A Vote For Guns Is A Vote For "Family Values"
A red herring raised every election cycle: "Democrats will take away our hunting guns."
National Public Radio (9-24-08) recently spoke to Democrat Louis Brandenburg in southwestern Pennsylvania, whose friends are voting for McCain-Palin because of "the hunting issue." "I can't understand what happened to our party....the Republican Party is always the ones who back hunters and sportsmen...all we get from the other one is flack about hunting and guns," protested Mr. Brandenburg.
In fact, Democrats have never challenged the right to own hunting or sports guns. Yet, in classic bait-and-switch fashion, leaders of the National Rifle Association incite the masses by raising the specter of Democratic "gun grabbers" confiscating citizens' "hunting" and "sports" guns - even as NRA leaders promote "sporting" events with automatic weapons and .50-caliber military sniper rifles (deadly at a mile, with a range of over four miles).
Sarah Palin's NRA membership is regarded a prerequisite for elected office; nevertheless, there remains an enormous disconnect between the NRA membership and its leadership - termed by some a "field and stream membership with a soldier-of-fortune-leadership." Thus, NRA leaders endorse annual .50-caliber sniper and automatic weapons "Funshoots" in different states, sponsored by affiliates of Gun Owners of America. Due to the range and destructive capacity of these military-style guns, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners were given notice that their year 2000 "Funshoot" northeast of Denver was a bit too close to Denver International Airport airspace.
Indeed, the manufacturer of the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle has hailed military weaponry as a 'growth area' of the civilian gun market, and boasted of the weapon's ability to "wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of cartridge.."
Since the '80s, the NRA and the gun industry have responded to the saturated hunting and handgun markets by promoting evermore lethal firearms under the pretext of "self-defense," and state concealed gun carry laws. Boasted former NRA lobbyist Tanya Metaksa to the Wall Street Journal in 1996, "The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit - our efforts have created a new market."
Guns have been transformed into an article of faith by Christian idealogues like Pat Robertson, who anticipates an "epic struggle" to restore God's intent of national control to "gun-bearing Christians." Robertson's Christian Coalition voter guides have called a vote against the assault weapons ban a vote for "family values" - because "families hunt together," reasoned a CC member.
Christian militia advocates like Larry Pratt, executive director of Gunowners of America, celebrate the rightward bent of the Supreme Court and its 2008 decision District of Columbia vs. Heller expanding individual gun ownership in D.C. - regarded the precursor to an unregulated right to bear arms. To Pratt, all gun laws are "a national rebellion against the Lord God," in defiance of the biblical imperative for unlimited ownership of weaponry for sport and "spiritual warfare" to reclaim the government for Christians.
In 2000 William Bennett stipulated twin "pro-life, pro-gun" litmus tests of purity for Republican candidates. One of the most cynically calculated, unholy right-wing alliances is the coalition of hard-core gun advocates and anti-abortion ideologues who promote the criminalization of abortion and unfettered, unregulated weapons possession. Speculation on the American Freedom Network "gun-talk" radio out of Johnstown, Colorado held that the Supreme Court's 2000 election intercession for George W. Bush was evidence of divine intervention - an attempt by the Lord to galvanize the populace "against abortion and for Second Amendment gun rights."
Former NRA president Charleton Heston expanded the terms of the culture war in his 1998 address to the Christian Coalition, appealing to his oppressed legions--"God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle-class...evangelical Christian....rural...heterosexual...gunowning..." to act in defense of liberty against big government.
Professor Robert Jay Lifton named the right-wing conflation of piety and warfare the U.S. Gunocracy - gun-centered idolatry, a cult of the gun. Right-wing spiritual warriors who elevate the rule of gun above the rule of law consider theirs a mission to "take back America for God."
