On handguns, tradition and radicalism
Gun show in Houston, Texas. Image from Wikipedia
I write a lot about the clash between traditional American culture — which tends to be conservative — and the rapid societal changes that have triggered deep anxiety and bitterness, particularly in rural white communities.
In broad terms, this axis defines the country’s culture war, far more than any red vs. blue or North vs. South paradigm.
The truth, which I think is irrefutable, is that our nation is changing with stunning speed in ways that have sparked a sometimes understandable backlash.
In a mere handful of decades, our concept “family” has been reinvented. Homosexuality has evolved from a recognized mental illness into a widely accepted version of “normal.”
The role of women in society has changed in radical ways, one of the largest shifts in the human paradigm in recorded history. Soon, the white community will be only one of many minorities in a truly diverse ethnic landscape.
Active Christians make up a smaller and smaller portion of citizens and the fastest growing “faith” group is made up of people with no religious convictions at all.
That’s a lot to take on board, especially since it’s hitting the “real” America all at once.
When my urban, progressive friends wring their hands about the conservative uproard against these changes, I remind them that America’s traditional culture is merely holding on to and defending values that were entirely mainstream just a few years ago.
But when it comes to guns, I don’t think this argument holds true.
When it comes to firearms, it is traditional America that’s changing, profoundly and perhaps even radically, in ways that are finally sparking real debate.
I grew up in rural America, and have always been a proud, unambiguous part of the gun-owning culture. I’ve owned firearms my entire life. My father and I were members of a shooting club at a range in my home town. We hunted whitetail deer.
While courting my wife — herself a holder of NRA merit badges for marksmanship — I hunted turkey and deer with my future father-in law.
One of my wife’s proudest gifts to our son (he was 13 years old at the time) was his first .22 rifle.
My brother Allen and I have hunted together since childhood, and he writes one of the best hunting and fishing blogs in the Midwest.
What we didn’t do? We didn’t own military-style weaponry.
In all my childhood and young adulthood, I don’t remember anyone owning assault rifles or high-capacity banana clips, or talking about the need for such weapons.
Guys owned shotguns for hunting fowl. We owned hunting rifles. Some men — not, by a long-shot, all — owned a pistol for home security, to protect their businesses, or for protection against grizzly bears, or for sport.
Through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, when I was a kid and a young man, the loggers and fishermen and outdoorsmen I grew up around would have been baffled by anyone packing a military-style heat.
I remember in particular one of my friends bragging that his dad still had an old German Luger military pistol locked away in a drawer, a legacy of his grandfather’s service in World War II.
The idea was kind of shocking and exciting.
But if you asked me whether any of our dads would have advocated legalizing teflon coated “copkiller” bullets or fought for the right to use high capacity magazines, I’d say no way.
I’m not sure when the gun culture changed.
What I can tell you is that in the part of America where I grew up — Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and later Alaska — it didn’t look much like the gun culture that exists today.
Guys didn’t talk about the need to arm themselves so that they could someday resist their own despotic government. There wasn’t survivalist talk or talk of “2nd amendment” solutions to democratic debates.
I suspect the change came from the narrowing agenda of the NRA, which shifted from a mom-and-pop style hunter and gun-safety organization to a sleek, powerful culture war advocacy group that sees no room for compromise or nuance.
In their worldview, there are gun lovers and believers in the Constitution, and there are those who would confiscate every single firearm.
It’s a gun culture that leaves no room for people like me, who value sporting guns and believe in protecting gun ownership, but have serious moral and practical questions about the need for high-efficiency military-style pistols and assault rifles.
I suspect that at least some of the change also came from a growing population of American gun enthusiasts who don’t have strong ties to rural life.
There are a lot of suburbanites and urban folks who embraced the gun-show bang-bang culture that gets a rush out of hard-core hardware, without having been introduced to firearms through the common sense values of their fathers and mothers.
Finally, I suspect that a lot of the change in America’s gun culture came through the commercialization of firearms, as manufacturers — who now clear $12 billion a year — worked to sell more and more high-end “cool” weapons.
The kind of guns that ravaged Aurora and Newtown and Columbine have much higher profit margins — and fanboy appeal — than you see for a serious hunting rifle or a practical shotgun.
So while on many issues, it is urban, progressive Americans who have moved into new, experimental, and sometimes nervous territory, when it comes to guns I think it’s fair to argue that conservatives are the ones who have changed.
While talking about the long-standing tradition of gun ownership and flying the banner of the 2nd amendment, they’re drawing lines in the sand that I’m guessing would have made little sense to the guys in the coffee shop in my hometown.
