Santorum Doesn't Get It
Robert Lux makes note of a 2nd Amendment test for politicians in his post "Thoughts About Cleavage." He writes:
The absolute first thing I want to know about a person is where they stand on guns. This is a better quick n' dirty read on a person than God or any other issue. "Pro-gun" = more likely to be realistic about good and evil, as self-preservation is our most primary right.
I really liked his description. I think he hit the nail on the head and drove it home in one strike. And that is why my reservations about Rick Santorum were strengthened within 5-10 seconds of browsing his campaign website. The top issue on his issues page is the 2nd Amendment. It's placement at the very top of his list of positions is favorable, but then I read where he actually stands.
Coming from Pennsylvania, a state with a rich heritage of hunting and fishing, Senator Santorum understands firsthand the importance of preserving our constitutionally protected rights found in the 2nd Amendment. Senator Santorum fights to preserve this tradition, and will work to ensure these rights are not infringed upon.
Rick Santorum is wrong. My 2nd Amendment rights are not about my ability to shoot ducks and deer. Most states so severely restrict and regulate game hunting that no level of access to weaponry would make game hunting sufficient to provide sustenance for a family, and so it does not protect hunting for food as a fundamental right. The 2nd Amendment certainly does not exist to protect my right to hunting as a sport. My right to bear arms guarantees a more fundamental right: the right to protect and preserve my own life and the lives of my family. It exists as my defense against burglars, bandits, and even armed invasion if the government is not adequate or timely in providing that protection. It exists, ultimately and in the very last case, to protect me and my family from the government should it ever become destructive to the ends of life and liberty. Rick Santorum does not get this, and because he does not get it, he will not get my vote.
- Comment (69)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Dec '11
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
I've always detested the "hunting rights" formulation. The "tradition" behind the Second Amendment is the tradition of defense against tyranny. The Minutemen didn't lay down their lives at Lexington and Concord to protect their right to bag turkeys.
Aug '11
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Yeah, but it's not like he can actually phrase it that way. By keeping the focus on the hunting aspect, he doesn't freak out rural Democrats as badly.
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Rural Democrats be damned. This is the last refuge of liberty we're talking about.
Dec '11
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Exactly!
King Prawn, if you had the chance to discuss the 2nd Amendment with Santorum, do you seriously doubt that he would disagree with you? Seriously?
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Rex Mottram
Exactly!
King Prawn, if you had the chance to discuss the 2nd Amendment with Santorum, do you seriously doubt that he would disagree with you? Seriously? · Jan 4 at 12:33pm
All I have are his own words on his website. His history as a legislator is not well enough known to me (yet), but the general impression I get from him is that he lacks the fundamental understanding of limited government and liberty as the primary right of man.
Aug '11
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Besides, Santorum is going to have enough problems with CBS badly (and knowingly) misquoting him so they can convince people he's racist.
Aug '11
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
The upper midwest has a crapload of rural folks who still vote Democrat by habit, even though they are personally conservatives. Their fathers voted Democrat, their gandfathers voted Democrat, and bygawd they will vote Democrat, too. It's going to take an awful lot of deprogramming to get these people to reconsider the family tradition.
But they hunt. If you focus on hunting, you speak their language. John Kerry lost a lot of votes when he bragged to a Green Bay audience that he always enjoyed "crawling through the woods on his belly" when he went out deer hunting. Everyone instantly knew he was a fake. You don't crawl on your belly through the woods while deer hunting. You climb up into your tree stand with a six pack and some beef jerky and you sit there for hours on end.
May '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Well said, Prawn.
I sympathize with that argument, Drew and Rex. But when a Republican muddies the conservative position on something like this, he makes it more difficult for us when that issue takes center stage in Congress. The last thing we need is a candidate who feeds Democrats ammo for legislative battles so that he can sneak by swing voters during elections.
Sure, what legislation he supports is more important than how he campaigns, but half of winning legislative battles is getting constituents to agree with you.
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Drew, I saw an article not long ago that referred to deer season in the upper midwest as fielding the largest standing army on earth...
May '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Actually, Drew, most old-school Democrats I have known understand the 2nd Amendment as it was intended. The reason they support Democrats is because they are pro union, pro minimum wage, hate big business, etc.
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
If the 2nd Amendment is the first waypoint as Robert Lux suggests and Santorum misses it, then where exactly does his ultimate trajectory lead?
Oct '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
TKP - thanks for the largely working links.
The 2nd Amendment thing doesn't worry me so much. It's things like this:
What can this possibly mean? Apart from a blank cheque for protectionists drawn on the Bank of Faux National Security?
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
genferei: TKP - thanks for the largely working links.
The 2nd Amendment thing doesn't worry me so much. It's things like this:
What can this possibly mean? Apart from a blank cheque for protectionists drawn on the Bank of Faux National Security? · Jan 4 at 1:12pm
Sounds almost Pauline in the isolationism. His seems to include a trade isolationism as well. I can see it being very easy for Santorum to be represented as a kook.
Nov '11
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
We have a friend of the family who's an outspoken Democrat. When she's trying to sound all "reasonable" about gun control, she says something to the effect that she doesn't have a problem with hunting. I've always taken it to be an attempt to redefine gun rights in terms of "sporting purposes" so as to trivialize them.
I think it's a tell when she does it. I don't know about Santorum.
Jun '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Would it be better if Santorum's site said that the reason the 2nd Amendment is important is that Americans reserve the right to overthrow their government by armed insurrection and kill those who would stand in their way? Let me know if you think that would play well.
Jun '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
I think everyone is picking nits here and looking for reasons not to support Santorum. It's a fun parlor game isn't it?
Jun '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
The King Prawn
genferei: TKP - thanks for the largely working links.
The 2nd Amendment thing doesn't worry me so much. It's things like this:
What can this possibly mean? Apart from a blank cheque for protectionists drawn on the Bank of Faux National Security?
Sounds almost Pauline in the isolationism. His seems to include a trade isolationism as well. I can see it being very easy for Santorum to be represented as a kook.
Holy-stretch-things-out-of-context, Batman! What happens if China becomes a military adversary in a regional or global war and we (and many of high tech companies in Western Europe) have spent the better part of 25 years relying on them for critical electronic parts? Think of it like the strategic oil reserve. Santorum's position is that we've relinquished so much of our manufacturing capability to potential adversaries that it could actually present a national security threat at some time in the future. Where does he advocate a trade war or protectionism?
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
It would be appropriate to base his stand on the 2nd Amendment as a right to self defense. The Revolution was not fought for a right to kill geese and pheasant. He can leave it to the reader to determine what threats the government does not adequately protect from.
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
I'm a grumpy old man way before my time, at least according to my wife and kids.
Dec '10
Re: Santorum Doesn't Get It
Brian Watt
The King Prawn
Sounds almost Pauline in the isolationism. His seems to include a trade isolationism as well. I can see it being very easy for Santorum to be represented as a kook.
Holy-stretch-things-out-of-context, Batman! What happens if China becomes a military adversary in a regional or global war and we (and many of high tech companies in Western Europe) have spent the better part of 25 years relying on them for critical electronic parts? Think of it like the strategic oil reserve. Santorum's position is that we've relinquished so much of our manufacturing capability to potential adversaries that it could actually present a national security threat at some time in the future. Where does he advocate a trade war or protectionism? · Jan 4 at 4:03pm
It sounds as though he wants to be fully self sufficient. That comes off as either an isolationist or a protectionist screed. I think it's probably just poorly worded more than anything. I fully support maintaining our own capabilities in critical areas and not becoming dependent on others as we have with fuels. The case could, however, be presented better.