Last Thursday and Friday, I drove down to Salem and spent the day with organizations working to stem the tide of gun violence in the United States. We met with various members of the Oregon Legislature to discuss possible solutions to gun violence and we made some great progress.
Of course, the gun rights folks were well represented and easily recognizable. They were the ones dressed in camouflage and holding rifles. With firearms strapped to their legs. Spewing profanity-laced insults. I didn't see a single gun lobby hand-lettered sign without a spelling or grammatical error. The English language is a specialty of mine, so I'll be generous and let that last observation slide.
With the exception of two presentations I was asked to do, I spent most of the day observing and listening. Here is what I saw: I felt like I was in a surreal re-run of "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves". Virtually every gun rights individual that I saw was dressed from head to toe in a nifty camouflage outfit. Now, I have nothing against camouflage in hunting situations when hiding is of the essence. But in Salem, Oregon? On a public street? In front of the State Capitol Building? What purpose does camouflage serve on a busy city street? Will we be shooting the geese flying over and do we really believe they haven't espied our merry band of camouflaged hiders lounging on the Capitol Building steps? Camouflage does not mix well with marble walls.
Which brings me to my next observation. I saw more guns and pistols in one day than I have seen in my entire life. Rifles were slung over shoulders just in case a deer came bounding down the street or something. You never know. Pistols were strapped to legs just in case of . . . . . something. I'm not sure. It looked to me like most of those leg strapped firearms were in serious position to blow somebody's fatherhood into the next County.
Someone annoyed virtually everyone, including his own delegation by running up and down the sidewalks and Capitol steps with his "Don't Tread On Me" flag. Honestly. I'm benign and harmless, but tripping this gentleman on his tenth jaunt past me did cross my mind. I wondered if he really thought I needed that many times running past me to rapid read all them words on his flag.
I feel bad even mentioning my final observations, but given the story I will finish this piece with, I feel a little justified. I saw lots of obese, out of shape, unshaven, dirty, smoking, unkempt men in the gun rights group. Really, it was comical. No, it was sad.
Well, as nearly as I could tell when the fun was over and as I was leaving for the long walk to my car, I overheard someone in the Gun Lobby group shout quite loudly and spitefully, "All of you 2nd Amendment 'traitors' are so old, you're going to be dead and gone and then we'll get to do whatever we want without having to bother with you!"
Once again, I must beg to differ, Mr. Camouflage. Here's why. You are so obese and out of shape, you will be dead fifteen years before I am. Your smoking habit will probably buy me another five years of your life. I can already out walk you, out think you, and out run you if I have to. I'm going to be around a LONG time and I won't be offering to push your wheelchair in any parades.
If you really want to be taken seriously, how about shaving once in awhile? Perhaps you might consider leaving your firepower at home and wearing a shirt and tie. Camouflage is not your best wardrobe choice when attending a business meeting at your State Capitol Building. Consider enrolling in a beginning English skills class. Cease the profanity and the threatening gestures and looks? And tell that idiot with the "Don't Tread On Me" Flag to stay home next time.
Make some basic, sensible choices. Become the men you pretend to be. Guns will never make you men. My quiet observation revealed you as bellicose, bullying, insulting cowards. Find yourself a spokesman who makes the choice NOT to wear camouflage and who can complete a sentence without including a profanity or an obscenity.
How's your blood pressure? Your Cholesterol? Your lung capacity? Your reading comprehension? Mine are all just fine, thank you so much for asking. See you in twenty years at the next potluck.
Of course, the gun rights folks were well represented and easily recognizable. They were the ones dressed in camouflage and holding rifles. With firearms strapped to their legs. Spewing profanity-laced insults. I didn't see a single gun lobby hand-lettered sign without a spelling or grammatical error. The English language is a specialty of mine, so I'll be generous and let that last observation slide.
With the exception of two presentations I was asked to do, I spent most of the day observing and listening. Here is what I saw: I felt like I was in a surreal re-run of "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves". Virtually every gun rights individual that I saw was dressed from head to toe in a nifty camouflage outfit. Now, I have nothing against camouflage in hunting situations when hiding is of the essence. But in Salem, Oregon? On a public street? In front of the State Capitol Building? What purpose does camouflage serve on a busy city street? Will we be shooting the geese flying over and do we really believe they haven't espied our merry band of camouflaged hiders lounging on the Capitol Building steps? Camouflage does not mix well with marble walls.
