Matt writes an email to an editorial writer:
"I know that it's popular to stir the pot, but really...
...I should think you could do it more logically.
Your implications (well, outright declarations would be more to the point) in your article "It's a Madhouse Outside The Gun Shops, Too" are that it is racism that drives the upsurge in purchases of guns. It is not; it is the fact that we have a President Elect who has a record of supporting gun bans, and claimed that the very thing that would stop him was the lack of support in congress... right before that same congress gained a majority that supports his gun-banning.
To say that it is the color of his skin, rather than the stated bias of him and his party, is specious.
I really can't say it better than Tamara, an outspokenly egalitarian gun nut [disclosure: also a friend of mine] said of your article here.
Although her remarks are good, and the comments to the post are well-put, you probably won't be interested, as there's no extremist fodder stammered out by double-digit IQ teen-aged trolls to mine for your next exercises in hucksterism and demagoguery.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Possibly you'll post references to the shocked reaction your misplaced assertions have provoked. It would impress me if you did. It would impress me still further if you were to admit that you were jumping to a false conclusion.
Best Regards,
--Matt G. "
So I wrote to Daily Press news columnist Tamara Dietrich, just now. I've little hope to be taken seriously as more than a reactionary. But maybe she'll read Tamara's blog, and realize that there is a far less vocal majority who actually have reasons (and good ones) for reacting to Obama's election negatively.
Funny thing-- I was talking to a cop from another jurisdiction just today while working an off-duty gig, and we both were marveling at what an amazing country this is, to have elected a black man just 40 years after MLK was murdered. We both agreed that this is a wonderful and impressive nation that we live in which we should all show fierce pride in.
Then my new buddy said, "So, you voted for McCain, though, am I right? Yeah, me too."
_______________________________
Labels: civil liberties, guns, Politics, things you find on the InterWeb
posted by Matt G @ 5:36 PM
2 Comments:
Here's my email to her:
Respectfully, I believe that you may be reading rascism into something that has little to do with the concept. I came of legal age to purchase handguns shortly before the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" went into effect. I very clearly remember the frenzy that ensued between the passage of the legislation and it's implementation. It's a fact of human nature that telling a person that they cannot have something just makes them desire it even more.
That is exactly what we are seeing here. That, and possibly some "bubble" mentality at work. If a person was smart enough to buy a Bushmaster back in early 1994 with the flash hider and the collapsible stock and all the nasty cosmetic features that became verboten under the new law, that person probably paid about $800. Less than a year later the same rifle could be sold for double that amount. It's just like the housing bubble, except Congress never mandated that certain styles of houses could only be sold to governmental agencies.
The irony is that even people who voted for Mr. Obama recognize the possibility that he wil reinstitute the same or even more draconian legislation once in office. His campaign statements about gun control ring hollow when compared to his earlier legislative record. The recent Miller decision from the Supreme Court may ameliorate some of these laws but nobody really knows for sure. On many issues, Mr. Obama was a tabula rasa onto which voters could project their own views. As we are already seeing (Gitmo, Iraq, Bush tax cuts), there is a dissonance between what people thought he was going to do and what he has stated that he intends to do.
It is unfair to attribute to rascism what can be explained by rational decision-making. Perhaps people are simply hedging their bets.
Ms. Dietrich's reply:
Thanks for your note, and your thoughtful response. I agree that Obama isn't the best friend of gun ownership. But from what I've read, he's pragmatic enough to recognize that, even if he wanted to, he couldn't ever get laws passed banning private ownership of all guns. Very few Americans would support that -- myself, included. (I come from a hunting family, with a father who was career Army, and two brothers who served in the Marines, so I know that guns serve a purpose in society and at home.) But polls show that most Americans favor both gun ownership, and also certain restrictions as to which kind and to whom and how accessible in the home. I think it's fear-mongering by a few that's riled up many gun owners, and unnecessarily. As for a racial motive behind the rush on guns, that depends on who you talk to. Among my friends and colleagues, blacks invariably see a racial motive, while whites are divided on the motive. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this one. But if Obama ever does suggest banning guns, I assure you I will be among the first to blast him (in print, of course) for it.
Thanks again.
Tamara Dietrich
Post a Comment
<< Home