Skip to main content

Raw Story

In an New Republic article published Sunday, the president said he had a “profound respect” for the nation’s hunting traditions and that to dismiss them out of hand in the course of the debate would be “a big mistake”.

“If you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out and spent the day with him and uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that,” he said.

Obama's package of gun control efforts has, as we all know, encountered fierce resistance from people who - somehow - see it as an infringement on the Second Amendment but Obama addresses that by bluntly stating he respects the Second Amendment 'and the rights of individual gun owners'. I doubt most of the fervent 2nd Amendmenters who hold stock in the "Obama is going to ban guns' paranoia will believe or be able to hear this., but there it is.

I can't say I have ever had the first reason to think Obama dreams of banning guns and this, for the time being, reinforces that idea.

The comment led on to an apparent defence of gun ownership for the purposes of sport or hunting. Obama noted that it was important to understand that“the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas”.

Bridging that gap of understanding “is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months,” the president said, adding: “And that means that advocates of gun controls have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.”

Obama has had to weather the storms of the NRA and pro-gun culture; now he's suggesting that gun control culture needs to open their ears a bit and hear the sounds of reality.

I imagine he knows what he is talking about.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thus Speakth The Prez. (21+ / 0-)

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:00:39 AM PST

  •  This is one of those things his tune has never (14+ / 0-)

    changed on.

    “the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas”.
    He had the same answers when he was first running for office in the 90's.

    "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

    by JesseCW on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:14:02 AM PST

    •  Probably because that's a stone cold fact. (7+ / 0-)

      A fact represented by the other fact that 2 different words evolved to describe them.....

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:25:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I live in NYC... (22+ / 0-)

      ...but I often stay in Vermont.

      When I'm in rural Vermont, I feel safer because I know that people are allowed to have guns.

      When I'm in NYC, I feel safer because I know that people aren't allowed to have guns.

      Once population density reaches a certain point, the medicine becomes the poison.

      •  Is that because there are too many (0+ / 0-)

        minority people in NYC? Unlike in lily white Vermont??

        Just trying to figure out what your post could possibly mean . .. .. .

        •  I think it means your safer when there are alot of (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wednesday Bizzare, JesseCW, FrankRose

          people around and there are people to hear you when you call for help. And when there are a lot of people the less guns the better. When you are in the middle of nowhere it is good to know that the only people around that can get to you quickly, your closest neighbor, have the means to repel violent attack.

          Assuming the comment had anything to do with race is BS

          •  OK, that makes zero sense (0+ / 0-)

            but, I suppose that's par for the course for a gun apologist.

            •  When there are a lot of people around you are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ManhattanMan

              generally safe by virtue of percentages of good folks who will help and the likelihood of police officers being near by. That gets tossed out the window if everybody draws a gun, then who's who gets confused and the situation turns more chaotic.

              In a rural area, your closest neighbor could be a mile or more and the closest police could be an hour or more. You call your neighbor before you call the police b/c they can get there to help first.  

          •  Another way to look at this is that (0+ / 0-)

            as this Atlantic Monthly article outlines, a major driving force FOR gun rights a couple of generations ago was the right for African Americans to defend their rights in cities.

            Yes, that's right - in the cities, not in the back woods.

            The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement.
            a bit more:
            HE EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.

            The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must

            take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.
            Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.

            It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.

            •  the modern gun control movement is comprised (0+ / 0-)

              of a lot of black churches among other minority dominant organizations. I would argue that 1967 gun-rights movement is not that well related to the modern gun-rights movement that seems to be dominated by groups affiliated with white supremacists.

        •  No, it has... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, FrankRose

          ...to do with population density. One gun is safety. Fifty guns is chaos.

          Also, in a rural setting the lack of gun control makes you safer even if you don't have a gun. The fact that you might have a gun deters most criminals.

    •  I respect the President & Vice President: Plan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      they presented is IMO a good one and doesn't cripple the Constitution.

      Apparently that's not enough for some people, including Senator Dianne Feinstein.

      The introduction to her bill announces an intention to ensure everyone knows the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:08:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The statement by Obama also perpetuates a myth (8+ / 0-)

    that the rights of gun ownership are only about hunting.  Whether or not this was his intent or whether or not he believes this, I can not say.  Hunting is but one part of the reason and justification for gun ownership.  While I don't hunt, I do own and carry guns for self defense as do many other citizens and I support the position that the right extends to any lawful purpose, not just hunting.

  •  High capacity magazines and Bushmasters have... (12+ / 0-)

    essentially zero relevance to hunting.

    Unfortunately, rural gun culture is not just the hunting tradition. There's plenty of naked racism, xenophobia, and crazy paranoid gun-clutching to go around as well. Trust me, they're my friends and neighbors.

    •  You might need a Bushmaster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the fan man

      to protect yourself from your neighbors ;) .

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:21:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  an arms race for peace (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby

        That's their argument, isn't it?  "If you're afraid of guns, don't take someone else's gun away, buy yourself a gun instead."

        Yes, I would love to live in a society with a domestic arms race going, where the peace is kept by some Cold War-esque balance of terror.

        Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

        by Visceral on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:37:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They sound more like "frenemies". lol. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:30:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They might not have relevance to your type of (6+ / 0-)

      hunting.  They don't have relevance to mine.

      But, I'm not going to opine that they aren't useful in many types of endeavors, including competitive shooting and varmint control.  I just don't happen to have a need for one at present.

      The "naked" racism seems to me that 20 white kids get more press than any prior massacre in Amercia, yet black and brown kids die every day as a result of violence, including gun violence and we hear jack shit about it.

      That, to me, is racism.

    •  Coyotes. (4+ / 0-)

      They're smart, fast fuckers that will kill just about anything, including Fluffy and Fido.  They can devestate a chicken coop in a heartbeat.

      A good shot with a bolt-action 30-.06 will definitely do the job, but like I said they're fast and smart.  If you only wound one, he stands a good chance of running off by the time you rack in another round.  With a semi-auto like the AR-15, you can finish what you started right then and there.  The idea is to kill the thing, not torture it.  The last thing you want is for the poor bastard to crawl off somewhere and take days to die of an infected wound.

      •  Seeing as how we've exterminated predators... (0+ / 0-)

        from wolves to cougars across most of North America, the coyotes have naturally and stealthily expanded their range to fill the void. If you leave fluffy or fido chained up outside in a rural or suburban area where coyotes are resident, that's on your head, not the coyotes'. They're just doing what's in their nature. The coyotes we're seeing now are the ones smart enough to avoid people, and they'll do everything they can to stay away from you.

        Conducting massacres of predators with semiautomatic assault rifles just guarantees more starving deer a few winters hence, as their numbers overgrow the carrying capacity of the land.

        And if you're hunting coyotes with a 30 round magazine .223, I sure hope you're nowhere near me.

        True story: one of my less intelligent customers decided he hated coyotes, and decided to (illegally) bait and shoot some of them on his land. So he parked himself in a hedgerow overlooking a field one night, and laid out a spread of chicken offal for them before settling in with his rifle and his jack-lights. Funny thing, though. About midnight he started hearing some noises, and abruptly realized that a group of coyotes were circling around to come after him instead. So he found himself sprinting back to his house with the coyotes in pursuit.

        Honestly, would have served him right to be taken down by the pack.

  •  I agree with the president BUT (13+ / 0-)

    I think some of those rural folks need to listen to urban sensitbilities as well.  I have plenty of personal friends who fit this demographic, and constantly wince at their language in regards to my reality living in a more urban enrionment. And its not just about guns, its about the environment, education, infrastructure investments, taxes, etc . Honestly, this may be the root of the disconnect we see in our culture , ie Urban versus Rural.  

    "Life is short, our work lasts longer" Rose Wilder Lane

    by HarpLady on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:19:46 AM PST

    •  So Obama was basically wrong? (0+ / 0-)

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:23:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where do you get that? (4+ / 0-)

        That wasn't my interpretation of the comment at all.

      •  No, the presdient is not wrong. (9+ / 0-)

        My interpretation of his statement is that there needs to be a conversation, which I agree with.  My point is both sides are pretty tone deaf right now and I think this behavior is best illustrated with the gun control issues, but extends to others as well.  Listening is always the correct first step.

        "Life is short, our work lasts longer" Rose Wilder Lane

        by HarpLady on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:32:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you are reacting to his (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lcj98, buddabelly

          singling out gun control people telling them to listen.
          that is all this post is about; it is all he said. You;re issuing a bypass "yes but".

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:36:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  yes, he was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby

        because urban and suburban advocates of gun control have heard a lifetime's worth of the perspective of opponents of gun control. every presidential campaign, every time we have a massacre big enough for the media to notice, every time there's any possibility of regulating deadly weaponry, we hear their perspective.

        it's not that we don;t know that rural people hunt, or that gun nuts love their guns. we get that.

        the sort of regulation being discussed isn't about hunting, and won't infringe upon hunting. it never has been.

        obama is being a politician and stroking the identities of these gun owners in (vain) hopes that they'll be willing to consider the perspective of everyone else and maybe agree to a sensible compromise. it won't work, any more than any of the rest of these sort of attempts work.

        it's worth a try, i guess, but it's as bullshit as telling the left they need to be open to the ideas of the right, something the president loves to say in hopes of calming the right, who never ever has to consider the ideas, feelings or identity issues of the left.

        when have liberals and urbanites ever taken away hunting guns? when have they ever discussed it? it's a bullshit issue, kept alive by the NRA. if the prez thinks this will neutralize all that propaganda, so be it, but if rural gun owners still think gun control means they can't hunt, there's no fucking hope for them, they're blinkered and dumb. and if they hunt with a semi-automatic, they should be ashamed of themselves anyway for being crap hunters.

    •  I think the different context to people's (8+ / 0-)

      views is an important point that we should consider when trying to understand where the different perspectives may be coming from.

      My mother-in-law lives with us at the moment, and was reacting to the recent debate with incredulity that Americans would ever trust anyone who owned a gun and not shun them as suspicious.  A very extreme reaction, but then, she's an 86 year old Japanese woman, so she has a very different set of life experiences and values, not least the group rights over individual rights mindset that's more common in Asia, so I'm not using her reaction to do anything other than make a point about how differently people with different backgrounds can see the same issue.  (She was, however, rather adorable striking a martial arts pose to illustrate how she'd expect women to defend their homes.  Might work a lot better in an unarmed country like Japan, huh?  But it was still pretty cute.)

      Now, American in Bangkok :)

      by American in Kathmandu on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:50:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Urban folks also want guns (8+ / 0-)

      to protect themselves against current crime and criminals, and against a feared future breakdown of social order.  The failure of the government to adequately deal with urban crime is the proximate cause of the urge to urban "self defense", and is almost never addressed by the proponents of gun control.  In fact gun control advocates seem almost entirely unwilling to address crime and public safety first . . . leaving many gun owners even more convinced that personal defense is their only option.

      It is also a mistake to imagine that the only reason rural folks want guns is to hunt . . . most of them know just how far away the Sheriff is, and how long it will take help to arrive if needed.  They do not want to be left defenseless.

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:00:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Problem with the government dealing with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wednesday Bizzare

        urban crime is that there is no justice in this country.   Their idea of dealing with urban crime is to lock everybody up for little reason.   The war on drugs is an excuse.

        Then they spend millions on "prisoner re-entry programs"when all they have to do is quit making them.    Regardless your point is well taken.   Our country is so broken that nobody trusts it anymore  to do what's right.

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

        by dkmich on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:58:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  urban crime has been falling for decades (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dogs are fuzzy, notrouble

        the exact same period of time when people have stockpiled arsenals suitable for an extended civil war.

    •  Look at it this way. (7+ / 0-)

      A lot of people out here see someone swoop in, drinking their latte and wearing ironic vintage (or their sisters' jeans), telling them how to live and what they can't have, and they're stupid for being where they're from and doing what they do.  That's how "urban sensibility" comes across.  And it's not just the backwoods.  It's the unincorporated developments, the outlying suburbs, half of Long Island, and whatnot.

      It's one thing to raise rural problems with xenophobia and racism, quality of education and public services, etc., etc.  But there's just too much contempt from urban dwellers heading their way, and the gun issue is one of the top flashpoints in the divide.

      Look at it like this, what would happen if you waltzed into Pittsburgh and told everyone that you wanted the Steelers disbanded because of the risk of head injury in the NFL?

      •  And of course you realize the description.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby

        ..you just made of urban americans doesnt apply to anyone who lives in an urban area ? This is snark, correct ?  Because if this what rural folks think of urban americans, that that is problem number one.