Which brings me to my next observation. I saw more guns and pistols in one day than I have seen in my entire life. Rifles were slung over shoulders just in case a deer came bounding down the street or something. You never know. Pistols were strapped to legs just in case of . . . . . something. I'm not sure. It looked to me like most of those leg strapped firearms were in serious position to blow somebody's fatherhood into the next County.
Someone annoyed virtually everyone, including his own delegation by running up and down the sidewalks and Capitol steps with his "Don't Tread On Me" flag. Honestly. I'm benign and harmless, but tripping this gentleman on his tenth jaunt past me did cross my mind. I wondered if he really thought I needed that many times running past me to rapid read all them words on his flag.
I feel bad even mentioning my final observations, but given the story I will finish this piece with, I feel a little justified. I saw lots of obese, out of shape, unshaven, dirty, smoking, unkempt men in the gun rights group. Really, it was comical. No, it was sad.
Well, as nearly as I could tell when the fun was over and as I was leaving for the long walk to my car, I overheard someone in the Gun Lobby group shout quite loudly and spitefully, "All of you 2nd Amendment 'traitors' are so old, you're going to be dead and gone and then we'll get to do whatever we want without having to bother with you!"
Once again, I must beg to differ, Mr. Camouflage. Here's why. You are so obese and out of shape, you will be dead fifteen years before I am. Your smoking habit will probably buy me another five years of your life. I can already out walk you, out think you, and out run you if I have to. I'm going to be around a LONG time and I won't be offering to push your wheelchair in any parades.
If you really want to be taken seriously, how about shaving once in awhile? Perhaps you might consider leaving your firepower at home and wearing a shirt and tie. Camouflage is not your best wardrobe choice when attending a business meeting at your State Capitol Building. Consider enrolling in a beginning English skills class. Cease the profanity and the threatening gestures and looks? And tell that idiot with the "Don't Tread On Me" Flag to stay home next time.
Make some basic, sensible choices. Become the men you pretend to be. Guns will never make you men. My quiet observation revealed you as bellicose, bullying, insulting cowards. Find yourself a spokesman who makes the choice NOT to wear camouflage and who can complete a sentence without including a profanity or an obscenity.
How's your blood pressure? Your Cholesterol? Your lung capacity? Your reading comprehension? Mine are all just fine, thank you so much for asking. See you in twenty years at the next potluck.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI certainly sympathize with anyone bedridden for any time, much less 25 years. I would not wish that anyone. But sorry, I do not see that as a reason to essentially slander a large group of mostly patriotic, upstanding citizens. And, to her credit, Bethany did not use that as any excuse or reason to cut her any slack.
DeleteAnd while it is true that she has a right to express her views, so do I. In fact her statement went beyond a view or opinion into an alleged fact (Do these morons want to bring back slavery and take away woment's right to vote too? Probably.") It has been said that you have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Indeed the facts are that there is significant evidence that some gun control laws were passed or used to discriminate against Blacks (as were many other laws, especially in the south) while other laws, while probably not specifically so designed have that effect. cf
http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html
I am willing (time permitting) to discuss rationally the pros and cons of the second amendment. However I get upset when someone engages in mud slinging such as calling people morons or slavers.
If I were back home I would have gone with you! Just recently I was looking through an old antique store when this 20-something, tattoo'd/pierced guy (I only mention this because he did not look like cache valley law enforcement) walks up to the counter to inquire about something. As I walk past him, I notice he's packing. Matte black Glock 17 or 19 in a quick-draw holster, with a 15-17 round mag loaded in the gun and a spare on his belt. I really wanted to ask him why he was carrying a gun in an antique store in Logan, Utah. Not the most likely place to need a gun to defend yourself. Anyway, thought I'd share.
