Rick Perry and the Progressives on Gun Control
BY Herschel Smith
13 years, 3 months ago
In what may be the best line … ever … on gun control, Rick Perry weighs in on his position to a crowd in South Carolina:
Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Rick Perry on Monday turned a South Carolina forum question into a quip, on an issue where no Texas politician dare be caught on the “wrong side.”
“Honestly, the next question is so easy that I don’t even want to ask it: Are you for gun control?” asked Rep. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina.
“I am actually for gun control: Use both hands,” Perry shot back. He put on a wide old-boy grin and gave thumbs-up to his listeners.
In his book Fed Up, Perry describes himself as “the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights, loaded with hollow point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter’s dog.”
By way of full disclosure, I have been supportive of Perry (if only vocally), although I think that his positions on illegal immigration and border control are deplorable. But this one line will stick with his campaign until the end, and it’s similar to a tactic that I recommended he pursue in South Carolina. I advised that if Romney temporarily surges when he begins campaigning in S.C., all Governor Perry has to do is show up at the shooting range in Pickens County, S.C., where I often shoot, carry along some reporters with him, and then inform his fellow shooters that Governor Romney signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts (and would do so again).
Speaking of Romney and his assault weapons ban, Yvonne Abraham with The Boston Globe defends his position.
Now, I’ve been critical of Romney at times. But he looks better every time Perry says something dense, which is often (Evolution is just one theory! Global warming is a hoax by greedy scientists!).
Romney is a Second Amendment guy, but as governor, he wasn’t an absolutist. In 2004, he signed into law a permanent ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts. Everybody seemed pretty happy with it at the time, even National Rifle Association types, who extracted some concessions in return for the ban on AK-47s, Uzis, and other exotics.
Since then, the national electorate has lurched to the right, forcing Romney into inelegant contortions to explain even positions considered firmly Republican a few years ago. Shortly after Romney signed the bill, Congress, most of which is owned by – or terrified of – the gun lobby, allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire. That’s why Jared Loughner was able to so easily obtain (sic) the semiautomatic weapon he used to kill six people and injure a gun rights-supporting congresswoman in Arizona earlier this year.
Poor analysis, this is. Ms. Abraham makes several mistakes, one of which is thinking that gun owners are a monolithic group represented by the NRA. Many of us believe that the NRA made mistakes in the past when they didn’t oppose government intrusions into second amendment rights. Furthermore, the background may very well have been that the bill was going to pass anyway, so the NRA bargained for inclusion of relaxation of some existing laws.
Either way, Romney isn’t a second amendment man if he signed into law a so-called “assault weapons” ban. Finally, Loughner didn’t purchase an “assault weapon.” He had a hand gun. It had a high capacity magazine, and Ms. Abraham assumes (because she apparently knows nothing about firearms) that Loughner wouldn’t have been able to master rapid magazine changeout similar to the way it’s done at IDPA competitions. She also assumes that Loughner wouldn’t have been able to fabricate a high capacity magazine in his garage. After all, it’s only a parallelepiped, made of aluminum, a spring and follower. This isn’t rocket science. But don’t tell the progressives that making more laws won’t affect law abiding citizens. It gets in the way of their world view.
Speaking of that, Zach Brooke writing for The UWM Post is more than willing to step in the way of constitutional rights in a commentary entitled Happiness is No Guns.
Now that concealed carry has been approved for all University of Wisconsin system campuses, each college must decide whether to ban guns, tasers, billy clubs and various types of dangerous knives from campus buildings. It is our belief that UW-Milwaukee should follow UW-Madison’s lead and prohibit weapons from all campus buildings, including all residence halls and Engelmann Field …
We advocate the prohibition of weapons not out of a desire to curb second amendment rights. As an independent press, we have a healthy respect for all freedoms afforded by the Bill of Rights and consider each amendment as sacrosanct as the first, which all newspapers claim as birthright.
But we believe freedoms must be balanced against their potential for significant harm. No right is absolute, but rather is subject to limitations based on the probable consequences of abuse. If the Post abuses its first amendment privileges, we print a retraction. If an individual discharges their weapon into a crowd, several lives are irreparably damaged.
Strange apology, appearing out of nowhere. ” … not out of a desire to curb second amendment rights … but we believe freedoms must be balanced against their potential for significant harm.” In other words, Mr. Brooke doesn’t want to intrude into second amendment rights, but that’s exactly what he advocates, and not only that, he justifies it based on some vague variant of utilitarianism.
Forget for a moment whether gun control actually accomplishes its intention. There is plenty of evidence that it does not. The more important point is that like most statists, Mr. Brooke sees the government in the role of granting and legitimizing rights. If that is so, then it’s a short step to governmental stipulations on the extent of their exercise.