        "Life is short, our work lasts longer" Rose Wilder Lane

        by HarpLady on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:24:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's some light snark, but not entirely. (7+ / 0-)

          There are plenty of hipsters in Park Slope.  And there are folks here that talk about mouth breathers from bum fuck.  To be fair, there are some rural Kossacks who say the same thing.

          The problem is that in general urban and rural voters have contempt for one another, and feel right at home telling each other how to live their lives.  To some extent that's warranted--on big issues that impact all of us no matter where we live and on lesser ones that truly threaten quality of life.  Guns, however, are not one of those issues; it's a debate driven almost entirely by sensationalization, emotion and caricature.

      •  On a related not, the President on football: (0+ / 0-)
      •  my whole life, the people telling us how to live (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby, vacantlook, Dogs are fuzzy

        have been rural southern and midwestern "heartland" voters and the politicians who stroke their egos have held them up as a model for all of us godless urbanites and unamerican coastal state residents.

        •  Urban dwellers give as good as they take (0+ / 0-)

          We get to tell them what to do plenty.  Some of these were essential to achieve a more perfect union and are almost never disparaged in polite society: Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Acts, the Voting Rights Act, etc.  Others were important, but still breed resentments; federal land management in Western states, for example, divides even Democrats.  

          •  civl rights act and voting rights act (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            124NewYork

            pertained to cities as well as rural areas, if you look at the VRA districts needing pre-approval, not a few of them are in urban neighborhoods. racism was never and is not a solely rural problem. i would be surprised if those bills did not pass with a significant number of rural liberal votes, many of them old school republicans now turned staunch democrats.

  •  When have they ever not done so? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, TomP, Catesby, exterris, gramofsam1, Debby

    The vast majority of gun control advocates have made repeated acknowledgement that they have absolutely no problem with hunters using rifles meant for hunting.

    If the 'rural'/'urban' divide is a big problem, then here's a simple solution.  Give individual municipalities the latitude to set all gun laws within their own borders.  If you're out in 'rural' areas, you're covered by laxer state and federal regulations, but as soon as you set foot in a municipality, you follow their laws, just as you did in the 'Wild West', where frequently you had to actually hand over your weapons to the sheriff for as long as you were in town.

    Rural folks don't usually need to bring hunting rifles into cities, so it shouldn't be any trouble at all for them, since their hunting weapons wouldn't even be in areas that disallow carry.

    •  No, the problem is with the other legitimate uses (5+ / 0-)

      of gun ownership.  The one that seems to come under the most fire is self defense.  Many posts here on DKos show an irrational fear that anyone who has guns for this purpose is a closet sociopath who is waiting for the opportune time to commit mass murder.  There also seems to be this misconception that it is possible to control the criminals and criminal access to weapons by placing restrictions on the average law abiding citizen.  It doesn't work.  

      You speak of when you come to an urban environment that one needs to follow laws.  Comments like this completely miss the target and misrepresent the problem.  There are those in the urban and rural environment who will NOT follow the laws, any laws, except the ones that they make up for themselves.  In contrast to this, are the legitimate gun owning people who do, most of whom have gone through legal process to obtain permits to possess guns in public.  99.98% of this group already obeys the laws and there is no need to pass more laws because they aren't the problem.  As long as gun control continues to focus on this group of people it will continue to be opposed.

    •  actually urban folks are only ok with the type (4+ / 0-)

      of hunting that they can define. Start talking coyote and mountain lion and there is an entirely different tune. Written in same key as gun control.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:03:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's an environmentalist issue. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby, Wednesday Bizzare

        Not a 'city' issue.

        If you actually believe that ecologies are complex things that depend upon the large predators to help keep them in balance, then you won't want humans simply killing off large predators that help keep other species in check.

        You don't have to live in either a city or the country to agree or disagree with such.

        •  good environmentalists often ask for predator (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wednesday Bizzare, FrankRose

          control esp coyote as once again, their apex predator, wolves, have been wiped out and in consequence coyote have run rampant all over the country.....

          When you lose as many animals to coyote as I have then you would understand. Hell they have tried to dig up my old guy I just lost 3 times now, once a big cat tried.....thats why I plant them deep here.

          Had a neighbor in Cal. lose their Bull Mastiff to a pack, in their back yard....lovely sight for the kiddies......

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:02:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Conservationists live in the city and the country (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          they have conserved all the public lands and wildlife. Environmentalists are a buncha friggin wankers crying and moaning about shit they are 100% clueless about.

