, a ballistic twin of the venerable .30-30 Winchester, is said to be the most common centerfire rifle of any type in U.S. homes, with at least seven million sold.
As a gun owner, I don't particularly care if you would "allow" me to own a $5000 skeet shotgun or an early-20th-century style bolt-action; like most gun owners, I don't hunt and I don't shoot skeet. I'd like to keep my small-caliber carbines with ergonomic stocks, thanks.
More on the issue:
http://www
Assault weapons are civilian versions of weapons that were originally designed for military use.
The SKS was actually originally designed as a semiautomatic Soviet military rifle. Not all of these weapons were originally automatic weapons.
But let's be clear here--none of the guns you described above (the AK-47, the SKS, the AR-15) were designed for skeet shooting, target shooting, or self-defense in the home. They are high-capacity weapons that were designed to spray fire and kill human beings quickly and efficiently on the battlefield. And that's what they do best.
That the civilian versions of these rifles are semiautomatic doesn't exactly provide comfort, either. In military situations, soldiers will typically use this fire setting anyway, for greater accuracy. The rate of fire is still quite rapid.
Grits--this may surprise you--but just about every popular firearm available owes a major bit of its development to its design having served as a military firearm--single and double action revolvers, semi auto pistols, single shot rifles, rolling block rifles, lever action, bolt action, and semi auto rifles
One area where the AR's, AK's and SKS's are well proven is protection of communities during riots (look at their use during the riots in 1992 here in Los Angeles) or after natural disasters like earthquakes or hurricanes.
Grits, first of all, weather or not AK47s, SKS rifles, and AR-15s were originally designed for military use is irrelevant. There are hundreds of products in the civilian market that started out as designs for the military (Such as the Hummer and GPS system), and there are many products used by the military that were originally made just for civilians (such as explosives and the airplane).
Second of all, the key issue isn't what the weapons were originally designed for years ago, but what they are actually used for right now. And right now, the weapons you mentioned are used for hunting, target shooting, and self defense by millions of soldiers, police officers, and civilians alike. The reason for this is because those weapons are very well suited for those roles. Thus, the guns that gun control fanatics call "Assault weapons" are just as legitimate to own and use as any other firearm.
There is no "rate of fire" when it comes to semi-automatic firearms. The rate of fire is as fast as you can pull the trigger. That's any semi-auto, including the ones people don't think are "assault weapons".
Why all the consternation over any kind of rifle, when FBI stats indicate that rifles of any kind are only used less than 2% of crimes involving guns?
More people are murdered every year with bare hands and feet, than rifles.
I guess this is what it's come to. After years of pandering to the NRA, the Republican Party has now nominated a a vice-presidential candidate who supports and praises the work of insurrectionists and secessionists.
And the gun rights crowd on here still brings up the Constitution, as if Americans don't even have a passing familiarity with the document and the history of the Civil War.
Hopefully, the media will dig deeper into the AIP story - I'm sure the insane and disgusting anti-American quotes published in this blog are just the beginning.
Barack Obama and Joseph BIden have a long history of supporting gun bans and gun control--does that mean that the Democratic party is pandering to the Brady Campaign and the VPC?
Why yes, djcrsn, it certaily does.
If you'll recall, Hillary and Obama tried to pander to both sides. Hillary started telling stories about goin' a huntin' and a fishin' with dear old dad. A week later she was gushing all over the attendees of a Million Mom group, badmouthing guns.
Obama, in a slightly more immediate state of confusion, tried to pander to both sides in the same paragraph, supporting the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, and then supporting the DC gun ban in the next breath.
I'm amazed that a constitutional law professor thinks the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. Maybe it's not our constitution he's a professor of. Then he made some ridiculous statement about rural folk needing guns for home defense more than city folk. Yeah, I'm sure there is a lot more violent crime in Mayberry, than there is in his native Chicago.
He must have goitten his teaching credentials at the University of Grenada.
