In the United States, you have a right to “bear arms.” This has a special meaning which has largely been distorted by the courts, but nonetheless stands as a fundamental. Many gun owners, unfortunately, not only abuse this right but also go far beyond gun ownership to do things that while technically allowable under the First Amendment, are wrong, and that they should not do.
The Pima County, Arizona Republican party … that’s where Gabby Gifford, a young child, a federal judge and a whole bunch of other people were gunned down by a fairly run of the mill gun nut … is taking advantage of people’s unnatural love for their guns and the politicization of what is essentially an expensive and dangerous hobby in a way that is utterly inappropriate.
They are raffling off a gun identical to the one used to shoot Gabby and the rest of them.
The raffle gun comes preloaded with adjustable grips, a case, and three 12-round magazines. Glock USA describes the model as “a slightly reduced size of a full-size handgun for easier concealment but still retains the performance on the level of a serious big bore.”
A constitutional right is not a right to be an insensitive dick who insults the hundreds of people who are directly associated, as friends or family members, with those slain in Arizona by the same model Glock being auctioned off here.
UPDATE: But Seriously, Why Is Elon Musk Selling Flamethrowers?
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Right to “Bear Arms” – isn’t that a bit rough on the bear? 😉
Also does that include every variety eg. Polar, Grizzly, Sun bear, Sloth bear, Moon bear etc .. or is it only a specific species?
Or is it a typo for everyone has a constitutional right to “bare arms” ie. to go around topless or in a singlet / tanktop / bikini if they so desire? 😉
It’s the first half of a bumper sticker. (about arming bears, surely you’ve seen it.) Although I do like “bare arms” as an intro to a post on tattoos.
Well, actually, I know of no laws prohibiting one to be a dick. If there were, who’d determine the right or wrong amount of dickishness.
And I have little knowledge about guns, but a glock 19 sounds different than a glock 23. Something about the number.
Would they have been the same, and would any reference be made to the gun being similar to the one used at the shooting, then you’d get into another possibility.
Just when do such actions represent a deaththreat?
Konradiius, I do not subcribe to the view that it is “OK” to do whatever you want as long as there is not specifically a law against it. Neither do you.
Just when do such actions represent a deaththreat?
Are you suggesting that a death threat has been made here? Interesting. I did not know that. Please point me to the news item or blog post or whatever! Thanks.
. . . I kind of have to agree with Konradius, in that the Constitution does give us the right to be insensitive dicks. We have the right to be dicks, pinheads, morons, assholes, and self-righteous insensitive scumbags. It’s a LEGAL right, though maybe not a moral one. Maybe that’s the differentiation you’re making.
Of course, we don’t have the right to be dicks with impunity; someone always has the right to call us on doing completely cruel, stupid things.
I am indeed making that distinction, and it is not a trivial one. And yes, we may well be called on it … but I’ve noticed that those (in internet discussions specifically) quickest to loudly claim that since the Constitution does not prohibit something that there is nothing wrong with doing it are also often those lease willing to take the social consequences of their own actions.
Especially when it comes to things like guns.
The Republicans are making a political statement with this $10 per ticket raffle in Pima County. To me, they are close to endorsing the shootings of Gifford and her supporters.
Greg, if you wanted to talk about what is “OK”, then do so. I just reread your article and did not find “OK” anywhere. CRTL+F found nothing either.
What I did find were the words “constitutional right”. One of those rights quite intentionally covers being a dick. Being a dick gets you people sitting at a lunch counter where they are not welcome, saying ugly things near soldiers’ funerals, people saying the Communist Party has some good ideas, people questioning what is so bad about homosexuality loudly in the streets, being a fan of the New York Yankees and questioning whether the President is really the President.
On whole, I see this as a good thing and I do not trust either you or myself to be the arbiter which bits are “OK”.
It is a really short blog post. You don’t have to search for words, you can just read it! I certainly did use the term “Constitutional right” and right after it there are the words “is not”
I agree with most of the things you claim are rights except the one about the Yankees. That is highly questionable.
In any event, do actually read the post. You are making claims that are not supportable.
I think people seem to be missing the point, as I read it, that while technically allowed, this action is in very poor taste, and should be pointed out as such, even if it’s not the exact same gun (but very close, and so very easy to conceal!). Saying something shouldn’t be done is not the same as saying it is technically illegal, or unconstitutional. Blogs are subjective more or less by definition, from what I understand.
I think you are basically correct, but I would say it more strongly.
Implying that it is too bad that the assassination attempt failed or suggesting that it be tried again, as some of the activists in Pima County seem to be doing (not documented here) is just as wrong being “allowed” by the constitution as if it was a felony.
For that matter, there are things that are illegal that should not be. Things that are simply not wrong but that are against the law. Like co-habituating in Florida.