          Oh, and there is no balance of nature. Google it, print it, tuck it under your pillow and absorb it by osmosis.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:56:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Give municipalities the ability to make their (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

      own ordinances re: gun control and other matters.  In Ohio, where I live, it's called Home Rule and most cities have a Home Rule Charter.  The problem is, the Ohio Supreme Court has gutted home rule on point after point, including gun control, such that it can be honestly stated, that we no longer have Home Rule in Ohio.  So in the abstract, you can support local rule by ordinances that make sense to the community, but if your political and legal institutions make that impossible, then it's just not something most cites can do.

      Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

      by Ohiodem1 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:16:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Urban residents need to understand paranoid wackos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, marvyt, Roadbed Guy

    live in rural areas and must have heavy firepower to feel secure in  their castle.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:31:31 AM PST

  •  He's right. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo

    People need to differeniate between NYC, Detriot, Chicago and the rural areas of KY, MT, MI.      Gun safety is the big issue.   How do we own "sport" guns (not talking about assault rifles or CWs) and keep them from falling into the wrong hands?    

    I went looking for a gun safe (not a gun case) on line.   They are expensive, big, and heavy (400 lbs); and they will only deliver them to the curb.     How would anyone ever get one into the basement of a home?   Wonder if they would even fit down and around the stairs?   Two men and a Truck?

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:38:46 AM PST

  •  I'm a rural gun owner. (12+ / 0-)

    I don't hunt, but hunting is a major part of my local economy. I personally benefit from hunting revenue both directly and indirectly. That personal benefit is a relatively small part of my relatively small income.

    The primary functions for the guns in my ownership are killing rattlesnakes and skunks.

    Personal defense?

    Meh, not so much other than against the snakes and skunks.

    Just me, but I don't see anything in the proposals by the president or submitted in Congress that threatens my Second Amendment rights or those of my neighbors.

  •  How many hunters need assault weapons? (8+ / 0-)

    Hunters are not the pronlem; gun fetishists are.   You don't need to fire 30 bullets to get a deer.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:46:23 AM PST

    •  They don't (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, Boris49, Kay Observer2, Catte Nappe

      but I undertand why many people do buy those type weapons.

      Go to any range, and you will see these type weapons.  They fire many rounds at targets.  I went to a range once with some friends and I will say that it was a hoot to shot the guns - and the high volume magazines just made it so you were not constantly reloading.

      I've been a proponent of limiting the capacity on magazines - yet, I understand that many people shoot for fun and that there may be a good common ground.

      I think it's counter-productive, considering how many high capacity magazines there are in circulation - to make law abiding people criminal for owning one.  Maybe they would have to be kept at a range - I don't havethe answers but I'm sure those smarter than me can come up with something.

      I think the New York law, while good intentiuoned - really is a shit piece of legislation for it allows those who own high capacity magazines to "sell them" to state which allow them over the next year rather than institute a buy back program.  

      IMHO, where I think the fear is with gun rights people is they feel that assault bans are just the first step to ultimately banning most weapons.  Find a way to ease those fears and you'll get many more on the side of sensible gun restrictions.

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ctexrep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:07:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not the full story (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kay Observer2, BachFan
        I think the New York law, while good intentiuoned - really is a shit piece of legislation for it allows those who own high capacity magazines to "sell them" to state which allow them over the next year rather than institute a buy back program.  
        The law, according to this official NYS site clearly indicates that you can either sell it to a dealer or a buyer in a state where the same are legal or you can modify the magazines so that they hold no more than the seven round legal limit, and you have a year to do so.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:20:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for your reasonable response. (7+ / 0-)

        My view is that people's enjoyment of the weapons at shooting ranges does not offset the risk such weapons create.  But thanks for your comment.    

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:34:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Over the Edge, BachFan

          and maybe if one chooses to participate in such shooting activities - then the gun must be stored at that licensed facility.

          I don't undertand the reason or the need but I try to understand why there are those who do and their reasons.

          Again, machine guns are "legal" but only to heavily licensed regulations - I think those regulations could be a model for assault type weapons.

          I can't remember the last time I heard of someone shooting upo a place with an automatic weapon.

          If our legislators worked off of a strength, the automatic weapons legislation could be a model.

          The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

          by ctexrep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:10:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hunters and gun enthusiasts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, OldSoldier99

      are sometimes one and the same.