Grits, 72% of the population supports the individual right to keep and bear arms. The vast majorty of both houses of Congress filed briefs in support of Heller, in Heller vs DC. The Supreme Court upheld the 2nd Amendment as writtten. I'd say that most Americans have at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution. It's you folks who seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
MM2 is right. There is not one word in the Constitution that says a state can't quit the Union.
And, the AR15 is THE most popular center-fire target rifle in the US.
They already have 'dug deeper', found nothing, and then posted a bunch of rumors, innuendo, and flat out lies as facts.
If she's so far out of the mainstream, why is she a member of an organization that has 4 million members? More than ALL the anti-gun organizations combined?
"Equally troubling is AIP's embrace of insurrecti
It was also the view of the people who founded this country.
I'd also like to point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state cannot secede from the Union, Civil War notwithstanding.
Right to bear arms is a mainstream American value as is right to insurrection against tyranny.
FYI - First shots fired in the American Revolution were over a British General ordering his troops to confiscate privately and community (village government ) owned arms and ammunition stored in the village of Concord. That was the actual start of armed conflict between the UK and the colonists who became the USA.
It is tyranny to confiscate the arms of free people who have committed no crime, it is also tyranny to make it illegal for otherwise law abiding citizens to own arms.
Palin's views on gun control are extremely mainstream. She, along with mainstream America, support the second amendment. Obviously Josh Horwitz does not. CNN polls revealed that the Clinton gun ban on so-called "assault weapons" never had much support to begin with. It also did not do anything to reduce crime. It was just a sinister attempt by the anti-gun lobby to ban as many legitimate firearms as possible.
http://www
Hey, you guys in the gun groups know that Internet polls have no statistical or scientific reliability, right?
No open access poll is as valid as the controlled polls linked in this blog.
Bill CLinton attributed the Democrats losing control of Congress to the Republicans in 1996 to gun control as well as gun control costing Al Gore and John Kerry their presidential races.
Then maybe you people will stop using them when it suits YOUR agenda.
Howabout the polls that state that the majority of Americans recognize the 2A as an individual right, a stance that Horowitz opposes.
Is he wrong there?
Or we could also look at the polls showing that 77% and 88% of Americans disagree w/ Obamas attempts to ban rifle ammunition and opposition to self-defense in the home.
Seems the anti-gun fanatics are the ones out of the mainstream.
“It boggles the mind that someone so invested into our democratic process by serving as governor of a state would associate with and even congratulate the efforts of individuals who wish to illegally leave our union--while not ruling out the use of violence.”
You need to read up on North American history and then read the US Constitution. Then I would think this would not boggle your mind. It is an American tradition to value Liberty and Freedom beyond all else. At times brave men are willing to risk and sacrifice everything for the ideal of Liberty and Freedom.
My guess twhjohnson, you are quite happy to sleep safe in your bed at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do you harm.
Your liberty and freedom argument is a strawman. I have read the Constitution. The document itself restricts states sovereignty on a number of fronts, and this was strengthen with the addition of the Reconstruction amendments. While the Articles of Confederation created a compact of states, the Constitution is a more binding document.
There is a great amount of legal support for the interpretation of the Constitution as prohibiting states from leaving the Union because of disagreements with a representative government. For example the Supreme Court of Alaska found that AIP's ballot initiative to vote on secession was illegal on constitutional and other grounds.
As far as the gun people saying that her views are mainstream, the polls are pretty clear here. You can't take a representative poll done by a legitimate polling organization and just throw it out the window.
The Second Amendment is a red herring in all of this. Even Scalia believes that the government can reasonably restrict firearms and here we have Palin supporting a number of restrictions that are unpopular with the public.
The argument over secession in the USA was settled on the battlefield, not by logic. Logically if government is the servant of the people, and consent of the governed is required to govern, then the federal government using force to stop a state from seceding where the state government is doing this with the explicit consent of the people of that state is a violation of the principles this nation was founded on.