So here’s my question to those of you who see yourselves as gun rights advocates. When was the first time you saw people in your community owning (or desiring) these kinds of weapons?
When did you or your friends begin to see military-style pistols and assault rifles and banana clip-type accessories as part of America’s gun culture?
I mean like yeah I find middle aged gun nuts living in the suburbs annoying also, but they are not killing people, take all of their guns because they are first class jerks, and it won’t barely save one life.
“…he passed a real bill flaws and all.”
And that bill has been gone now for nine years, while millions of new guns have been sold and more than 250,000 Americans have died (28,393 gun deaths in 2010 x 9 = 255,537).
“Come on, we all know nothing is going to happen now except noise its all about scoring points against the other side; not about real change.” I’m sure folks said something similar in 1994.
“…it won’t barely save one life.”
If it was your child’s life, you might think it was worthwhile.
Walker, I agree that we should make some significant changes. Personally making the “saving one child argument” (and I have two) is silly. It tugs at heart strings but that is about it. There are lots and lots of things we can do to save one child’s life, that isn’t the issue. It is about making a substantial difference. If it makes a substantial difference than let’s do it. Saving just one life may be Vice President Biden’s measure of success but that is not real leadership.
Walker, if I have to have a license and permit to use one right, then why shouldn’t you have to have a license and permit to exercise your rights? Absurd is the right word because its absurd to think I should have to have a license or permit to exercise ANY right, and yet you support that idea. I don’t think most of you anti-gunners have really thought any of this through at all.
But hey, all you people that have been sitting here saying all this is about is assault weapons should be advised that last night the NYS Senate passed a bill that outlaws any firearm holding more than 7 rounds and although it grandfathers older guns, it bars you from ever putting more than 7 rounds int he magazine. So that Marlin Model 60 22 that was spoken of the other day, your Ruger 10-22, your target 22 pistol, all those 8 and 9 round 22 revolvers and pistols, etc, all BANNED from use. And they altered the defintion of an Assault Weapon to include rifles, shotguns and pistols too and now all it takes is being semi automatic and having the capability of accepting a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds, so kiss your old favorite semi auto deer rifle like the Remington 742 goodbye! It’s an assault weapon now. And you can’t sell any of these guns and they have to be registered and the permitted and licensed and the license has to be renewed every 5 years, no doubt at a huge cost. But no, no one is trying to keep you from owning a gun.
Yup, this will really stop criminals in their tracks. They’ll obey all these laws, I’m sure.
I forget the important thing, this will help Cuomo in his 2016 Presidential bid, and that’s all that really matters.
Oh yeah, and Obama is going to use Executive Orders to get around Congress and the Constitution, or so Biden says. But no ones talking about taking our rights away. Sure.
RC, NYS has what we call a bicameral legislature so this is not a law yet. Does anyone have a link for the bill so we can read what you are talking about. People who support restrictions on some types of guns are not “anti-gunners”. RC do you support civilian ownership of machine guns?
Also, you can’t get “around” the constitution. If an executive order is legal it is legal based on the constitution.
“Also, you can’t get “around” the constitution. If an executive order is legal it is legal based on the constitution.”
Sadly, it has happened. That’s how American citizens were locked up in detention camps during WW II, by Executive Order. Citizens, not enemy combatants or even enemy aliens. Regular, born-in-the-USA people. Why? It was an “emergency” and it “made sense” and “most reasonable people agreed”.
“I don’t think most of you anti-gunners have really thought any of this through at all.”
First, one more time, I am not ant-gun, or anti-gunner, though I do think that some people’s obsession with their weapons is unhealthy.
I do not feel that my right to own and operate motor vehicles is unduly infringed by laws requiring registration and licensing. And yeah, I know– cars aren’t in the Constitution. But despite the fact that guns are, there are plenty of laws regulating them, including some outlawing particular types. You may be convinced that the nation will cease to be free if one more restriction is placed on gun ownership. I do not.
Incidentally, I agree with you that Cuomo’s legislation is 90% grandstanding– the guy makes me sick, and yes, the law is probably badly drawn. But you know what? I really don’t care. We’ve got to start reining in the excesses. I’m sorry if that idea makes your blood boil. Seems to me that shows a lack of perspective, but hey, go for it.
As for what Obama will or won’t do, time will tell. Sounds like you’ll be terribly disappointed if what he does proves more reasonable than what you imagine it will be.