      More often than not in my recent exposure to hunting economy.

      Cabelas, anyone?

      •  In some cases, perhaps, but hunters also (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Over the Edge, Debby, Dogs are fuzzy

        have kids and have seen the increase in mass shootings.  The NRA convinced some hunters that they had to be absolutists to protect their sport, but it' snot true.  My hope is many hunters can see the need for some regulation.

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:31:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  varmints of all sorts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Over the Edge, FrankRose

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:05:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That a lot of varmints! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby

        :-)

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:29:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  30 rounds for one varmint? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, Debby

        Anybody who's that bad a shot shouldn't be trusted with a rifle.

        •  Many times there are more than one. (0+ / 0-)

          Hence, the word 'pack'.

          Anybody who's willing to surrender liberty for percieved security shouldn't be trusted with either.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:34:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Please say more (0+ / 0-)

        I'm asking in the spirit of conversation, not rhetorically. I'm quite ignorant about varmint control. Therefore I need to be listening.

        How much capability would you lose if you had to reload after 3-10 shots?

        Are they typically multi-shot situations? Don't they run away after the first shot?

        Are high-capacity weapons relevant because you'll be dealing with multiple-target situations?

        The subject has come up before and it's relevant to understand if there are constructive uses for Bushmaster-type weapons and how important those are.

        •  Me personally, I prefer a scoped bolt action and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          one good shot. I do know people who watch the puffs of dust and correct as they shoot. Mostly for coyotes. I've heard pigs are a huge problem too. Pigs are much tougher than coyotes and I don't think people use what is commonly considered an AR on them. Some use the semi auto 308. I don't like semi autos because of jamming issues and the cost of the firearm itself is prohibitive.

          The reason people shoot varmints is for population control, so different ethics usually apply.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:44:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  semi automatics are very useful (3+ / 0-)

      When a mountain lion is dragging your pet goat over the fence in the middle of the night.  This really happened not far from here last winter.  And three cougars came into a neighbor's yard a couple of weeks ago.  Good thing her dogs were in the house.  A couple of years ago a co-worker heard a noise on his porch, turned on the light, and there was a cougar standing right there.  Another shot one that had killed one of her goats (cougars must really like goat) with a 22.  A 223 semi auto was bought the very next day.  Another friend lost over 20 sheep to a cougar--the state contract hunter never got the cat.

      A neighbor has lost several sheep to coyotes over the years.  I've had two lambs killed by a bobcat.

      The city/country divide is profound

    •  I see a logical inconsistency. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby

      Gun enthusiasts argue that the assault weapons ban is pointless, because defining 'assault weapons' is a matter of style, and has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of weapons, and that weapons not covered by the ban have the exact same capabilities...  They then claim this means there is no reason for such a ban, since it won't actually 'prevent' anyone from merely using another weapon to commit the exact same massacres.

      At the same time, I think anyone with half a brain can agree that no matter the original framers' intent as to things such as 'individual ownership', they obviously did write the bill with the actual capabilities of guns in mind - ie, if the guns weren't meant to be able to fend off attackers (again, whether you want to consider that in terms of criminals or foreign invaders is your choice) there would have been no point in even writing 2A.

      Given those two things, if you still have the same capabilities in any other weapon that you can legally possess, then banning different 'styles' of guns cannot possibly 'infringe' your second amendment rights.

      Limiting your choices to specific models does nothing to take away your ability to do the same amount of shooting, which is the reason the second amendment exists.  The Founding Fathers were not putting in the amendment simply to allow people to have 'decorative' guns, or guns they thought 'looked cool' or 'were more fun'.

  •  It's not just rural v. urban. (6+ / 0-)

    Every state in the union has 60+ percent urban population, thouh urban includes everything from the suburbs to micropolitans to emerging exurbs as well as the big cities.  

    Arizona, Vermont and New Hampshire gun culture isn't driven by a handful ranchers, and Nevada gun ownership isn't driven by hunting.

  •  it should be pointed out (5+ / 0-)

    that "hunting culture" is on the wane in this country, as young people are increasingly urbanized and increasingly uninterested in the sport. yes, there's still a lot of hunters, but their are proportionately less than there were 50 years ago.

