Hillary Get Your Gun
How much more disgusting can Hillary Clinton get?
Here she is (according to Huffington Post) in Indiana, responding to Obama's oh-so-outrageous "elitist" comment that he thinks bitter, frustrated people focus too much on their guns, their religion, and their prejudice against immigrants. Hillary loves her firearms so passionately that she can channel Charlton Heston:
You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.I think any people for whom killing defenseless animals is an important part of who they are ought to be kept as far away from guns — and the White House — as possible.
You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.
Aren't sentiments like Hillary's exactly what's wrong with this damn country?
Hey, Exterminator, I enjoyed reading this.
31 comments:
I disagree. I don't shoot or hunt (though I admit I own a shotgun which sits in the closet), nor did anyone in my nuclear family. But the relatives in the Midwest did and do. Isn't it more honest to kill your own food than to go to Safeway for a sanitized package of meat?
To me it's more reprehensible to pretend we don't know that the animal that shrink-wrapped grocery store pork chop came from was raised in disgusting inhumane conditions in a factory farm, contributing greatly to the country's pollution in many ways throughout its lifecycle before being brutally slaughtered.
Frankly I'm a gun control advocate and I think the second amendment needs modification, but not because people hunt for some of their food.
slut:
Well, it's the old "people need to hunt for their food" argument. Guess what? We're no longer a hunter-gatherer society throwing spears at sabre-toothed tigers. Most gun-lovers have other ways of getting meat. They use high-powered rifles with the latest sighting technology to shoot and kill helpless critters for sport. That's like having a boxing match with an 8-month-old.
By the way, I said nothing about gun control in this post. Although I'm not really happy about it, I do think people have a Constitutional right to own guns. I just find it disgusting that so many Americans are enamored of their firearms. How can shooting conceivably be construed as an important part of who a civilized person is?
Hilary shot a man just to watch him die.
Frankly, the American approach to gun control makes no sense to me at all. You can have a gun for hunting in New Zealand, but there are strict rules about getting a license, not keeping the gun in the same place as your ammunition, etc. I really don't get this whole 'having a gun is an important constitutional right' thing. Oh, I know where it comes from, but frankly, if you need a gun to protect yourself from a tyrannical state, your country and/or constitution probably has bigger problems.
Ex
I agree. This is pretty shameless.
Channelling Charlton Heston, great phrase.
I dunno Ex... I'm thinking maybe it's time for lots of people with guns to be converging on the White House.
I don't know about "disgusting," but I tend to agree with you about the hunting thing. Taking pleasure in killing seems more a feature of psychopathy than a quality I'd want in a President. Still, I think it is fairly obvious that she is pandering and not herself a gun-nut.
I think what you have to ask yourself is whether you find her policies any less objectionable than those of McCain. It would be hard for me to swallow voting for her, but I would do so if I thought it would help keep McCain out of office.
I don't find hunting "disgusting" in any substantially different way from any other meat-industry practice. Meat always involves the sudden death of an animal, but I tend to think the average slaughterhouse combines that sudden death with more anxiety than hunting does. Still, I do not hunt, because wild animals are not closely monitored for parasites and disease - two things I prefer not to worry about while cooking.
If you have a problem with hunting because of the animal's death, it's not the gun that is the central negative aspect of hunting.
I am Canadian, and we have some fairly intrusive regulations about owning guns, so I do not own one. I have fired guns on several occasions - at paper targets.
I enjoy going to a shooting range in much the same way I enjoy driving my car on a winding road or playing the piano - all are difficult tasks which involve practice, patience, and attention to detail.
I also believe that part of the reason people shoot guns at each other as teens & adults is because they are not introduced to real guns at an early age. I fired my first gun when I was in grade seven - a .22 pistol - after a lecture on gun safety at the local "YMCA" gun range. The experience gave me an enormous respect for firearms, and I have never broken any of the rules I was taught on that occasion.
By insulating the population from firearms, we transform guns into fetish objects. They become exciting and forbidden fruit, rather than just a sophisticated, potentially dangerous power-tool (like a gas lawn-mower or chain-saw).
I think exposure to guns is an important part of growing up, just like owning a bicycle or being permitted to take the bus to the mall by oneself. When we withhold experiences from our children, we make those experiences more attractive and we surrender our control over how our children will obtain those experiences.