Well no kidding Paul? Really? I’m so freakin’ stupid I didn’t even know there were 2 houses in the NUS legislature. Google NY S2330 and read it for yourself. And YES, if you support gun control measures you ARE and ANTI-GUNNER. I have no issue whatsoever with civilian ownership of machine guns. Has anyone used a legally owned machine gun in crime in the past 70 or so years??? No, I didn’t think so. You go right on thinking you aren’t an anti-gunner Paul. What you actually are is a traitor to your nation and the Constitution. And if you really believe that Obam hasn’t already used Executive Orders to get around the Constitution then you are also none too bright in addition to being a traitor. He used an Executive Order to by pass Congress on the Dream Act. Completely illegal but no one in Washington has the backbone to call for his Impeachment. Same thing for his multiple Recess Appointments when Congress wasn’t in Recess.
Wake up Paul, you’re playing the part of a useful idiot.
I looked at another story on this bill. Assault weapons are not being banned. The definition of an assault weapon is being narrowed. A pistol grip on a long gun will define it as an assault weapon. So that is pretty tight. But if it falls under the definition you just need to have a background check to purchase the gun. How is that a ban?
The question on the 22 rifle is an interesting one. It is not banned from use under this bill. It looks like it would be illegal to use the gun with a full magazine. You can have a magazine that holds more than 7 bullets but it is illegal to load more than 8 bullets into a gun. Not sure how you enforce this regulation? Federal waterfowl regulations that have been around for many years require you to have a plug in your gun when hunting for some birds where you are limited to 3 shots.
Walker, I think people using pot is unhealthy too. You against that? I didn’t think so.
What Obama will do is every bit he can get away with. And all of you supporting this better start wondering what he’ll come after that’s important to you.
I’m sorry, Rancid, but the more I read of your over the top take on all this, the more unhealthy it looks. Get a grip! Everyone who disagrees with you is a traitor now? Wow!
And YES, if you support gun control measures you ARE and ANTI-GUNNER. In your opinion yes.
Walker lucky for me according to the constitution I need at least two witnesses to accuse me of treason unless I confess in open court. I am not making war on the US so I must be somehow “adhering to the enemies” or giving them some sort of “aid and comfort”.
“if you support gun control measures you ARE and ANTI-GUNNER.”
So I must be anti-car, too, eh? The only people who are pro-car are those who believe that licensing and registration laws are abominations?
I should correct one thing I wrote above. This new law will BAN assault weapons in NYS (as defined by NYS law, stricter as part of this bill). We already do ban them but this includes more guns. It looks like you can only own one if you already have one and you can sell (or give) these to members of your immediate family. This law may be an enforcement nightmare.
This law where they continue to tighten the definition of an assault weapon is what many folks opposed to these kinds of regulations have been saying would happen. It says that any weapon that has a “military style” component is considered an assault weapon. That is a weird definition. Seems pretty open to interpretation. Laws should not be left so open ended, there is lots of room for abuse here on all fronts.
Walker, I am not so sure that just passing any law even if it is badly written is ever a good idea.
The other issue is I think the US does include a lot of manufacturing plants for guns? Don’t we have a pretty large Remington factory down in Illion?
Now that NYS has passed a law that does nothing to curb violence, they will pack their bags and move on to other nonsense.
Meanwhile, the low information voters are going, “Wowwww”.
Mervel, that is a good question. In fact I think they produce some of these guns for Bushmaster. How is that even legal in NYS (even before this law)?
JDM, if you use the term “low information voters” that should be in quotes. That is not your term that is Rush Limbaugh’s term. Give credit where credit is due.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of “low information voters” and misinformation voters on all sides of these issues.
Check this out a safety note from the Bushmaster site:
“During routine test firing, Bushmaster discovered a design flaw which could result in multiple rounds firing continuously when the trigger is pulled. This unexpected firing of multiple rounds creates a potentially dangerous situation.”
Then it goes on to tell you what you need to do about returning the gun.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I think that if we are to insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare and make sure we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity we need to have laws that limit things like these guns.
Others here think they are also required for promoting the common defense (misspelled in the constitution?) and are one of the blessings of liberty (and required to defend that liberty in some way). I simply disagree.
Paul “That is not your term that is Rush Limbaugh’s term.”
Hehe. This collective term is now mainstream. We’re not allowed to call them “idiots” “stupid” “ignorant” or other non-PC terms.
It will take awhile for the PC police to catch up with this one.