    It used to be that the most vocal chunk of gun owners were hunters, but as that sport has declined and video games have become more popular, we now have a very vocal group of wanna-be GI-Joe's who use guns in target ranges or who collect them for political and/or identity reasons. That group has a completely different agenda than hunters.

    So while it's fine for Obama to acknowledge that hunters still need appropriate weapons, that group is a) shrinking b) no longer the primary group with influence in the gun community.

    •  Must it be interpreted so literally? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      I don't hunt, but I wouldn't want to see it undermined.   It is a value as much as it is a physical thing to do.

      What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

      by dkmich on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:04:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's just a hobby (0+ / 0-)

        We need to stop thinking of hunting as something that has some sort of mysterious "value" outside of being one of many recreational activities.

        •  it keeps deer populations down (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Debby, Dogs are fuzzy, FrankRose

          which, since we killed off most of the large predators, is helpful from an ecological standpoint. not sure that rises to constitutional rights level of value, but it is useful IMO.

          •  in Minnesota this year (0+ / 0-)

            they are preventing hunters from killing as many female deer because they think there are not enough of them.

            It's fine to use hunters when population control is really necessary, but in areas where predator populations are rebounding hunters will be less and less necessary.

            And I've said here before, research into birth control methods for deer has show some promise in recent years, but needs more funding. We can replace hunters when the time comes if we need to.

        •  I know people who feed themselves (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dogs are fuzzy

          by hunting. I don't know if it's a choice between having meat or not for them. Actually for some of them, it may be while for others, it's a preference thing. They could buy meat somewhere but prefer having venison. They represent a very small proportion of the people I know, but it's more than a hobby for them and, as wu ming points out, it serves a purpose. Appropriate guns for hunting don't really seem to be our national problem and I'd leave them be.

          An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

          by Debby on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:10:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the number of people who feed themselves (0+ / 0-)

            by hunting is very small outside of Alaska. And many who do, do so because of poverty. We should work on those issues first.

            There's a good argument to be made that Alaska needs more relaxed gun laws than the rest of the country, due to the nature of its wildlife and the heavy use of subsistance hunting, though I would point out northern canada seems to get along fine with the restrictions there.

            Most hunters in the lower 48 are tourists and nothing more.

            •  I don't know that that's true. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm in the Midwest. Like I said, the proportion is small but that shouldn't have bearing on whether it's allowed or not. Of those, if you called them tourists and hobbyists, I'd hate to hear their replies.

              I do support gun control (I may not be making myself clear because I'm a little shaky, just having got off the phone with my senators on the topic, particularly Roy F'ing Blunt's office) but I don't think we get to decide what's important to someone else's culture or livelihood. Hunters haven't been the problem. Arguing against them seems like a zero sum game.

              An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

              by Debby on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:56:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hunters are used as a shield against (0+ / 0-)

                gun control is a major part of the gun fetish movement. By evolving as a culture and recognizing that hunting is just a hobby - and yes, that's exactly what it is for 99% of the people who do it here in the lower 48 - we can make more rational decisions.

                Yes, it's tourism. That's all it is, regardless of how irrationally we as an over-militarized culture have elevated the practice.

    •  not according to the census (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, FrankRose

      up 9% in five years.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:06:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama channeling Howard Dean? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    They both happen to be correct on this issue.

    Of course, it's also consistent with how most people that I know feel. Not too many people I know have a problem with a lever-action 30-30, bolt-action 30-06, or a pump-action 12-gauge. In other words, with hunting guns.

    It is the teen-age boy fantasy, wanna-be Army Ranger semi-automatic assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns that most people have problems with.  None of which get used for hunting, and none of which could repel an oppressive US military.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:15:58 AM PST

  •  Once again we see that Obama is a pragmatist (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exterris, Chitown Kev, OldSoldier99, Debby

    who has to deal with ideologues. Good luck Mr. President, I hope your example shapes the next generation of politicians.

  •  Obama isn't now and never has been worrisome (7+ / 0-)

    It's the Shumers and Fienstiens that are the problem

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:16:49 AM PST

  •  Commentary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exterris, dkmich, wu ming, Catte Nappe

    There is, of course, a rural hunting culture.  Hunting typically involves rifles and shotguns, maybe an occasional handgun.  It does not involve rapid-fire military weapons, nor does it involve the pseudo-military culture that the owners of such weapons participate in.