ReplyDeleteBetty and others, please remember the accessibility bias problem. A few people on each side stick out like sore thumbs but they are seldom representative of their side. I was not there of course but would bet that there were plenty of folks normally dressed in favor of gun owner rights, as well as many who had jobs and could not be there. And don't forget that your side has plenty of silly people, including those who recently claimed that the magazine is the most dangerous part of the gun. (And remember that the Newton murderer did not use his AR-15, he had one but shot with pistols)
ReplyDeleteAs the saying goes, an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Neither the stupid comments of the gun grabbers nor the clothing of the second amendment supporters have anything to do with the real issue. We should discuss crime prevention vs crime commission by gun owners rather than clothing. And I repeat, I have just left a country (Mexico) which has gun laws similar to much of what is being proposed in Oregon and other parts of the US. It is a very violent country and the citizens are not allowed the right to tools to defend themselves. I cannot see that the proposals will increase safety but they will certainly reduce the ability of good citizens to defend themselves.
The clothing wasn't the real issue, Hal. It was just an observation and a way to begin a blog. What really bothered me was the behavior - and to be fair, I did not see the same behavior being exhibited by the gun control people. A bushmaster was used in Newton, Hal. The murderer fired over 150 rounds in less than four minutes. In the ten seconds it took the shooter to re-load his firearm, eleven children escaped. Arguing over whether or not that is a dangerous weapon is a question of semantics, and well, beneath you.
ReplyDeleteDrugs and poverty are the problem in Mexico, Hal. The guns used to kill innocent people are also obtained illegally by those who use them. It all depends on what set of "studies" your biases tend to favor. The studies that I have seen indicate that people are rarely successful in defending themselves and in fact, having a gun in the home is more dangerous to its occupants. Your bias believes that arming every citizen would make us a more peaceful, less violent society. I do not believe that and what I was trying to say in the blog was that I, personally, would never feel safer or more secure knowing that some of the people I saw in Salem are "protecting themselves or protecting me." The gun debate is a rude, uninformed, threatening, bullying, environment. I will continue to speak up for an end to gun violence. I did not grow up in this aggressive, intimidating environment. My children did not. Mass murders were not committed on a mind-numbing schedule. Something has gone terribly wrong. We are a war-like, blood thirsty people.
The question of if the AR15 was used there has been controversial. I first heard that it was not from my retired deputy sheriff brother in law. You can also see NBC (hardly a right wing source) retracting the claim and saying that only pistols were found in the school at
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdsqkKNIw4w
Give me four semiauto pistols with extra magazines and I could easily fire 150 rounds in less than four minutes. And trust me, it takes less than ten seconds to change magazines on such pistols, more like two seconds if you practice. Uncle Sam gave me plenty of training on such things.
And Betty, I have to ask where you think I'm arguing over any of the weapons used were dangerous? I made no such statement and readily agree that they are dangerous, at least in the wrong hands.
And while drugs and poverty are a big problem in Mexico, you cannot blame poverty for the cartels. I've talked to lots of poor people there and they all hate and fear the cartels. The drugs that cause violence there are those used in the US which feed the cartels.
It may be controversial how many crimes legal gun ownership prevents (that would be a very long discussion) but every statement I've seen claiming that they cost more lives than they save relies only on the statistics where the defensive weapon is actually fired, ignoring cases in which the criminal is frightened off and of course the unobtainable number of cases in which a criminal does not commit a crime for fear that the victim may be armed.
I would agree that ""The gun debate is a rude, uninformed, threatening, bullying, environment." However rudeness is on both sides (eg. in this very thread second amendment defenders being called morons and want to bring back slavery). The ignorance, however, seems to be limited to second amendment opponents many of whom do not even know the difference between a full auto and a semi auto, or between a bullet and a cartridge. At least second amendment supporters usually know what they are talking about.
I thought I should say this but am not sure if we should continue the discussion. I do not want to create animosity.
Hal, we agree on virtually nothing. I support the second amendment. Everyone I work with supports the second amendment. And we don't know what we're talking about because we do not support the gun "rights" positions? How condescending, Hal. Most gun control advocates have quite moderate views, but they get shouted down, demeaned, threatened, etc., until they quickly become polarized. Your argument that I don't know what constitutes a dangerous weapon is a prime example. The weapon used at Sandy Hook was a Bushmaster - but does it really matter?????? A weapon capable of firing 150 rounds in three minutes took the lives of 26 people.