I'd rather take my child to a gun range to shoot than have them sneak off with a peer group that had access to firearms. It isn't the firearm - it's the context in which the firearm is used.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't give you the right or responsibility to regulate or restrict the actions of others that you don't understand.
Hunting and fishing are a perfectly normal part of our lives. We don't "need" to hunt in the original sense, however we are genetically predisposed to hunting and fishing.
Also consider what your reasons are for feeling this way? Are you just blindly parroting the opinions of your family or do you have some rational reason for feeling this way?
They way you dismissed a huge portion of the populations opinions and beliefs off hand because you don't understand them shows a level of intolerance that I've only seen mirrored in religion.
Anonymous:
I don't find hunting "disgusting" in any substantially different way from any other meat-industry practice.
Well, here it is again: Hunting is just an "honest" way of obtaining meat. That's just a lie. People who love guns enjoy using those guns. They revel in the act of hunting; they don't go hunting because they need its results. That is: gun-lovers love killing things; they think killing is fun!
I also believe that part of the reason people shoot guns at each other as teens & adults is because they are not introduced to real guns at an early age.
I believe that part of the reason people shoot guns at each other as teens & adults is that they're not introduced to civilization at an early age.
Roe:
Just because you don't understand something doesn't give you the right or responsibility to regulate or restrict the actions of others that you don't understand.
I guess you didn't bother to read any of the comments here, because it's so much more fun to just shoot off your mouth. Even there, you can't resist shooting, huh? I didn't mention gun regulation in this post.
Also consider what your reasons are for feeling this way?
My reasons for feeling this way are: I think if you get some enjoyment out of killing for fun you're a fucking psycho. That's what my reasons are for feeling this way.
You didn't mention gun regulations but that is the natural conclusions of your arguments. Let me also say that I am for stricter gun laws in the U.S. but you are obviously off your rocker.
Next explain to me how a human being that enjoys hunting is a "fucking psycho"? I find it funny that as a writer you didn't bother to take the time to expound on my questions with rational responses. You just got all riled up and called people names like some kind of petulant child.
So do tell me is there a brain in the petulant child that is authoring these posts? If so do please take a second and try to articulate your argument so that we may better understand your feelings and reasoning.
Regards from your friendly gun toting non-hunting "Fucking Psycho".
Roe
Roe:
First of all, there's a big difference between drawing "natural conclusions" and putting words in other people's mouths. It's amazing how easily offended gun-lovers become when you insult their objects of veneration. But killing things for fun doesn't bother them at all.
OK, here's my full position on guns. I'll try to spell this out clearly, so even you can understand.
I believe that the right to own a gun is protected by the Second Amendment. But I also believe that gun-ownership can be regulated under certain circumstances without that regulation being unconstitutional. For example, a mentally disturbed person doesn't necessarily have a right to own a gun, nor does a convicted felon. I also believe that the constitutional right to own a gun in the abstract doesn't necessarily extend to all kinds of firearms.
Now, as to hunting. If people hunt to feed themselves, I have no objection. I, too, am a meat-eater. But to take pleasure in it, to revel in its "sport," to actually enjoy the act of killing is sick, sick, sick. Most NRA-ers deny that such is the case for them. But if you've ever heard hunters talk amongst themselves -- as I have -- you'll find that the gaming aspect is far more important to most of them (not all) than the meat-obtaining aspect. They're out there for a good time.
It's dishonest for gun-lovers to say that they don't actually like killing anything, that they just enjoy the thrill of the hunt. I enjoy the thrill of hunting birds, but I do it with binoculars.
It's an undeniable fact that many Americans just swoon with pleasure over their guns. A gun's sole purpose, the reason it's manufactured, is to kill things.
If a person is just into the sport of target-shooting, he or she could use a water pistol or an air rifle or a paint gun, not a lethal object.
I'm opposed to wanton slaughter done for no other real reason than for pleasure. I think such opposition should be the norm for civilized human beings; but you think I'm "off [my] rocker". If I am, then killing for fun is normal to you. That would make you a fucking psycho in my book.
But humans are naturally predators. Do you imagine primitive people in Africa who NEED to hunt for their food take no pleasure in the hunt and kill?
