The GOP And Gun Rights
BY Herschel Smith
10 years ago
Charles C.W. Cooke is asking why the GOP isn’t focusing on gun rights during the midterm elections? Oh, I don’t know. Queue up the reasons. They have no spine – they are owned and operated by the chamber of commerce and large corporations like Monsanto and Archer-Daniels-Midland – awful people like Karl Rove are too powerful – the establishment is really Northern elitist progressives who want to be in power more than they want rights for Americans. Pick your poison. It makes no difference to me where you land.
Here is a recent page from American Rifleman on Thom Tillis from my state of North Carolina.
“Opposes universal background checks.” Sounds good. To me this is the most significant risk we face. There are other good things on the list, like opposing the horrible recent supreme court justices. He also assisted in passing more favorable gun laws in North Carolina. For that I thank him.
But note that this advertisement is in American Rifleman, not the Charlotte Observer or the Raleigh News & Observer. And don’t be so quick to judge. Here is Thom Tillis on the recent carry law and how it affects state fairs.
Asked about the recent controversy over bringing guns to the State Fair, U.S. Senate candidate Thom Tillis on Tuesday said he would defer to Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler.
Troxler has said he wouldn’t allow concealed weapons permit-holders to bring firearms to the fair, despite a recent state law that allows them in public places that charge admission. A gun-rights group sued to force the State Fair to drop its decades-old prohibition of guns there.
But a Superior Court judge refused to bar the state from banning guns at the fair. The judge said the law was unclear, and he couldn’t determine what the legislature intended.
“It’s a good, wholesome environment,” Tillis told reporters following his appearance on a TV news program in Raleigh. “We have people like Commissioner Troxler and others who just want to make sure families who are going there, having a great time, showcasing our agricultural industries, feel safe and secure there.”
Thom Tillis is for gun rights when it’s convenient. Otherwise, he’s just after as many swing voters as he thinks he can get. I guess Tillis sees guns as contrary to a “good, wholesome environment.” Unfortunately, Kay Hagan is even worse. Why must the GOP give us men who are only just a little better than the alternative?
|
|
On October 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm, Archer said:
This was a thought I had recently, too. Why is it that our “pro-gun” politicians – Republicans included – are not pushing for the repeal of gun laws that simply don’t work?
For Democrats, increasing “gun control” is part of the official party platform. Why is the Republicans’ stance to merely “oppose new gun laws”, and not also to repeal the bad and/or non-working ones?
More to the point: Why are they being allowed to get by with such a weak-kneed stance? Why is it so impossible to get a good candidate in the running, instead of one that’s “a little less bad” (not “better”; just “less bad”) than the other?
(Actually, these are rhetorical questions: I already have the answer.)
On October 24, 2014 at 6:30 pm, Michael Schlechter said:
The answer is, because they’re all on the same team. Good cop-bad cop is the name of the game. It is monopolistic politics. Just like we allow monopolies in health care, energy, education and telecommunications, there is a monopoly in politics at all levels. The most important thing, from their perspective, is to be sure that there are no new participants to take their market share. Verizon/ATT, iOS/Android, Apple/Microsoft, Comcast/DirecTV, Cigna/Aetna, Pepsi/Coke, Democrat/Republican. At least we have FOUR major TV networks from which to “choose” – Vanilla (NBC), Vanilla (ABC), Vanilla (CBS) and French Vanilla (FOX). Hooray for the “freedom to choose”.
On October 24, 2014 at 7:13 pm, Archer said:
That’s part of it. I like this analogy: Think of the “left” and “right” parties as the left and right feet of some great monstrous leviathan, who – rather than moving in opposite directions – take alternating turns moving in the same direction, lest the whole beast stumble and fall. (For example, have you ever noticed how both parties push different seemingly-opposing agendas, but neither makes any serious effort at repealing the other’s bad laws? Each merely adds its own bad laws on top of the ones the previous administration passed.)
The answer I had, though, was that wanting to rule over other people is generally considered a serious personality flaw to folks who mostly just want to be left alone. We can’t get good conservative candidates because most genuinely good and fair-minded people have no desire for power. The few that do and would use it justly (i.e.: the desire is their only major flaw) get weeded out early by the corrupt-to-the-core party system. The powers-that-be cannot afford to let good people compete lest they lose their own influence.
On October 25, 2014 at 8:18 am, Michael Schlechter said:
Your statement ,”We can’t get good conservative candidates because most genuinely good and fair-minded people have no desire for power”, reminds me of an oft used comment in politics, at least in my work environment – If you aren’t at the (negotiating) table, you’ll probably be on the menu.
On October 27, 2014 at 10:08 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Really puts a fire in your belly to vote for a RINO Republican instead of a Democrat, eh? Won’t even go into the NRA’s pernicious rating system.
So – we again get the chance to vote for a candidate who promises to burn the Constitution at a slower rate than the Democrat.
The reality is, we have a duopoly – a controlled opposition. When was the last time a Republican majority voted to actually roll back constitutional abuses? Ferris?