Take the slavery issue out of the mix, and make the issue over which citizens of a state wish to secede from the union one that is not morally horrific, example being differences on taxes, federal spending, or trade policy, then forcing the people of a state to remain in the union at gunpoint is tyranny.
"As far as the gun people saying that her views are mainstream, the polls are pretty clear here. You can't take a representative poll done by a legitimate polling organization and just throw it out the window."
Well, as far as I know, Gallup is pretty legit. And according to gallup, 72% of the population agree with us.
But that doesn't really matter. We do not have majority rule in this country. This is NOT a democracy. Even if the majprity of the people were limp-wristed nannies, which they are not, their opinion on the matter would have no bearing on everyone elses right to self-protection.
Are you even aware that the police are not legally responsible for your protection, courtesy of SCOTUS?
So, "who ya gonna call?"
Maybe liberty and freedom are strawmen to you, but not to us.
"There is a great amount of legal support for the interpretation of the Constitution as prohibiting states"
This is where you folks get into trouble. All that 'interpreting'. How about a little less interpreting, and a little more going by what's written in plain English?
"Even Scalia believes that the government can reasonably restrict firearms"
Restricting the most popular center-fire rifles in the country is hardly reasonable.
The republicans have already discredited themselves from having any legitimate connection to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln certainly wouldn't have approved of George Bush's trampling of the constituton or misleading Americans into attacking Iraq.
Why is no one in the MSM discussing this? Along with her church affiliations, her blockage of legislation in support of unwed teen moms and special needs children, etc., etc.? Mc C's camp made clear this morning that she will not be available for any interviews, and refuse to discuss her policy stances or "personal background" as it might affect her decision making. All we hear in repsonse to requests for interviews and more info. is that she's being PICKED ON! For heaven's sake, this is a candidate for VP, and we, the voters, are to accept no response to these questions for fear of "bulliying," of being labeled "se* is * t??? America, wake up!
Not sure where to start...
It is clear that you believe your opinions are the mainstream and Sarah Palin is not part of that enlightened group. Your poll statistics are laughable.
Let me put it in such a way you will understand. I equate gun ownership to pro-choice politics. I would rather have a 44 magnum under my pillow and never use than to need it and not have it there. Much the ability to have an abortion, not need it, then not have the opportunity available. Both involve the potential to take a human life.
What is most troubling is that you instantly align gun owners with 'extremists'. If you have not read the statistics there are more small arms in the USA than any other country in the world. You will most definitely see these as a bad thing. Regardless, there is nothing you can do to change it... short of mass confiscations would be a very horrific time in the USA for the confiscators.
You will continue to cling to your restrictive beliefs... while others cling to their guns. Either you can accept this or you can't. The tide is changing and it scares you. No need to fear my friend... The guns have been here long before you were born and they will be here long after you die. Your glimmers of hope of gun bans are dwindling each day ;)
Palin's political history is a roadmap of reasons why she should not have been chosen as McCain's VP nominee: an ongoing ethics investigation into the firing of a state official, her support for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before her opposition to the project, her current support of the "Road to Nowhere," the fact that she hired a lobbyist for a town of roughly 6,000 people to procure big cash federal earmarks (at the time drawing criticism from McCain), her loyalty tests as mayor that left city workers who did not fully support her efforts without jobs, the way she laughed as a political opponent and cancer survivor was called a "bitch" and a "cancer," her support of teaching creationism in schools, her opposition to abortion even in cases of incest and rape, her belief that global climate change is not man-made, her exaggeration of her credentials as the leader of Alaska's national guard, and her insulting comments about community organizers.
Despite all of these issues I believe that her association with the AIG is the most significant and I would like to see it play out in the national media at least on the same scale as the ongoing ethics investigation.
It boggles the mind that someone so invested into our democratic process by serving as governor of a state would associate with and even congratulate the efforts of individuals who wish to illegally leave our union--while not ruling out the use of violence.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