JDM, I think that if some people on the “anti-gun control” side of the debate continue to debate in that manner (simply thinking that their opponents are the things you say) than they will start to lose the debate like we are seeing now. In a political debate if someone is totally inflexible to the point where they are only left with insulting their opponent than they will eventually lose. Once they have lost, and in the process lost all their credibility, than their opponent can, and will, run all over them. In that case they will end up with losing much more than they cold have if they acted differently. It almost seems like some folks on one side of this debate feel that they can simply hunker in their bunkers. In that case I think there is a good chance that they will get bulldozed under.
Paul – I think Texas has the right idea on how to handle the “anti-gun-rights” crowd.
The governor will arrest any federal agents who try to enforce an unconstitutional executive order.
Now that I have had time to look at this law it is time for Brian Mann to go to work. I think this new NYS law restricts the kinds of activites (small game hunting to some extent) and some guns (the ruger 22 I described). These are restrictions that we ALL said that we were opposed to. Even the gov said he wasn’t interested in restricting hunters in any way. I understand, he is a city boy he mostly knows about deer and duck hunting!
And here is an interesting take on the formation and intent of the 2nd Amendment – it was ratified to preserve slavery.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Who’s to say that the 2nd amendment is any more precious or less goofy than the 18th?
Well, I didn’t think anything was going to happen. Sometimes it’s good to be wrong.
I do support some gun control measures but the way the NY bill was enacted was atrocious. No committee hearings or public discussion? 78 page bill yet the public never had a chance to see it before it was passed and lawmakers only had a couple of hours to review it? It seems that the Message of Necessity was abused in this insistence, and we may get a flawed bill as a result.
Sometimes its a bad idea to just “go with your gut” in lieu of reviewing things carefully, but then again I’m one of those people who actually reads contracts before signing them, so what do I know?
scratchy, some legislators had 20 minutes to review the bill. That seems like a story for the press we will see if we get anything.
Now that I have had time to look at this new law and how it went down if a good investigative reporter like Brian M. does not look into this I give up. Some guns only used for hunting must be sold out of state (what?) within one year of today’s date. Under this law it is simple for a law abiding citizen to be made a criminal under these provisions. Please explain to me how I am wrong.
Okay it took forever to figure this out. The new law amends the old law and tubular magazines are still legal for a 22 rifle. So no jail for me. Now if a nut job uses this gun as an alternative to the “detachable” clip, that they seem to see as more of a threat, what is next. I have lost my comfort here. KLH and Walker do I have anything to worry. about?
20 minutes is even worse.
“…do I have anything to worry about?”
Global warming?
Yeah, they. Made a law to force me to use my seatbelt while driving my car. It is unConsttutional and forces me to either use it or be a criminal! It is my God given right to be an idiot!
You’re finally catching on Paul but you’r still missing most of it. The Bill I looked at does not make a differentiation between a tubular mag and box mag. Your 22 is now an assault weapon as far as I can tell.
Brian Mann will not take the NYS Gov to task for this debacle. No one will in the press. There was no time for public comment, no time to address inadequacies, confusing or illogical language and requirements, no time to debate the bill, nothing. It was rammed through less than a week after the Gov said there was no time line. It’s wrong in multiple ways. And the fools here and elsewhere that lied and claimed it was all about assault weapons are now shown to be the idiots they are. It wasn’t about assault weapons, it was about power and political advantage. NOTHING in the law will affect a criminal. What this will do is allow gov’t to deny more rights to our citizens.
You’d all better wake up. A right is not a privilege. We don’t have a right to keep and bear arms anymore. I absolutely guarantee that in a few months when some other tragedy takes place that there will be more restrictions called for, and them more and more. Some of you will be fine with that. You’re willing to bargain away your rights, and you’ll continue to do so until your wake up one day and find out the gov’t took away YOUR right to do whatever it is you have an interest in.
I didn’t own any assault weapons 2 days ago. I woke up today and found out I’m a criminal. Andy Cuomo just created a new group of anti-government activists.
“You’re willing to bargain away your rights, and you’ll continue to do so until your wake up one day and find out the gov’t took away YOUR right to do whatever it is you have an interest in.”
First they came for the communists, eh? Thing is, though, the thing I have an interest in is not being shot by some lunatic.
What I think we all can agree on is that this law was not supposed to have any impact on hunters and sportsmen and women. Clearly that is not the case.
RC, the law refers to an expansion of an older NYS law that excludes tubular magazines. That exclusion still exists under this new law. The definition of assault weapon doesn’t seem to have anything to do with anything. I don’t get it.
Walker, I am worried about climate change. Your response to the question shows that you really don’t care about restricting many of the gun owners that you earlier claimed should not be affected.
This law has probably has benefited only one group. People who make money making and selling guns. Congratulations.
