Washington Post article on "Gun Culture"

[GarandFan]

Aside from the stupid title, which relates little if at all to the story ... this is pretty good. Worth the read. In a paper that always falls on the side of gun controllers.

 

Made me think, too, that for years Washington has worked to impose gun bans and restrictions on the people nationwide ... yet when others (like McCain and Tester in this case) work to force the district to respect gun rights, the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins.

 

Remember Chuck Schumer, one of the strongest supporters of federal gun laws? When the national reciprocity bill looked like it might pass, he got up in front of the Senate and whined and moaned about how this was going to impose things on states that those states don't want it. But when he was to impose semiauto bans on states that didn't want it (AZ, MT, KY, UT, SD, and on and on), that was just A-OK. It's that kind of crap that have people incensed about Washington and the people who populate the congress.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081705427.html

[GWBH]

Interesting GF.

and so it goes - children brought up around firearms more often than not have a respect for what they are capable of and using them is just part of every day life. Thos that aren't are frightened to death of them. This in a country that increasingly relies on "someone else" to provide for them and protect them as well.

[GarandFan]

The emphasis of the article ... that there are cultural differences among the states or geographical regions of the US ... is undeniable. The article does well in trying to explain the mentality of western gun owners, present them as real people. In that, I applaud the article.

 

 

Yet ... time and again we see people who wish to emphasize these differences in order to justify the banning or restricting of guns in various regions of the nation. In regard to gun rights, Obama said "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." But what those same people deny, or wish to sweep under the rug, is that individual rights ... ALL of them ... apply equally to the people of the US, regardless of whether they live in Cheyenne, or Chicago, or Missoula, or San Francisco. What is so frustrating about that is the dishonesty in inconsistency. Those very people would not argue that Chicagoans enjoy less robust rights to speech and assembly and the press than the people of Cheyenne. This mentality still exists, in part, because it helps gun controllers push their agenda. But more subtly, it exists because it is going to take a long time for the "collective rights" understanding of the second amendment protections to dissipate. That collective rights mentality tricked many into thinking there was no substantive, let alone fundamental, right to arms. And as a result, it led many to think that cities and states could simply do what they wish in terms of curtailing those rights.

 

Destroying that mentality will be one of the lasting effects of Heller and McDonald. Yet it will take years ... decades perhaps, for these facts to sink in. And to those rabidly opposed to gun ownership, the facts won't matter. They never have.

[BobbyT]

Even thought it's a bit more "balanced" than most articles, it still has an agenda-driven twist to it.

 

It describes a false dichotomy: out in the "west", at the unpopulated fringes of society (Montana, Arizona), you have these quaint people with gun rights.

 

Back on the coast everything is normal (ie illegal).

 

Not mention of the fact that about 95% of the country is more like the former, and it's only a small handful of failed, bankrupt, high-crime control freak urban states that behave like DC. Concealed carry, target matches, and kids who go shooting once they've finished the homework aren't something limited to Montana--how about North Carolina or Florida or Indiana or Connecticut or Washington or Colorado or Missouri?

[lockman]

The emphasis of the article ... that there are cultural differences among the states or geographical regions of the US ... is undeniable. The article does well in trying to explain the mentality of western gun owners, present them as real people. In that, I applaud the article.

 

I just want the NYT to explain why the cultural differences should allow some states to restrict 2A rights more than others and that is ok by them. But try to use cultural differences to restrict search and seizure or assembly rights and I am sure the NYT will fall squarely against any geographical restrictions on fundamental rights.

[BigJim]

I don't have no stinking culture.