Stark Juxtapositions

I saw this and felt compelled to share it, from ABC News' Politics page:

Giuliani Guns

In case you can't read the circled text, the breaking news says "Delaware State University Shut Down After Two Students Were Shot..." and the top story says "Rudy Guns for NRA Backing."

Of course, we remember that after the Virginia Tech massacre, the NRA promoted a Fox News poll arguing against tougher gun laws.

We also remember that, during George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential run, the NRA bragged that, if Bush won, the NRA would have a President "where we work out of their office."

And this is the endorsement that Rudy Giuliani is "gunning" for.

A stark, striking juxtaposition that gave me pause.  Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Delaware State University community.

Tags: gun control, national rifle association, NRA, Rudy Giuliani, School Shooting (all tags)

Comments

4 Comments

Re: Stark Juxtapositions

Don't you see?  If every student at Delaware State had her or his own gun, then this wouldn't have happened at all!  The school would have turned into a free-fire zone and everyone would have been magically ok.

by lorax 2007-09-21 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Stark Juxtapositions

If the NRA endorses Giuliani, they will lose all credibility with gun owners.  Would a pro-First Amendment organization endorse a candidate who shut down newspapers in his own city, and believed that states and cities had the right to shut down newspapers in their jurisdictions?

I suppose the fact that Virginia Tech already banned guns, and that didn't prevent the tragedy, or the fact that gun bans are followed by increased crime won't win many arguments here, but consider this:

The Bill of Rights is a package deal, not a menu.  If you limit one of the rights you don't like, you lose some of your moral standing to defend the rights you do approve of.  If the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, it's open to all sorts of interpretation, like denying habeas corpus, for instance, or spying on American citizens without a warrant.

And the fundamental human right of adequate self-defense is not a right that I would give away, just because there are some bad people out there.  In fact, that's the main reason for preserving it.  

by Lex 2007-09-21 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Stark Juxtapositions

I know I shouldn't turn this thread into a debate about gun control, but forgive me, I can't resist...

I suppose the fact that Virginia Tech already banned guns, and that didn't prevent the tragedy, or the fact that gun bans are followed by increased crime won't win many arguments here, but consider this:

By your logic, I suppose since capitalism hasn't completely eliminated poverty it should be discarded too. Rather than picking one event and using it to say that therefore no gun ban works, why don't you look at the statistics for gun violence in the U.S. vs. other countries with strict gun control? Otherwise, if you have other good studies with sound statistical methods that support your argument, I'd love to hear them (and I'm not being sarcastic).

The Bill of Rights is a package deal, not a menu.  If you limit one of the rights you don't like, you lose some of your moral standing to defend the rights you do approve of.  If the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, it's open to all sorts of interpretation, like denying habeas corpus, for instance, or spying on American citizens without a warrant.

I find it ironic that you take this position when every gun-rights advocate quotes the 2nd amendment as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" while disregarding the first part "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". I won't automatically tar you with the same brush. But if you accept the 2nd amendment in its entirety, please explain how the strict reading of the full amendment implies the right to bear arms for any other purpose besides being a part of a "well regulated militia". After all, if the founders only wanted the second half of the amendment, they wouldn't have included the first half, would they?

And the fundamental human right of adequate self-defense is not a right that I would give away, just because there are some bad people out there.  In fact, that's the main reason for preserving it.

You confuse the principle of self-defense with the principle of violent self-defense. You are allowed to defend yourself in many ways, for many types of injuries (monetary, emotional, physical, etc). But defending yourself violently, whether with a gun, a knife, or your bare hands, is severely restricted, essentially to when you are threatened with imminent, severe physical injury, for which no other means of preventing the injury are available. I hate to break it to you, but in a civil society, there's no such thing as the right to unrestricted violent self-defense.

At any rate, if you wish to continue this debate, I hope we can continue to do so in a civil manner, and I look forward to your response.

As for Guiliani, to go from being pro-gun control to pandering to the NRA is par for the course. He's such a flip flopper that the fact that he actually, sort-of, kind-of, weakly stood his ground on abortion so far was considered exceptionally newsworthy...

by loon 2007-09-21 05:39PM | 0 recs
I just wanna know

when some politician will be brave enough to stand up and say "I won't take money from any group that endorses the violent overthrow of the U.S. government."

Because that is exactly what the NRA is, and what it does.

by Sadie Baker 2007-09-21 09:26AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads