There was an article in the New York Times yesterday about a firearms writer/author being fired for some comments on assault rifles and their inappropriateness for hunting or civilian use. It was also covered in several national media sources, including Fox news. The writer, Dick Metcalf was fired from Guns&Ammo, perhaps the most popular of the gun magazines. He said, in brief, that the second amendment was no different than other amendments, that it is subject to regulation, interpretation and is not immune to change.
Mr. Metcalf has been a writer for the magazine for years, and was a popular shill for the gun industry right up to this article. It was rather startling to read it, given his past writing. The history of writing and opinions about guns is notable for the absence of anyone changing their mind about it. This is the only one that comes to mind. You're either for gun control, or unalterably opposed, and never the twain shall meet. And rational discourse is out of the question.
It made me think about the writing I've seen in the past year or so about guns and hunting. I read several 'outdoors' blogs, most about fishing. Few of them will touch the subject of gun control with a long pole, knowing that even the most subtle inference that guns are for anything but worship and hoarding, and the government want to take them away, will meet with swift condemnation from some readers.
I was going to start this post with the same lead I've read by several writers of my liberal ilk: "I've been a gun owner and/or hunter for decades, etc, etc." It seems to be a way to distance oneself from those 'knee-jerk socialists who want to take away our guns", and to establish one's street cred, so to speak. Then I thought what's that got to do with it? I also have an opinion about eating the Durian fruit, but I've never seen one.
Then I thought what the hell, why should one have to do that to state an opinion? About the only writers that need to have 'been there, done that' are travel writers, and one can even pull that off if you've got google and the internet.
If anyone can explain to me why the 2nd amendment should not be regulated, as the rest of them are? It even has the words "well-regulated" right in the damn thing. Try standing outside a federal building and shouting death threats, then citing the 1st amendment as your defense.
The NRA with their attachment at the hip to the gun industry has been more effective than any other lobby in influencing legislation. Name one congressperson or senator who would advocate gun control who has any influence. In either party.
So here we are, and here we'll stay.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here. I hadn't heard about this writer getting the heave-ho, but it doesn't surprise me. It would be like a tobacco chemist admitting that cigarettes cause cancer. Out you go, dude.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that those assault weapons are valid hunting arms is preposterous. But the industry is full of preposterous positions that are held like religious beliefs.
It's not going to change. If a school full of murdered little children doesn't do it, nothing will. As a nation, this is our shame.
Amen, brother.
DeleteYou're trying to make sense of the nonsensical. It makes sense to make prudent regulations. In my mind, it all comes down to the influence of money. What shocks me is how inexpensive it is to buy a vote in Congress. A majority of all Americans -- liberals, conservatives, gun owners, non-gun owners -- want improved background checks. In Michigan, a poll in early 2013 showed that 71% of voters supported comprehensive background checks. Yet Candice Miller voted against them. She also happens to be the recipient of the largest contribution by the NRA, $12,500. There are 700,000 people in her district, presumably many of them polling much like their peers statewide, and yet for $12,500 Representative Miller sold them out. Of course it wasn't just the $12,500, it was also the fear that special interest money would flood in against her (thanks to Citizens United and related court rulings). And others who voted exactly as Rep. Miller did, did it for far less. Representative Wolf (R-VA) only costs $500 and 75% of his constituents wanted the background checks. I wonder if I could sway his vote for $600?
ReplyDeleteSteve
DeleteYes you can, as soon as you get an infrastructure that can mobilize a couple million people, and the ability to unseat a popular elected official at your whim. As you note, they didn't give them big bucks; when you can threaten someone with unemployment you don't need the carrot, just the stick.
Which is why term limits are so important. Politics should not be a profession.
DeleteSteve
DeleteNot sure about that. Although the move to term limits has a history back to colonial times, in our current system (at the national level) there is little a first or even second term representative can accomplish, given the seniority system.
It is interesting that the republican party who pushed the legislation in the early 1990's were actively trying to repeal the laws they'd passed in the 1980's. They passed the laws to get democratic party members out, then to their dismay found out it also applied to them.
I actually DO want people to make politics a profession. Because I want them to be good at it. I want my doctor to be a doctor, and preferably have been practicing for a while, and have a lot invested in my outcomes. Same with my kids' elementary school teachers (not necessarily high school teachers, but that's a whole other thing.) Also, just off the top of my head, scientists, chefs, nurses, engineers, and midwives.
DeleteI also think we should fully publicly fund elections.
Kate
DeleteWhoa! Can you imagine the effect of that?? Campaign consultants who get a percentage of the ad buys, amounting to making a couple million for a campaign. Television.....billions. And the campaign donors who 'donate' millions to PAC's, and get a tax write-off. And the PAC's themselves....
My god, young lady, the whole idea that anyone could run and they would have to be judged on the strength of their ideas is-is...unthinkable.
The legacy to our children: climate change, air pollution, wealth distribution, guns. Done good, haven't we.
ReplyDeleteWhile my (ours?) generation has certainly made those issues worse, all of them have roots going back hundreds of years. Our sin is in not taking the evidence seriously.
DeleteTravel and childbirth.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why the NRA and its ilk are so opposed to regulation. We have regulations for the cars we drive, for when we can buy alcohol, and so on. What's the big frigging deal about background checks and registration?
The NRA is so intertwined with the gun manufacture industry, a billions and billions of dollars profit industry. They have taken a 'slippery slope' stance that says that any restriction at all would be unacceptable. And, with their infrastructure and ability to mobilize people and money, have become the lobby with unparalleled power over our government (congress). They have based all their 'reasoning' on the 2nd amendment, and have made it out to be most important amendment. Their power rests upon it.
Delete