    Furthermore, hunting is in decline.  While some of this is cultural, a big part of it is exurbanization.  Exurbanization is driven by a lot of the same values that drive the gun culture (none of which involve hunting, unless you count hunting humans).  And exurbanization chews up all of those places where people used to go hunting.  There is a lot of common ground between hunters and environmentalists -- the same SUV culture that is warming the planet is also promoting the loss of game lands in the United States.

    I personally don't care for hunting, but that's me.  I'm disinclined to tell someone else that they shouldn't enjoy it.

    •  I KNEW I was missing something. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boris49, OldSoldier99

      How do I get in on the pseudo-military culture I could be participating in? Is it on the google?

      lol.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:32:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exurbs and suburbs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kay Observer2, OldSoldier99

      are the market for the hunting economy in my rural area.

      Hunting culture is not just rural.

      Some folks hunt with semi-automatic rifles.

      I don't hunt so I don't know why some prefer semi-automatics, but some appear to.

      I favor a ban on such weapons, but I think it is a mistake to presume that hunting culture is isolated to rural citizens.

      •  However, it is getting more expensive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Over the Edge

        in part because exurb growth cuts into game territory.  Same for fishing.  This is just fine for some people: boutique hunters like Ray Schoenke.  The kind that wouldn't have a problem being the last legal hunters in the country.

        The choice of firearm for hunting depends largely where you hunt and what.  Semiautomatics rifles are the jack of all trades; they're good for big game and varmint, hog, and decent enough for turkey.

      •  "Semiautomatic" covers a lot of things (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Over the Edge, Dogs are fuzzy

        If it's a rifle that shoots hunting rounds and has a 7-round fixed magazine, it isn't exactly Rambo territory.  Apparently, the belief is that you really do get two or three shots at your game if you can get them off fast enough.  I don't hunt so I don't know if this is true, but I'll take the word of people who really hunt.

        Hunting culture isn't rural, but practically speaking that's where you go hunting.  I would frown on hunting in the preservation land strips between subdivisions, as it would tend to pot more suburbanites than deer and rabbits.

    •  This is a map of shotgun clubs in the USA (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, FrankRose

      Shotgun Clubs

      Look at the number of clubs along the heavily populated eastern corridor.  Tell me again how shooting is a rural activity?

      The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.  Never has been, although hunting has been used as a justification for "keeping" arms by both sides.

      It is difficult to estimate the number of people who participate in clay bird shooting in the USA.  I couldn't give an accurate assessment beyond saying that "Millions", including President Obama, have done so.

      There are also, dozens of other shooting disciplines that are fast-growing firearms sports.  Cowboy shooting, 3-gun, long-range precision, bullseye, etc.  Competitive shooting is ubiquitous.

  •  I don't need the president or anyone to (0+ / 0-)

    tell me to respect the rural gun culture. Patronizing claptrap.

  •  Uh-oh. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buddabelly, FrankRose
    And that means that advocates of gun controls have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.
    Now he's gone and done it.  The self-professed proudly ignorant absolutists will now be calling for POTUS to be banned.
  •  as if there's a difference (0+ / 0-)

    As if there's a difference between a gun-filled rural area and a gun-filled urban area: either way you're surrounded by people both willing and able to kill.

    Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

    by Visceral on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:38:04 AM PST

  •  Of course in some states there (0+ / 0-)

    is a gray area as to where rural ends and urban starts:

    Hunter charged in shooting of Md. daycare center

    But if in doubt, always err on the side of the Second Amendment I say - what the fuck were they doing building a Day Care Center in Deer Hunting territory anyways?

  •  The funny part is that my rural, gun-owning (0+ / 0-)

    friends, while suspicious of gun control, generally agree that some limitations on personal firearm ownership are necessary and appropriate, and that not everybody needs to be walking around with a Bushmaster.

    The people I know who are totally absolutist on the issue, to the point of insisting that you do TOO have a God-given right to own artillery, are all urban hipsters. No, they don't live in bad neighborhoods.

    Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

    by eataTREE on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:15:42 PM PST

  •  My only criticism of Obama is the venue he chose (0+ / 0-)

    Choosing the New Republic as the vehicle to deliver the message that the President respects rural gun culture in the gun control debate....something about that rankles me.  The message would have been more potent, and the message would have been heard by more 'rural gun culture' folks, if were delivered, say, at a state wildlife conservation organization meeting or to NWF.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site