ReplyDeleteAfter Sandy Hook, I engaged in a near total immersion to catch up with the arguments about guns from both sides. I spent a lot of time reading blogs from both groups. I noticed a few things that disturbed me and pushed me toward gun control measures. (1) Gun rights advocates seriously need a moderate voice to represent them. (2) Condescending, shaming, shameful rhetoric is painfully present on both sides of the gun debate, but I have heard only the gun rights people threatening a civil war, threatening to shoot government officials, refusing to enforce gun legislation, and exhibiting aggressive, boorish attitudes toward any who may disagree with them. I find it ironic that gun rights advocates engage in frightening scenarios of government takeovers, yet they themselves advocate the overthrow of the United States Government if they can't bully their beliefs and their interpretation of the Second Amendment into laws they agree with.
I have also noted that gun rights enthusiasts have a great deal more in common with one another than just their gun rights positions. With VERY few exceptions, gun rights advocates are (1) rabidly anti-Barack Obama. No pejorative is too low for President Obama. , a He is a "socialist", a "dictator", a "non-citizen", and a closet Moslem bent on turning our Country into a Moslem Nation. To throw those accusations around, knowing them to be falsehoods and outright slander of the current President of the United States weakens the gun rights positions. (2) Gun rights enthusiasts (as you just did) invariably exhibit condescending and insulting behavior with regard to educating the American public about guns and their proper use. Gun rights advocates, rather than presenting a reasonable argument engage in shaming and humiliating rhetoric such as the whole debate on what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon.
The United States Government is the gatekeeper to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Gun rights advocates claim to worship the Second Amendment, yet in their very next breath are threatening to kill their neighbors, government officials, and declare Civil War.
I don't get it, Hal. I don't get the paranoia surrounding this entire issue. As for Mexico, grinding poverty creates desperate circumstances such as drug cartels. I have lived and worked in the most populous, poorest country in the world and there is virtually no gun violence.
I like you, Hal. I am looking forward to you and Merlene being home again safely. Let me repeat that. I like you, Hal. But you have a difficult time with thinking outside of a very rigid worldview. I'm not the enemy because I support an end to gun violence. There are a number of reasons why we lead the world in gun deaths. No one piece of legislation is going to solve the problem. I am determined to hand my grandchildren a safer world than the one that we have been witnessing. Regardless of what you think, or anyone else, I will continue aggressively working toward that end.
This is long. Sorry.
In all fairness, I typed my response to you (Hal) fairly rapidly as I had other things going on and there are a couple of things I should have left unsaid. I know nothing about your 'worldview' and it's not my place to judge whether you have a narrow outlook or not. For that comment, I owe you an apology.
ReplyDeleteApology accepted.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know about my worldview and have time, I suggest Thomas Sowell's book, Ä Conflict of Visions." He describes what he calls two visions, the constrained and unconstrained visions. I am mostly in agreement with the constrained vision. I think that is a good book which helps understand why some people have different visions and why there is so much consistency in beliefs. A person who supports big government is likely to oppose severe penalties for crime, support negotiation instead of strong defense etc. In that book Sowell tries (successfully in my opinion) to take a neutral stance, describing the two visions rather than advocating either.
Of course if you have lots of time you could go through my blog at hallillywhite.blogspot.com but I doubt your interest in the subject would justify the time required.
I'm reading a book you might find interesting - "The Frozen Republic" by Daniel Lazare. It's not an idealogical rant. It's more of a history lesson. I own this book and I'll lend it to you when you get home if you would like to read it.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the book recommendation. Do you own it? I would read it.
And you never know whose blog I might check in and read. I have read a lot of blogs lately. I get most of my information from other sources, but the blogs are unique because they are a very good reflection of what average people are thinking. Also, some of the blogs are amazingly well written.
I would be interested in reading that book, though I have to admit that the subtitle (How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy) tends to make me think it may have some characteristics of an idealogical rant. I am not a fan of unrestricted democracy, that has been compared to three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. In fact we see a lot of that kind of legal theft even with the constitution (which is often ignored). We have congress etc. voting to spend money based on the congressional district, essentially buying votes with our own money. That is why I believe we must have strict limits on what even the majority can write into law. Years ago when Jim Fisher, an allegedly fiscally conservative Republican, was on the county commission I complained to him about some wasteful spending which involved federal money. He said that he considered it his duty to get as much federal money into the county as he could, just to get the money even if it was wasteful. Do we need to guess why the deficit is so large?