The stranglehold of the gun lobby on Congress supercedes even national security. Agents of bin Laden were revealed buyers of U.S. .50-caliber military sniper weapons during the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. Yet, three separate bills to regulate .50-caliber weapons by reclassifying them the same as machine guns under the National Firearms Act have languished in congressional committee since 1999. Consequently, U.S. 18-year-olds have easier legal access to fifty-caliber guns than to handguns. CBS 60 Minutes reported in 2005 that .50-caliber guns and other assault weapons continue to be shipped out of the U.S. as "hunting rifles," often on commercial airlines.
An NRA vice president gloated in 2000 that the gun lobby would "work out of a Bush White House," and the group anticipates continued free access to the oval office with a Sarah Palin vice presidency. Professing Palin's states' rights stance, the gun lobby selectively invokes local/state control unless it impedes their efforts to preempt city bans on guns in public places or to enact federal prohibition of all gun safety measures.
The NRA's shell game nurturing false fears of Democrats seizing hunting guns is classic bait-and-switch, calculated to scare voters, intimidate lawmakers and derail reasonable gun safety laws and national security measures.
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
See Michele Swenson's Profile
An 8-year-old boy became a tragic statistic of the extreme firearms movment that lacks oversight of even the most lethal weaponry. (Denver Post, 10-28-08)
At a gun show (Machine Gun Shoot & Firearms Expo, Westerfield, Mass.) on October 26 an 8-year-old boy was permitted to fire an Uzi, a fully automatic machine gun, with an instructor and his father watching. When the recoil of the weapon proved too much, "the boy lost control and fatally shot himself in the head." Christopher Bizilj's sixth-grade brother was also attending.
"Police are calling the shooting an accident but are investigating whether everyone connected with the incident had proper weapons permits."
What does it take to hold adults responsible for criminal negligence resulting in the death of a child? The tragic incident is symptomatic of an out-of-control U.S. firearms movement.
What many anti-gunners conveniently forget is that traditions change. What was a traditional hunting rifle 50 years ago isn't a traditional hunting rifle today. Even a stalwart "traditional hunting gun" company like Remington is making "non-traditional" guns now: http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-15_VTR.asp
See Michele Swenson's Profile
For the might-makes-right, rule-of-gun-above-rule-of-law uber-gun fans who embrace weapons of overkill for hunting, this video is for you.
Sarah and her hunting guns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9TZcgsy0ws
Who gets to decide what weapons are "overkill for hunting"? You? The anti-gun groups? The government? I got an idea, how about we let people who actually hunt decide what weapons are appropriate? Seeing as they are the ones who know something about hunting and guns, it seems like the right call.
Anyway, you just don't get it do you? The gun issue really doesn't have much to do with hunting. Only a small fraction of gun owners actually hunt, and many hunters also use guns for other purposes. Stating that you are dedicated to allowing "traditional hunting guns" while banning other firearms is not going to get you any public support from the pro-second amendment crowd.
Only a true gun control fanatic would claim that people who own and use guns lawfully believe in the "rule-of-gun-above-rule-of-law", or that people who use guns to defend themselves against dangerous and violent criminals believe in "might-makes-right". Michele, your true colors are showing.
Surely you can do better than an SNL TIna Fey parody. I understand you do not approve of self defense, firearms or hunting. but the 2nd amendment tells me that your disapproval is irelevent.
The gun banners obsession with the.50 caliber rifle defies logic. I'm going to say this loud and clear. THE .50 CALIBER RIFLE HAS NOT EVER BEEN USED IN A SINGLE HOMICIDE IN AMERICA!!! Not one! And the gun has been on the market for over 20 years! So stop whining about a large, expensive, cumbersome target shooting gun that is used exclusively by wealthy sportsmen.
Swenson: "A three-day gun background check is vehemently opposed as an intolerable inconvenience."
No, it is correctly denounced as dangerous, degrading, and useless, just like those states that have waiting period law requirements for abortions.
If someone is buying a gun in response to specific threat, they can't afford to wait three days. They need the gun now. There have been many cases of people who have used guns for defense within three days of buying them. It's also degrading, because it's based on the assumption that all gun buyers are potential criminals. And finally, it's useless because criminals usually don't get guns legally, nor do they mind waiting a few days to commit a crime when they do.