That seems unlikely.
slut:
Do you imagine primitive people in Africa who NEED to hunt for their food take no pleasure in the hunt and kill?
I think they would take great pleasure -- because they understand the outcome: food. I'm also fairly certain that they don't possess high-powered weapons with the latest in optical technology that they bought at a fancy "sporting goods" store.
Also, a primitive hunter in Africa (why is it always Africa?) is not posing, the way Hillary is, as someone qualified to be a world leader. I would never vote for a primitive hunter to be president of the United States.
Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth, "If I am, then killing for fun is normal to you" I never said that killing for fun is normal to me.
I do however have a bit more sophisticated opinion on this subject than you do. I believe that as predators human beings have a natural instinct to kill prey animals. This drive is stronger in some than in others, and in some it's out of control. Some people do feel that killing animals is fun but at the same time they eat all that they hunt, are they "Fucking Psychos" as you so eloquently put it? Hunting is a natural part of nature and mankind is natures best predator, and men and women that take up this role are acting as nature would dictate, to say otherwise would put man above or outside of nature which is just human ignorance and arrogance dictating a position.
Some people truly don't respect the prey animals and go out and kill 20-30 rabbits for fun or slaughter every coyote that they see, this is sad to me but I don't feel that they are Psycho. They are just different than I am and were raised differently than I was. As long as they stay within the laws and frameworks that Fish and Game sets out for their hunting I will respect their actions as their right to pursue happiness.
You are very quick to condemn people who hunt and you have a very narrow viewpoint when it comes to this issue. I'll stick around to see this conversation through so that you can better hone your position, and me mine, however once that is done I don't think I'll have much use for your blog. Someone so childish has nothing to teach me.
Roe:
I don't think I'll have much use for your blog. Someone so childish has nothing to teach me.
I'm not in the teaching business, so you ought to demand a refund from whomever charged you for this class.
I do however have a bit more sophisticated opinion on this subject than you do.
No, I don't think you do. I think your argument is about as unsophisticated as one could get.
One of the results of humans' evolutionary development is our ability to override our allegedly "natural instincts." That's why there isn't widespread rapine and looting in the streets.
People who "go out and kill 20-30 rabbits for fun or slaughter every coyote that they see" are sick. It doesn't matter how you feel; killing animals for fun, at this stage in our evolution, is recognized as a sign of mental dysfunction.
As long as they stay within the laws and frameworks that Fish and Game sets out for their hunting I will respect their actions as their right to pursue happiness.
Well, now you're making a legalistic argument, which I definitely did not do. But I'll clue you in on something: Not all laws are good ones. And, just for your edification, there is no general "right to pursue happiness." Also, in case you were wondering: Happiness is not a warm gun.
[Y]ou have a very narrow viewpoint when it comes to this issue.
Yup, I do. Killing for fun is sick. Period. That's about as specific -- "narrow," if you will -- as I can get.
Ex, Your unsupported premise seems to be that all or most US hunters are killing only or primarily for some type of sadistic "fun". I don't think that taking pleasure in the hunt quite equates to being mentally ill. Here's an interesting page of essays on the ethics of hunting. The main page (linked at bottom) has more.
And what about fishing? Is sport fishing okay? Or are fishermen dangerous lunatics, too? LOL
You put me in the weird position of defending hunters here.
In any case, all Hillary is doing is pandering to the gun-toting Republican rednecks. Now that's sick. And I would not vote for her regardless of her hunting proclivities.
slut:
Ex, Your unsupported premise seems to be that all or most US hunters are killing only or primarily for some type of sadistic "fun".
Well, I'd argue that my premise is supported by a lack of evidence to the contrary.
The essays referred to on the hunting page, a few of which I'd already read in various collections of nature writing, state many different opinions -- some of which actually support my postition. In any case, let me remind you that a long list of articles in favor of some belief does not necessarily substantiate the rightness or wrongness of that belief. As an atheist, you should know that very well.
Is sport fishing okay?
I'm not convinced that it is. I will say, however, that many sports fishermen and fisherwomen practice catch-and-release; the fish aren't killed. But also, more germane to my post: There's no Cult of Fishing Rods in this country comparable to our Religion of Gun-Worship.