“You’re willing to bargain away your rights, and you’ll continue to do so until your wake up one day and find out the gov’t took away YOUR right to do whatever it is you have an interest in.”
I would have been content with a law that outlawed large clips (maybe with a buy back?) and that required registration. But to tell you the truth, the minor effect (my opinion) this law will have on most gun owners seems like very small potatoes to me.
And nothing any one state can do is going to help much– we need nationwide action.
No Walker, what you have is a lack of whatever it is in your makeup that provides us with the common sense to realize a law is not going to keep any of us from being harmed by a lunatic with a gun or car or knife or a pen to sign a new law into effect. This new law isn’t going to affect your chances of being shot much, if at all. It’s not going to do a thing to affect criminals or nutjobs. All it does is turn decent, law abiding people into criminals.
Paul, that is open to interpretation since I can’t find the text of the bill as passed. It says “ammunition feeding device” in all the texts I’ve seen. It’s says semi auto too. That’s a Ruger 10-22, Marlin 60, etc. And even if it’s as you say and the tube mag is exempt, whats that do for the Ruger with it’s rotary mag or the Marlin 60 version that uses a box mag? This defense of the bill because it doesn’t seem to affect YOUR gun is what makes you no better than the other anti-gunners Paul. You’re either pro-gun or anti-gun, make your choice.
At least we can now stop listening to all the disingenuous BS about “nobody wants to do anything but ban high capacity magazines and machine guns”. Many never believed that and they were right. It is sad to see how easily Cuomo was able to bum-rush the feckless state legislature into a law that restricts constitutional rights but has no other useful purpose beyond enhancing Cuomo’s liberal political credentials in support of his electoral ambitions. He also advocates for passage of the Reproductive Health Act which permits late term abortions. Looks to me like children’s lives are only “precious” after they are born.
“First they came for the communists, eh?”
You can mock all you like Walker, but the fact is that it always starts like this. Always. By the time it gets to something you care about it will be too late. It will get there; it always does.
This, from today’s New York Times:
“The bill was muscled through with disturbing speed after days of secret negotiations and a late-night vote Monday by state senators who had barely read the complicated measure before passing it. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who signed it into law on Tuesday, obviously calculated that it was necessary to move quickly before gun advocates could marshal serious opposition. Even so, Albany’s customarily top-down and largely undemocratic legislative methods were inappropriate for such a complex bill.”
If the Times is concerned about this law, we should all be. It’s wrong, it sets an awful precedent and we should all be concerned about the implications for New York as a free society. I can’t get out of my head the image of Cuomo shrieking about gun control like a deranged dictator. What’s next?
“This defense of the bill because it doesn’t seem to affect YOUR gun is what makes you no better than the other anti-gunners Paul.”
RC, listen to yourself. When did I “defend” anything. An explanation is not a defense. Get a grip.
I do think we just have too many guns floating around in the country. But I would like to focus the restraints on the supply and trade in guns; versus the individuals who own guns.
I don’t know if any of you have been to a gun show, I have not been to one in NY, but they are crazy. In many states its wide open you can buy any gun from any private guy who buys a table a the show with NO checks at all, its a free for all. It is essentially a giant black market operation. So looking at how we sell guns how they are transmitted, produced and put out would be a productive way to go.
Legit gun manufacturers should actually be in favor of that as it would raise prices and drive more people to buy guns in a legitimate way from real suppliers.
Too late, Mervel, to consider what you (or I, or anyone else) would like to focus on. We got what Cuomo wants to focus on. That’s what happens when people don’t worry about EVERYONE’S rights, just the ones they deem to be important.
“I don’t know if any of you have been to a gun show, I have not been to one in NY, but they are crazy.”
More misinformation. I have been to many gun shows, all in NY, and they are anything but crazy. NY requires background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Go to a gun show and find out who goes and what’s going on. It’s rather like going to Americade and finding out that the vast majority of participants are older, responsible, law-abiding citizens and not the wild-eyed, drug-dealing, homicidal maniacs the uninformed think them to be.
I think that gun manufactures in their marketing zeal have, pardon the pun, shot themselves in the foot. Their zany marketing is part of why some people are desperate for any kind of action. I looked at the Bushmaster site the other day and it has this music and gunshots going off. It’s crazy. Killing things, which is what any gun is designed for is serious business it isn’t a game.
“All it does is turn decent, law abiding people into criminals.”
No law can turn you into a criminal if you chose not to violate it.
OL, he said specifically that he was NOT referring to a gun sale in New York. It sounds like maybe the necessity for BG checks has had a positive impact at NY gun shows?? What do you think?