Swenson: "In fact, Democrats have never challenged the right to own hunting or sports guns."
Yes they do. Claiming a gun doesn't have "sporting or hunting" use doesn't make it true. All guns have sporting and/or hunting use. Besides, Swenson doesn't even bother to deny she wants to ban self-defense guns, which are the most important guns to defend.
Also--don't forget that the gunbanners' obsession with 50 cals also includes muzzle loaders and the Sharp's rolling block (I believe 50/110 or 50/130) used in Quigley Down Under--neither design being very good for crime (just like the Barrett's).
6. "and boasted of the weapon's ability to "wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of cartridge.."" - If the plane is sitting on the ground. Of course, a .338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, etc. can also do this.
1. Our right to keep and bear arms has squat to do with sporting and hunting.
2. "In fact, Democrats have never challenged the right to own hunting or sports guns. " - WRONG! The 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" is a prime example.
3. "even as NRA leaders promote "sporting" events with automatic weapons - SEMI-automatic firearms. 1 trigger pull = 1 bang.
4. "and .50-caliber military sniper rifles (deadly at a mile, with a range of over four miles)." " -- Just about ANY rifle is lethal at one mile and just about any deer hunting rifle has a range of 3+ miles. (the longer ranges are maximums if the rifle is elevated to an optimal angle of between about 30 and 35 degrees and fired. Accurate shots at that range are not possible.)
5. "Indeed, the manufacturer of the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle has hailed military weaponry as a 'growth area' of the civilian gun market" - Barrett got its start making long range .50 cal rifles for CIVILIANS. It was at a civilian shooting competition that some military shooters took notice of this rifle and adopted it. But then again, just about every civilian rifle and every military rifle share huge amounts of history. At one time or another, the military has used black powder muzzle loaders, lever actions, bolt actions, and semi-autos.
And I have seen many Dems and Brady Campaign supporters describe scope equipped deer/big game rifles in 308 class and up as quess what--evil sniper rifle so yes they are after both our self defense arms but our hunting guns.
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?
What I haven't seen here is the fact is that the second amendment ,was not written about hunting.It was about being able to defend our country from foriegn and domestic tyranny.
And defend our homes from criminals, and our communities from danger.
I don’t get it. Help a reader out, if you don’t mind. Why are you so focused on “hunting or sports guns”? Why not just... guns? In fact, you very specifically mention seizing of hunting guns as being bogus, but not guns in general. As a firearms owner, what are you qualifying as a “hunting gun”? How does this compare to the list of firearms described on the newest “assault weapons ban” (HR 1022) or that of the most recent attempt (HR 6257)?
Can you document a crime trend with employing .50 caliber weapons? You seem to dislike them quite a bit, and I’m curious as to why. I can think of at least three other calibers I’d rather have for 1k-2k meter rifles, all of which being unquestionably more accurate.
It’s interesting that you mention a vote against gun control is a vote for family values, and I’d like to bring up an interesting twist to that. Are you familiar with Pink Pistols, and the phrase “Armed gays don’t get bashed”? Are you familiar with the origins of gun control in the United States, being to prevent newly-freed African Americans from purchasing weapons in a time when lynching was becoming increasingly common? Are you aware that the vast majority of gun owners in this country do not hunt (80+ million gun owners, and growing, with only 15-18 million of them hunting)?
Comments please?
Michele, you have either been living in a bomb shelter for the last 30-plus years, or you are a liar. Democrats such as Kennedy, Dodd, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, and a host of others, declared their intentions as early as the late 60's to ban guns. Their stated aims were to start with the cheap "Saturday-night special", designed to disarm the poor and disadvantaged first. Then, they planned, vocally, to move on to other firearms. Their statements over the years are a matter of public record and some of those statements were adopted by the Democrat Party (not exact quotes) as Party policy. Please don't feel that you can tell such whoppers, even in such a forum as this.