Putting it another way, something being proscribed or prescribed by law vs. not does not impact the degree to which it is “simply a matter of opinion” vs. pretty clear black and wight or something in between.
And the improper extrapolation is often obvious, and is typically an American point of view (as in Ugly American): If the US constitution says it a certain behavior is protected, than that behavior is universally OK by a general human standard.
But I’m sorry, in many cases, it simply isn’t.
I did “actually read” your post. If you “actually read” my response, you would see where I said a actually re-read your post. I particular read “A constitutional right is not a right to be an insensitive dick….”. I then claimed being a dick is indeed a constitutional right. I supported this claim with several examples of dickishness, all (excecpt for the most egregious) you agreed were indeed rights. Which leaves me wondering how my claim is unsupportable.
What the Republican Party of Pima Arizona is doing is wrong. It is not right at any level, it is wrong at many levels. Yet, I expect it will be defended because it is constitutionally allowed, and that defense will come from those who think that just because something is protected by the constitution, that it therefore can’t be wrong, and in fact, may even be right.
You know, sometimes I read the news and I think, “Man, that is really a dickish move.” But this one, when I read it I thought, “That is so going to be what people are talking about. The insensitive, are these Republicans for real? meme.” So over the top.
And now, I’m starting to think that, yeah, maybe these dicks are just trying to get some face-time on FOXNews or Chris Matthews. Maybe it’s just a big show and we shouldn’t get all pinched about it. Maybe these Republicans are such dicks that they even get a big kick out of watching Democrats cringe at the insensitive behavior.
Right? Shouldn’t we be focused on what Congress is doing about job-creation?
And of course the guy’s being a dick. But part of the insensitive-Republican persona is how ultra-masculine it is, and that contrasts strongly with the weak-Democrat persona, which Republicans imagine is curled up in the corner right now, crying for Gabby. Men/Guns/Well, this; gun didn’t blow her head off vs. Men/Stop, you’re being insensitive!/She almost DIED!
Trying to make Democrats look weak, maybe that’s why Republicans are such…dicks.
It seems odd that the republicans would be so unpatriotic as to raffle off a foreign made weapon. I guess the chance to be completely tasteless trumps patriotism.
You don’t see a lot of patriotic Republicans. It’s never been their strong point.
Of course there’s a constitutional right to be an insensitive dick. I can’t imagine why you would write otherwise. You don’t like guns, but other people do, and shaming them isn’t enough for you — you attempt to back up your shaming with incorrect legal reasoning.
Betasattva, what makes you think I don’t like guns? Without guns, how would I eat all that game I eat, for instance?
Now we’re talking. Glad to see you blogging here.
This goes way beyOnd being dicks. This qualifies as certifiable fucktards.
And at the same time as I’m reading about the insensitive clods who are auctioning off a gun without any apparent sensitivity tpward the horribly bad optics of the type chosen, this blog is showing an ad for World of Tanks MMO. This seems to me an ironic reflection on the obsession of the human race on war and violence.
It would be useful to know how ads get on blog.
Mainly, there are brokers (including Google Ads) who have these spaces out there that they know they can put ads on. Then there are technqiues used to match ads with clientele. This takes time and is often out of kilter.
More importantly to me is to properly chose what to get mad at. It is easy to get mad at an ad that blatantly hawks some icky product but not notice the nice and shiny normal looking ad for a corporation that pays people to execute their opposition in third world countries. And of course doing all that research is rather time consuming!
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the shooter you mention was a “run of the mill” gun nut. The shooting made the news because it was brutal and tragic, of course, but also because it was exceptional. If this sort of thing was routine it wouldn’t be news anymore, except perhaps that this case included among its victims a member of congress and a federal judge. “Run of the mill gun nut” refers more precisely to the kind of people running this horrifying raffle.
Cross out “gun nut” and replace with “nut with gun”
The gun being raffled off is not ” identical to the one used to shoot Gabby and the rest of them.” The gun being raffled off is a Glock 23, while the one used in the shooting was a Glock 19. So essentially, you are upset because they are the same brand. Glock is one of the most popular brands of handguns available on the market today. Guess what type of gun the police would have used on Loughner if they had arrived in time? A Glock, probably even a 19 or 23. There are much better things to attack the Republicans for than they happen to be raffling off the same brand of gun that was used by a madman in a shooting once.
Thomas, word on the street is that they are being quite overt about this. I don’t think the Pima County Republicans would appreciate your denial of what they are up to.
And besides, who said I was upset?
Guns–that’s the same thing as firearms, right?
Maybe not! What about flamethrowers?
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html
My problem with the gun-rights lobby is that they don’t realize that the first words of the Second Amendment are “A well-regulated Militia,” not “Some random Fools”.
Why did Ron Paul go to the NRA meeting topless?To show his support for the right to bare arms.