ReplyDeleteI believe I do have Sowell's book at home and will be glad to loan it to you. You can read the two part review I did of it (plus a review of another of his books along the same line but decidedly not neutral) on my blog at
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=conflict+of+visions
Hal - don't ever judge a book by its cover. Or its subtitle. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd I imagine that I would probably characterize some of what you read as idealogical rants.
The book I recommended is really about history - and its fascinating. Naturally, we won't agree on some things, but what you do agree with may surprise even you.
I left a gift for you on your doorstep. I hope it got put into your house. If it didn't, the rain ruined something very nice. Please say "Hello" to Merlene for me. You are due home soon! Have a safe trip home.
I'll take you up on your offer to read Sowell's book, but I won't read it unless you read my recommendation. Deal?
Deal.
DeleteAnd thanks for the gift though I don't know if it got inside before being rained on.
(We're almost home but it will take about a week to get web access so will likely not be able to participate for that time)
I'm sort of scared to enter into this comment section, but here it goes.
ReplyDeleteI support the 2nd amendment Being married to a hunter, and the police chief's son you can imagine we have many weapons and ammo accessible to us at home. One of the first things Justin and I purchased together (one month after marriage) was a hand gun. While living in Kearns a few years ago Justin was gone for three weeks during a government training in OKC. I had a newborn babe and slept in my room, door locked, dog outside, phone and loaded gun within arms reach. I slept well. I know I would have felt uneasy without a weapon to protect myself. We have only been ready to use the weapon once. About three years ago, in the middle of the night, we woke up to a man banging violently on our front door. Our dog was barking at him, he kept lunging toward our dog, and returning to the door to bang on it. Justin loaded our gun. Stood in the hall, took aim at the door, and was ready to unload the clip if he was able to someone enter our home. I called the cops. About a minute later the man left (probably high due to his irrational behavior) and about three minutes later the cops showed up. The man was never caught, and if he has been able to get in my home, and intended to do us harm, the harm would have been done and the cops cleaning up the mess.
I will always always support gun rights.
HOWEVER, I also believe that there are many many crazy gun advocates. And it sure seems to me that the crazy comes out after a shooting. I do believe that the majority of gun owners are responsible, but the crazy is sure hard to ignore or forget.
Being a gun owner also requires responsibility. We store our guns and ammo in a large gun safe and our handgun in a smaller gun safe in our room (opens with a fingerprint scan..pretty cool stuff). I talk about gun safety with my boys, we talk about how they are never ever allowed to touch a gun, I don't buy them toy guns, and every month or so we talk about what to do if you see a gun and aren't sure if it is a play one or real. But, for whatever reason, my boys turn every toy into a weapon. Two sticks become bows and arrows, magnetic blocks are put together and they run around shooting a "machine gun". I am very restricting on what my boys watch (a few PBS programs and Disney movies) so it has surprised me how natural their play is.
With gun ownership comes responsibility. We take that responsibility very seriously I worry that one day my children will be around someone who doesn't.
I also support background checks for all gun purchases. Family to family, family to neighbor, gun shows, etc. I don't think we should allow a weapon that can so easily kill several people to be given legally without some sort of background check. I don't really understand why people are opposed to it.
I also don't believe that background checks for all sales would have stopped any of the major shooting sprees that have occurred recently. If someone wants a gun, he will find a way to get it. Often, the people who do shoot others are mentally ill, yet their background is clean, so they would have had the ability to purchase weapons under most any of the legislation that I have read. But I just don't think we need to wait for someone to purchase a gun legally, sans background check which would have stopped the sale, and shoot people to be ok with enacted legislation that simply requires the same background check that is required by gun stores.
Kamie - I agree with. every. single. word. that. you. wrote. I may not respond to possible threatening events the way that you would, but I certainly support your right to feel safe and protected in your home. You have a right to safely, responsibly, and carefully own a firearm. I wish you would get a little more energetic about writing - you are one of the handful of sane voices and you are very good at expressing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThanks for entering the discussion.