But if our rights are granted by God rather than the state, then it is immoral for the state to sanction their removal or impede their free exercise. As for Mr. Brooke and Ms. Abraham, they are worrying over things that they have no legitimate right to control. My right to self defense and protection of my family is incorrigible.
UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention to this article.
On September 12, 2011 at 10:30 pm, Bruce said:
Laughner could have gotten an AK-47 from the ATF if he dealt drugs.
On September 12, 2011 at 10:50 pm, Brad said:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/09/good_fellow_mov.php
Let us not forget Clint Cornelius, who is a victim of Romney’s AW ban.
On September 12, 2011 at 10:55 pm, Dustin said:
It’s so nasty to use that Loughner psycho as a political football.
But anyway, the guy used a 9mm pistol. He’s a great example of why assault weapons hysteria is stupid. A gun is not worse because it looks badass. A simple little 9mm pistol can be just as deadly as a scary AK 47. Basing bannings on pistol grips and flash suppressors is asinine.
Especially when looking at that one shooting.
Ugh.
Anyway, Perry is indeed off on a couple of issues. But damn is Romney getting a free ride on gun control so far. I guess it’s not a big deal unless Romney is a threat, which he no longer is, but I want to see him take damage for his gun control ways, because that is an effective way to scare the next gun grabber.
On September 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm, Grimmy said:
Er … Let’s not make the mistake of confusing evolution, a metaphysical framework and philosophical bent, with actual science, just because it’s high priests wear white coats. When atheists and agnostics such as David Stove, Michael Denton, David Berlinski, etc. – admittedly a small minority, but not Bible-thumpers by any means – agree that Evolutionism has no clothes, perhaps we should consider their arguments.
Piltdown Man was worshiped for 40 years, wasting the talents and lives of countless scientists who were too blinded by their faith. If evolution is true, fine, let’s follow its most ardent devotees in massacre (Hitker, Mao, Stalin …) and eugenics. But what if it’s not?
On September 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm, NMOBJECTIVIST said:
You say: “But if our rights are granted by God rather than the state, then it is immoral for the state to sanction their removal or impede their free exercise.”
We have rights because of our nature as rational human beings. They are not given to us by God or by the state.
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. –Ayn Rand
On September 12, 2011 at 11:13 pm, Liz said:
Perry took a thumping at the debate tonight from his own countryman and fellow evangelical. His policy is anything but conservative if what they were saying is true. He’s done as far as I’m concerned. Anyone can learn to shoot, but learning to govern conservative style is more difficult.
On September 12, 2011 at 11:19 pm, Herschel Smith said:
NMOBJECTIVIST, your view is only a statement of predisposition (or axoim). I reject it. Because that is my axiom.
On September 12, 2011 at 11:33 pm, Californio said:
The analogy is inapt. The journalist cites the example of the newpaper making a mistake, and printing a retraction – therefore a harm from a gun is more serious. Well – no. A newspaper can get a story so wrong that the person harmed cannot ever be made whole again. What the journalist advocates is a prior restraint on a freedom to prevent a harm. THEREFORE – the analogy would be ” In journalism we support governmental prior constraints to forbid certain things from being published – for example a secret method used to gather information on terrorists.” Which the NYT did publish and harmed national intelligence – OPPS! Would a printed retraction from a gun manufacturer get as much respect?
On September 12, 2011 at 11:37 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Californio,
Your point is well taken, and something similar is noted in a comment to the original article.
“No right is absolute, but rather is subject to limitations based on the probable consequences of abuse.”
—–
Dead wrong. You are advocating prior restraint, which the courts of this country have uninanimously held to be verboten. Research, THEN publish. Too many of you journo’s get that backwards these days.
Just so. HPS
On September 13, 2011 at 1:45 am, Mark in Sandy Eggo said:
So, Zach Brooke says:
But we believe freedoms must be balanced against their potential for significant harm. No right is absolute, but rather is subject to limitations based on the probable consequences of abuse. If the Post abuses its first amendment privileges, we print a retraction. If an individual discharges their weapon into a crowd, several lives are irreparably damaged.
Pretty slippery slope there. Lets see. How many people have DIED because our law enforcement people don’t ignore the 4th Amendment and that pesky “unreasonable search and seizure” stuff. Or the other killers who confessed, and were let go to commit more crimes because they were not Mirandized right.
Mr. Brooke’s irrational focus on the 2nd Amendment boogymen, while being not concerned about the others, is unfortunately common today.
On September 13, 2011 at 4:08 am, Eric Atkinson said:
Grimmy, you are an idiot. Please make no futher use of modern medicine.
On September 13, 2011 at 6:01 am, Nuclear Physicist said:
Eric: Doubting the unproven/philosophical aspects of the theory of evolution does not mean that one rejects modern medicine. Modern medicine is fine without them and no scientist should blindly accept the untestable and unprovable aspects of any scientific theory. When scientists do so, they violate the scientific principles that form the basis for good science. Some aspects of the theory of evolution are verifiably true. Other parts remain in the realm of philosophical constructs that have not been proven by empirical data. This is true of many scientific theories and it is not unscientific to question these philosophical constructs, until objective analysis of empirical data indicates that they are demonstrably provable and true. When scientists lose the penchant for critical analysis of what they “believe” to be true, they cease to be scientists.
