Why politicos don’t answer questions about gun ownership
You’ll recall during the Republican Primaries, a reporter asked the candidates if they owned guns and, if so, what kind. Fred Thompson answered with: I own a couple but I’m not gonna tell you what they are or where they are. A good answer because it tells pro-gunners that you understand the issue and it prevents dumb things like this from happening to you:
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has moved the two rifles that she kept under the bed to protect her upstate New York home, her spokesman said Monday.
“Given that the location of the guns has been disclosed, they have been moved for security reasons,” Gillibrand’s spokesman Matt Canter said.
She relocated the guns over the weekend while upstate to endorse Democrat Scott Murphy in the March 31 election to replace her in the 20th District, he said.
David seems to think people are apologists for Gillibrand. I’m a realist. I, and other people, can’t get too upset that she’s not holding up her three finger salute. It is a gain over Hillary.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Or, in this case, better.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I agree wholeheartedly that the perfect should not become the enemy of the good.
And in this case, we might actually consider spending some capital on giving her political cover. Someone who has a track record of supporting us deserves at least some of our support when needed, even if not unconditional and unquestioning support.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I have found myself in a similar situation, not politically, but being asked point blank about gun ownership by people of casual acquaintance such as my teenage son’s friends, or my wife’s relatives. The answer needs to be tailored to the questioner. While I don’t lie about my modest assemblage of firearms, I have never told anyone other than my wife exactly how many and what kind of guns I own.
I have offered to take my son’s friends shooting at a range, with their parent’s permission, for an introduction to handguns, or rimfire and centerfire rifles, or a few milsurp classics. I have offered my wife’s relatives the use of a 22LR pistol or rifle for varmint removal on their rural home. I have taken my aged mother shooting with a rimfire pistol for her first time ever.
But I deflect casual inquiries with “Oh, I have an old deer rifle that I’ve never shot a deer with,” or “I have a target pistol that I plink with at the range.” And I always add, “I keep them locked up safely.” Such vague responses have satisfied every inquiry I’ve gotten from relatives, coworkers, and friends. While true my answers would constitute a lie by omission according to the nuns who taught me in elementary school.
Were I a politician I would respond as Fred Thompson did, maybe adding that I’ve enjoyed shooting all my adult life.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
She’s in a pickle. If she comes off too strong on the gun issue, she’s liable to piss off certain factions of the party more than she already is just by having an NRA A rating. That’s going to guarantee a primary challenge in 2010, and is going to hurt her fund raising downstate.
If she holds abandons her pro-gun positions, she’ll piss off her upstate constituency who appreciated her stand on that issue. Because she was ever A rated, many Dems won’t forgive her no matter what she changes her position to, and probably won’t trust her. Her A rating signals she may be one of those upstate cousin-humpers. Can’t have a person like that representing the Upper East Side now can we?
This is New York. She will need to say things and frame the issue in ways we may not like. The important thing is that she votes with us. She has a record in the past of doing just that. I think she should be given the benefit of doubt until such time as she casts a vote. I’ve donated to her campaign and encouraged others to do so. If she votes against us on a key issue, she’ll never see another dime from me. But you are not going to have a perfect pro-gun candidate in New York State. Gillibrand is by far better than I imagined I would ever see out of our neighbor to the north. She’ll likely vote with us if we give her reasons to. If we stand back, and watch our opponents rake her over the coals, cajole her, and humiliate her, and merely offer snide condemnations because she’s not a perfect candidate, she will most definitely change positions. This is New York. The enemy of the good indeed.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“If she votes against us on a key issue, she’ll never see another dime from me.”
See, i disagree with that as well. I think you need to look at the individual votes and judge them appropriately within the political context. It may (probably will) come to pass that we see something along the lines of another omnibus bill that includes more money for keeping cops on the street.
I suspect something like that will include efforts to add an assault weapons ban, etc. Her vote on the individual amendment may very well be one we like, while at the same time because of the overwhelming pressure from OTHER political constituencies she has no choice but to toe the line and vote for the overall measure.
I’d have a tough time throwing her under the bus because of that.
At the same time, I suspect (as she has pointed out) she is going to try to work on reaching compromise on some issue. I see her taking on a John Dingle role in that regard in the Senate. As such, I suspect the David Codrea GOA crowd is going to swarm all over her, when in fact she may very well be the reason something LESS BAD passes.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I salute the gunowners in NY who at least now have a Senator who has more than a passing exposure to firearms, and (so far) is not being a hypocrite about it, unlike our Sr. Senator from CA.
Keep her feet to the fire, and keep a close watch on the crazies in Albany, or you too could end up with a situation such as we have in CA.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I understand where you’re coming from Countertop, but the money I have to donate to candidates is not without limit, so she’s not going to be high on my list of folks to support if she’s only partly with us. I was comfortable donating her money now, because I’m 99% sure she will be better than Hillary Clinton, and now is when she is at her weakest politically, and various interest groups will be lining up around her. But if things go south with her, I have better candidates I can donate to. Limied resources on my end. I totally get that a Dingle role from New York is a welcome improvement over the other crap that’s been coming out of New York.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Do all of you really believe that? Unfuckingbelievable, and no I am not talking about Gillibrand.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Yup, because wishing for better than they had (but not yet perfect) is obviously being an apologist, because this is obviously an all-or-nothing situation.
Unfortunately, Gillibrand’s disclosure, while honest, is going to undoubtedly cause her more problems in the future, because it provided fuel to her competitors, while simultaneously putting her out on a branch that she can literally saw off from underneath herself. How she handles this is going to prove to be interesting, and I wish her the best of luck figuring out how to deal with it. Unfortunately, her waffling is probably going to end up with her farther down the wrong slope.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
So you’ve come to regurgitate obama talking points.
repeat a lie often enough….
February 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I just find it odd that you all think we should support because she “lied”? Isn’t that what you really said. She said it, but she didn’t mean and she’s our liar? Huh!