I picked up a copy of Field &Stream yesterday and read their interviews with McCain and Obama. I thought the questions were pretty fair while hitting on the issues outdoorsman care about (conservation, gun rights, access, etc.). F&S has a policy not to endorse a candidate, but I would have really been interested to hear who they'd have endorsed. I know hunters and anglers go overwhelmingly for Republicans, but I think that is starting to change with the GOP's disregard for public land access/conservation and environmental policies. Read the interviews - Obama, far from an outdoorsy guy, has an impressive grasp of actual conservation issues (CRP, exploration, wetlands protection) and did a great job explainining the "clinging" gaffe, and also was very honest about his views on the assault weapon ban, the gun-show loophole and his views on the 2nd amendment (which should satisfy any non-militia gun owner). McCain on the other hand was way more generic ... he talked a lot about the Grand Canyon, and Sedona while totally dodging a question about opening up the Rocky Mountains to oil/gas exploration (which he referred, on accident I presume, as exploitation). He did have specficis on wetland conservation ... but tied it into Katrina and New Orleans (not exactly big outdoorsman destinations).
Anyway. I thought it was a good read. I am just continually impressed how Obama is able to go to constituencies that have been traditionally republican and beat them (in my view) at their own game. He won't bring over all these voters, but he's going to make some in-roads to be sure.
My Blog List
-
-
-
Big Weekend15 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
-
-
Right idea, poor execution--Eva13 years ago
-
-
4 comments:
Are you a hunter?
Obama's gun control record really has no relevance to fishermen or "outdoorsmen" who don't hunt.
Your statement about "non-militia gun owners" leads me to believe that you are either not a gun owner/hunter, or that you are a typical "infringing rights is just fine as long as the rights being infringed aren't MINE" type.
Obama can mouth all the platitudes he wants about not being anti-gun. His record speaks louder than his words.
Sailorcurt,
Yes, I do hunt - elk, deer, pheasant, squirrel ... whatever I can. And I do own guns - several in fact. And I flyfish, and camp and hike and snowshoe very often.
Gun "rights" as clarified by the supreme court - and Justice Scalia - is that the 2nd amendment is a "personal right" and at least allows for citizens to keep them for self protection. Yes I agree with that completely - as does Obama. I do not think that the 2nd Amendment protects an absolute right to own assault weapons and guns that are designed to kill people. That is actually an argument for a "collective" right of gun ownership (which, like I mentioned, the SurpremeCourt declined to follow in the DC gun case) where guns are allowed so the citizens can take up arms against the Federal government. Not only do I think that that's not the correct view (and it's a non-gun-rights view) but it also doesn't make a lot of sense - it essentially says that you can have an AK in case you have to fight off the Marines when the Government sends them against you. I think that's silly.
I bought a shotgun at a gunshow this year - it took 1 hour to have the background check performed - and I am perfectly ok with that.
I do not believe that Obama supports the right to own guns for self defense. His past record simply does not bear that out. He is on record as supporting the DC gun ban...at least until shortly after the Supreme Court threw it out. He voted against a bill in Illinois that would prevent someone who used a firearm in self defense...by definition already a victim...from being further victimized by the state by being prosecuted for having the gun with which they defended themselves. He is on record opposing citizens carrying concealed firearms (otherwise known as "bearing" arms for self defense). He supported legislation that, by design or mistake...depending on who you ask, would have technically banned virtually all hunting ammunition. He's on record supporting Chicago's gun "registration" laws, which effectively translate into bans. He's on record as supporting bans of ALL semi-automatic firearms...including those commonly accepted as "hunting" arms.
There's more but you get the idea.
The proposition that Obama is not anti-gun is a bald-face lie.
Your patently bigoted statement about "guns designed to kill people" makes your position clear. Semi-automatic firearms that look similar to military rifles are no more "made to kill people" than your bolt-action hunting rifle that is modeled after the Mauser and Springfield rifles that were the "assault weapons" of their day.
I imagine that you already know that and simply don't care.
I will admit that your unique interpretation of the "collective rights" model of the second amendment is imaginative. It's completely wrong and laughable, but imaginative. How the individual right to own a firearm somehow morphs into a "collective right" when the type of firearm does not meet with your approval is a bit beyond my comprehension.
I could assume that you've never actually read the Heller decision, but based on your already established fondness for...um...creative interpretation, there's no reason to give you that benefit of the doubt. I assume that you know full well that the Heller decision clearly acknowledged as an integral part of the individual right to keep and bear arms, the legitimacy of the citizen militia and the concept that the ultimate governmental authority rests within The People. I must further assume that, even knowing that, you choose to misrepresent the decision because it is convenient for your position to do so.
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” ... Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
-Heller decision, Pages 24-25
Given that we have established that the primary premise of your initial post...that Obama is not anti-gun...is patently false, we have established your propensity for "creative interpretation" and your aversion to being truthful about the scope and meaning of the Heller decision, I'm afraid that doubt is inevitably cast upon your truthfulness in all other matters as well.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that you are actually virulently anti-gun and are simply lying about your status as a gun owner in an effort to lend undeserved credibility to your persona.
With those doubts firmly established, further discussion would be pointless.
With that in mind, I'll bid you adieu.
May your chains rest lightly.
Ok, Im going to vouch here. I fish with this dude. He owns guns (and a sweet compound), and flannel shirts too.
Seriously though, sailor, youve spent a lot of time on the gun control issue and your argument is clearly well-researched. I'm not even going to attempt to weigh in because I frankly dont care as much as you do.
If you'll comment on one of publius's other posts about the economic crisis, health care, or the war with an equally thorough and researched argument, I will honestly look forward to reading it.
-Marinade
Post a Comment