On September 13, 2011 at 6:46 am, Lina Inverse said:
It’s my understanding from acquaintances who’d not yet escaped Massachusetts that Romney gets dinged by gun owners not for signing a GOAL etc. supported “AW” ban reform bill but for going out of his way to trash gun owners at the signing ceremony. Further support of the thesis that he will say *anything* for political gain. (Which causes me to wonder why he’s not quickly stepping away from “Romneycare” … one suspects he’s not exactly on board the repeal Obamacare outright effort.)
Note that the original bill was a very poorly drafted atrocity that resulted in (and I am not making this up) the gun from Lexington and/or Concord on display at the State House having a trigger lock affixed to it and police arresting hunters in the field because their guns didn’t have trigger locks on them. Those sorts of things were fixed by small emergency legislative patches, this bill was a broader fix of some issues and to the extent it increased banning it was a compromise, since gun owners did get some things in return.
On September 13, 2011 at 7:15 am, Robin Munn said:
I think there’s a minor goof in the article, in the sentence that reads: “But don’t tell the progressives that making more laws won’t affect law abiding citizens.”
I’m pretty sure that’s the opposite of the point the author was trying to make, and should have read “making more laws will ONLY affect law abiding citizens.” In other words, criminals tend to disobey the current laws already, so why would they obey the new law you’re passing?
On September 13, 2011 at 8:50 am, Kevin said:
Your last line paragraph explains the liberal push on the importance of evolution and the aggressive atheism now near required to hold a faculty position in the science. If there is no God, then all power comes from the barrel of a gun.
On September 13, 2011 at 8:56 am, Herschel Smith said:
Robin,
I guess you’re right, sort of. My point was that only law abiding citizens obey new (or old) laws). New laws have no affect on unlawful violence. Thanks for pointing that out.
On September 13, 2011 at 9:50 am, nerdbert said:
Don’t forget that the NRA also initially opposed appealing Heller. I’m a member, but between supporting Free Speech restrictions and endorsing Harry Reid and many other idiotic moves I’m having second thoughts about having paid for a Life Membership despite the comfortable free leather jacket.
On September 13, 2011 at 10:07 am, Herschel Smith said:
Yes, I know. I suspect that fear of loss caused the NRA to back off. But this very thing (fear of loss) has caused retreat after retreat. There can be no more retreats.
I renew my NRA membership yearly, so at least if they fall off the wagon I can refuse to renew the following year.
Note however that we’re discussing the failure of the NRA to be assertive enough. The progressives must be aghast!
On September 13, 2011 at 3:50 pm, The Old Coach said:
I dunno, as far as the best comment by a candidate about gun registration was Pat Buchanan’s. “If you need a trailer hitch to move it, we’d ask that you go down to the DMV and get a trailer plate for it.”
On September 13, 2011 at 4:19 pm, Lina Inverse said:
nerdbert: As I recall the NRA initially opposed what became Heller because they thought it would lose with Sandra Day O’Connor on the bench (and they were probably right). Fortunately by the time it got to the Supreme Court the makeup had changed enough. I can’t remember if they opposed the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but we actually won there and it was D.C. that appealed to the Supreme Court. They did disagree with Gura’s strategy in making the case to the Supreme Court.
However these are all judgment calls in how to achieve a desired result, I don’t dislike the NRA because they took more cautious approaches. If Heller had turned out to be a judicial disaster, well, things could have gotten ugly, e.g. for a start causing the Supreme Court and the Federal Judicial system in general to lose a tremendous amount of moral capital (which is really all they’ve got in power, since the Congress can remove anything from their jurisdiction and the President can ignore them as e.g. Jackson did).
On September 13, 2011 at 5:50 pm, TheOld Man said:
Evolution is just one theory and currently the one that withstands the most scrutiny without failure. Just about every scientific “fact” is a theory that has won out over the other theories that have failed to withstand repeated experiments or scrutiny. And that’s what science does: observe or postulate some behavior, come up with a theory of why that behavoir exists, and come up with experiments to prove that theory is correct. Then other scientists, some with other theories, some just because they need a doc thesis topic, attempt to tear down that idea with new experiments or thinking or data. The theory that the Earth is only 6-7 thousand years old is quickly eliminated by data and evidence. It could not withstand scrutiny or coexist with data. Perhaps someone in the future will come up with a new idea of how life of Earth came about, based on the discovery of a 10 limb googlymonster with a return address of Alpha Centuri.
On September 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm, Herschel Smith said:
That is not the subject of this article.