Semper fi
See Michele Swenson's Profile
To the hardcore, unlimited access to guns is an absolute right; rights of others are marginalized. Independence Institute fellow David Kopel labeled gun control laws “dangerous” because they distract from single parenthood and welfare as major causes of crime. A woman who chooses not to carry a pregnancy to term is condemned for acting out of “personal convenience”; a three-day gun background check is vehemently opposed as an intolerable inconvenience.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay scorned gun control laws in response to school violence, blaming instead birth control, small families, day care, abortion, moral relativism, teaching evolution, and absence of prayer in schools.
Hard-core gun advocates testified before the Colorado legislature in favor of semiautomatic weapons like the TEC DC9 (a weapon of massacres like Columbine) for “home defense.”
The conceit that unlimited guns make us safer is disproved by a 2002 study by the Harvard School of Public Health, contrasting numbers of gun deaths over a decade in five states with the highest levels of gun ownership and five states with the lowest. The former experienced 16 times more accidental shootings, seven times more suicides and three times more homicides. An FBI study revealed that 20% of murdered police officers, highly trained with firearms, were killed with their own guns; 85% never returned fire.
Thanks to the gun lobby, firearms remain the only consumer product exempt from oversight since the 1972 inception of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, with more oversight of teddy bears and toy guns.
Interesting. You take an un-enumerated right (abortion), and compare it to an Enumerated Right (keep and bear arms). How does one do that?
Semper fi
"Hard-core gun advocates testified before the Colorado legislature in favor of semiautomatic weapons like the TEC DC9 (a weapon of massacres like Columbine) for 'home defense.' "
You'd poop yourself if you saw what sat at my bedside. It is not a semi-automatic magazine-fed 9mm, either.
"The conceit that unlimited guns make us safer is disproved by a 2002 study by the Harvard School of Public Health, contrasting numbers of gun deaths over a decade in five states with the highest levels of gun ownership and five states with the lowest. The former experienced 16 times more accidental shootings, seven times more suicides and three times more homicides."
Interesting. As a research student, I find I don't have access to this particular study. Could you email it to me? I would like to verify that what you're gathering from the study is coming from the study itself, not from the media reports on it. (If yes, I'll provide an email to send it to.)
"An FBI study revealed that 20% of murdered police officers, highly trained with firearms, were killed with their own guns; 85% never returned fire."
Point being? That sounds like a talking-point for why we need to put more money into better training our officers. Can't think of how this is germane to the discussion at hand.
Lets see, shall we? Who regulates firearms? How about the BATFE, a notoriously anti-gun arm of the government! Firearms makers not only comply with a tangled web of federal, state and local laws, their manufacturing standards are reviewed by the FBI, the U.S. Customs Service, various other public and private agencies, and even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Industry standards are set by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), an organization founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government. Today, SAAMI publishes more than 700 voluntary standards related to firearm and ammunition quality and safety. SAAMI is an accredited standards developer for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). These standards are reviewed by outside parties, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and every five years the validity of the standards is re-affirmed. The U.S. Armed Forces, the FBI and many other state and local agencies frequently require that their firearms are manufactured in accordance with SAAMI specifications.
So, please do not repeat that old myth about firearms not being regulated.
Semper fi
I noticed you conveniently left out the 1993 DOJ study that showed citizens used guns for self defense an average of 83,000 times per year.
"The conceit that unlimited guns make us safer is disproved by a 2002 study by the Harvard School of Public Health, contrasting numbers of gun deaths over a decade in five states with the highest levels of gun ownership and five states with the lowest. The former experienced 16 times more accidental shootings, seven times more suicides and three times more homicides. An FBI study revealed that 20% of murdered police officers, highly trained with firearms, were killed with their own guns; 85% never returned fire."
Corolation does not prove cause. Just because some states with high gun ownership rates have high gun crime rates does not mean the two have to be related. If they had high rates of television ownership, would you blame television ownership for gun crime?
