We’ve had a few responses to Bill Schneider’s column in The New West. First, at The Ten Ring. Ride Fast also has a pretty good fisking of it. Bill is actually someone I wouldn’t mind having a debate with, because I’d really like to understand his thinking. I mean, I get that some people aren’t single issue gun voters. What I don’t get is why guys like Schneider deride the voting choices of people who do feel that way.
It’s Bill Schneider’s right to think the Second Amendment is not important. That is what he is saying, despite what he says. When you aren’t voting on it, that means it’s not that important to you, and if you voted for Barack Obama, you voted against the Second Amendment. Here’s Schneider’s conclusion:
Don’t alienate the majority of gun owners. Don’t automatically dismiss gun owners with sincere suggestions because they don’t perfectly match your doctrine. Don’t instantly shoot this commentary full of freedom holes, which I’m sure you can do, at least until you think about it. Have you just read a mainstream strategy for growing the constituency willing to help you protect our right to bear arms?
I have. I’ve thought about it a lot Bill. But how do I build a coalition with someone like yourself who is not willing to actually do the things necessary to preserve it? I mean, pretty clearly we agree on some things, especially if you think there shouldn’t be a new Assault Weapons Ban. But you voted for a guy who advocates passing exactly that. How do I build a coalition with you if you vote against our interests? I’d really like to understand that.
Your comments here, and the dissection of the article at Ride Fast, are some great commentary. Sadly, a lot of motivated but not very intelligent people on “our side” are commenting on his article, and probably doing more harm than good. (e.g. somebody referred to the late Mr. Heston as still being alive and afflicted with Alzheimers.) I wish there more of “us” who had your ability to debate rationally.
1. I thought recent numbers showed sport shooters/EBR owners as the “majority of gun owners”.
2. If he’s so sure his commentary can be shot full of “freedon holes”, he must know full well he’s for gun control.
He loses me when he says, “Losing some of my gun rights doesn’t make my top twenty concerns.” – who knew there are some rights it’s OK to lose? Like, there are parts of my wristwatch it’s ok to lose, after all it will still be correct twice a day.
Which “some gun rights” are they I wonder? Then he tells me it’s that “military-style rifles taint the image of the hunter when used for hunting.” – so he’s more worried about his image being tainted than his (or our) Rights. Right, a manly *Filson* plaid hunting-hat – that’s the image I get…
Had a conversation with one of them in gun store. He was selling his Kimber because he had arthritis. Broken down his argument was that Hussein wasn’t going to take his guns – after all he has a DPMS AR clone. An older voter who just hated Bush so much. He voted for Hussein because he was going to change things.
The only reason people this stupid are alive is because Darwin isn’t as cold-hearted as he used to be. I suspect he will still be complaining that he voted for change as he is being marched up the cattle car ramp.