June 07, 2006

Second Amendment To What?

I was probably going to let it slide. As you may have noticed from the lack of regular posting things have been busy for me. So when I received an e-mail from Hugh Hewitt asking me to support ten Republican senators who need all the help they can get I toyed with writing about it but got caught up in other things.

Then last night I heard part of a radio ad. It was Hugh & he was explaining why it was important to support DeWine. I'd heard the arguments before - that losing too many seats mean the democrats have control, etc... But then he touched upon a new one. After Hugh said something about disagreeing with DeWine occasionally he went on that DeWine was 80% solid with the Republicans. He said that DeWine was pro-life, pro-something I can't recall & pro-2nd amendment.

In the post Stupid Party Versus Doctor No I listed some of the activities of allegedly pro-2nd amendment DeWine.

To hit some of the highlights DeWine wants to require you to buy a lock with every handgun purchase; to shut down every gun show in the u.S.; to let the AG look into limiting cartridge/ammo selection via the "cop killer bullet" ban; make you liable for any firearms unsecured on your own property & he'd repeal the Smalls decision (Smalls stated that a conviction in a foreign court is not applicable to determining if a person should be prohibited from arms possession or ownership).

& oh yeah - DeWine voted for the "assault weapon" ban renewal back in 2004 & he's a friggin’ co-sponsor for DiFi's 2005 version of the "assault weapon" ban.

Gun Owners of America rates him with an "F".

I can understand the argument that even a bad R is better than a decent D. I don't necessarily agree with it but I can see it making sense to some folk. But what Hugh is doing would be akin to trying to convince me to vote for Stalin because he's anti-death penalty with the added implication that his Romulan opponents were even less anti-death penalty than Stalin.

Really. I mean really. I could be understanding (to a degree) when Hugh thought that the "assault weapon" ban covered machineguns. I held my tongue whenever Hugh would disparage good musicians. I even refrained from calling whenever he'd make fun of NASCAR (not that I'm a fan, but a defense of NASCAR & other cultural institutions of the South is an almost Pavlovian reflex). But Hugh claiming DeWine is pro-2nd amendment is a lie. I'll give Hugh the benefit of the doubt & assume he does not realize it, but a falsehood told in ignorance is just as damaging as one told in malevolence.

DeWine simply cannot be construed as being pro-2nd amendment when he has supported so many bills that disregard the 2nd amendment. Shutting down gun shows, making gun owners liable for criminal &/or negligent acts of others & supporting a ban on firearms based upon cosmetics is not a way to show support of an amendment protecting such things from governmental intervention.

But I'll let ya'll be the judge. Can anyone tell me if DeWine could be considered pro-2nd amendment (& I mean 2nd amendment to the u.S. constitution)?

Posted by Publicola at June 7, 2006 04:47 AM | TrackBack

"Hugh Hewitt=party hack"

There are far too many people in the Republican Party who will sit there and twist and contort theirs and others' positions to convince freedom-loving people like us to vote for them. Hewitt seems to be one of them, and I've thought that long before now.

Posted by: the pistolero at June 7, 2006 07:48 AM

Hugh Hewitt = Tool

Hugh only cares that Republicans are elected. Period. Nothing else matters.

He could care less about actual freedom, liberty, and that sort of sundry stuff.

Posted by: anonymous at June 9, 2006 11:35 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?