The statistics on police deaths are meaningless. Both police and civilians use firearms to defend themselves with firearms tens of thousands of times per year. Using police statistics to denounce civilian gun ownership is pointless anyway, since most civilians don't carry guns openly like police do, and do not deliberately place themselves in dangerous situations for a living like the cops.
Wow, not one mention of the 2nd Amendment as Michelle exercised her 1st Amendment rights. Yes, the Heller decision was glossed over. I also found it amusing that she used the phrase, "unregulated right to bear arms" as a weak attempt at clouding two different meanings of the term "regulated" when compared to its usage in the phrase "well regulated militia".
Michelle, don't you think that the statement, "Democrats have never challenged the right to own hunting or sports guns. " is an out right lie since many hunters and sportsmen use firearms that were placed on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? Democrats do challenge the right to own "some" hunting and "some" sports guns. I guess you meant "not all hunting and sporting guns" or maybe it is more like "only those hunting and sporting guns that Democrats feel hunters and sportsmen don't need"?
I'm an NRA member, and I agree that it's an unwarranted exaggeration to say that Democrats want to take away _every_ hunting gun. However, many Democrats do praise Australian gun control laws -- which banned many models that _are_ used by hunters, and British gun control laws -- which ban _most_ types of guns used by hunters in America.
But I'm more concerned about the Democrats trying to take away hunters' handguns that they might carry to defend their wallets and automobiles as they drive back home from the hunt through the city. I'm more concerned about the Democrats trying to ban hunters' handy lower-power high- capacity non-fully-automatic carbines which they use between hunts to deter (or stop) mobs of rioting looters and arsonists (such as the one stirred up by the media in Los Angeles in 1992) from destroying their small businesses.
Not being a hunter myself, I'm even more concerned that Democrats will take away non-hunters' rights to defend their liberty (right to travel even in bad neighborhoods, freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures by robbers, right to control one's body despite the demands of rapists, privacy in the home not infringed by burglars) with guns whenever and wherever the police are unable to guarantee us burglar-free homes and mugger/rapist-free streets.
Yes, I know that police cannot do much about street crime until we eliminate the root causes -- that's why until then we need access to guns.
As a matter of FACT, every gun presently used by civilians is based upon a MILITARY design, as such ALL of our guns could easily be declared military style 'assault weapons'. THAT is what certain Democrats have tried to outlaw time after time. Just because they don't try today, does not mean they won't try again tomorrow. Ted Kennedy even tried to outlaw the ammunition used by hunters because it is in his words 'armor piercing'. The only shell game being played here is by the Democrats and shill groups like AHSA.
Barack Obama even said that the only reason he would not try to outlaw guns is because he would not have enough support in Congress. That means that he WOULD try if he DID have the support. He even HAS tried in Illinois.
BTW, I hunt with what is ignorantly called an assault weapon. It is an AR-15 and entirely legal to use for deer hunting in Maryland (of all states). Of course I prefer to use the 6.8 Remington SPC cartridge most of the time.
The Second Amendment says NOTHING about hunting, sportsmen, or “sporting purposes”. The Second Amendment is about having the means to defend one’s self, family and home against crime.
There are 80,000,000 gun owners in the US and only about 15,000,000 register hunters. To put it another way 80% of gun owners DO NOT HUNT.
Democrats HAVE been trying to take away just about every OTHER type of non-hunting gun. Semi-automatic guns of all types, mislabeled as “assault weapons” which are erroneously confused with machine guns. Handguns, .50 rifles, high capacity magazines, almost anything not related to “sportsmen” have been attempted to ban. Even bolt action hunting rifles with optical sights are called “scope equipped sniper rifles” with the negative connotation that implies.
The Democratic Party has been the party of Gun Control for the last 40 years. Democrats listen too much, and worry too much about people in large urban areas who don’t hunt and have never owned, fired or even touched a gun.
If Democrats want to win elections, then they need to unequivocally support the Second Amendment, no ifs, ands or buts.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