You put me in the weird position of defending hunters here.
Nah, I didn't put you in that position. You chose it.
I only wrote a short anti-Hillary comment because I agree that Hillary is pandering to the -- your words -- "gun-toting Republican rednecks." So how do you distinguish between those "gun-toting Republican rednecks" and the rest of the gun-adoring population?
It's strange that Hillary is "pandering to the gun-toting Republican rednecks." These, like some of the religious nuts to whom she is pandering, are pretty far-right wingers who are not very likely to vote Republican. A smart candidate would be wise not to ignore the sensible middle and take their votes for granted. McCain appeals to the middle too.
It's amazing how everyone seems to have latched onto the gun aspect of Obama's original statement, and Hillary's rejoinder. Even your original post, Ex, places the emphasis in the wrong place (although clearly so did Hillary, and perhaps that's your point).
You said:
Here she is (according to Huffington Post) in Indiana, responding to Obama's oh-so-outrageous "elitist" comment that he thinks bitter, frustrated people focus too much on their guns, their religion, and their prejudice against immigrants. (my emphasis)
Here's what Obama actually said:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
The way I read this, Obama did not say that when they get bitter, they focus too much on their guns (or religion, or what have you), he said that when the economics of their small town, working class life becomes frustrating, and Washington continues to ignore them election after election after promising to help them, they find solace, from their bitterness at being ignored, in other pursuits. Some in religion, some with their guns, some look to blame outsiders, or economic policies they have no control over. That doesn't mean they "focus too much" on those things, just that it's all they have to focus on when Washington, and the politicians there who previously curried their votes, ignore them.
So now, ironically, everyone here is doing just what Obama said: finding solace in the old gun control issue, and sniping at the other side. Hillary actually is playing into that, which is just a nice way of distracting us from real issues that should be discussed in the campaign, and are not. Guns are here to stay, as are hunters. Some like them, some don't. Until we revise the 2nd Amendment, there's not a lot we can do about it.
In the meantime, let's elect someone who will end the madness in Iraq, reign in the out of control corporate interests favored by the Republicans, figure out how to get a more equitable health care system that helps everybody, not just those that can afford it, stop borrowing against our children's future, etc, etc, etc.
Let's not be fooled by someone who panders to the NRA crowd.
SI:
Great comment.
Let's not be fooled by someone who panders to the NRA crowd.
My point exactly, although I went a step further. In my opinion, the NRA crowd does not represent a value that's healthy for this or any country. Despite its protestations to the contrary, the NRA represents barbarity and a certain blood-thirsty attitude that's rife in our culture. The current administration has been reveling in that attitude, milking it for all it's worth, ever since 9/11.
Hillary has now jumped on board.
Boy, I take some "me" time and look at all this action!
I think any people for whom killing defenseless animals is an important part of who they are ought to be kept as far away from guns — and the White House — as possible.
Teddy Roosevelt wasn't half bad, was he? ;)
Point is, I see no problem with gun ownership or hunting, unless it's something pathetic like what Cheney TRIED to do (being limoed to a spot where birds are released from a cage to be shot ain't hunting). The "killing defenseless animals" crowd has to ease off, especially if they dare consume any flesh on a regular basis, and the gun crowd has to realize there has to be some regulation of their guns.
There, now on to Hillary. What can you say? Despicable, but typical. I'm surprised she's latching on to the gun thing. I thought she'd be concentrating on either the religion thing or that stupid crap of "the Americans I know aren't bitter". Yeah, because the Americans YOU know are rich, you stupid bitch.
Hmmm... I have to say I agree most with Philly (big surprise, huh?). :)
I don't like the idea of killing animals for pleasure, but the fact is that we eat meat for pleasure. If we wanted to not kill animals we could come up with a way to be vegetarian and still have all of our essential nutrients. But we haven't reached that point yet as a society. And there are many other problems that go along with it such as what do we do with our domesticated food stock or overpopulation of a species?
So saying that hunting is bad, but eating meat isn't, because as an individual I don't have to kill the animal is a little hypocritical.
Now, saying that, I don't equate the two. There is a difference. But while I don't like the idea of killing animals, it does seem more honest to kill an animal myself than to have someone do it for me. And it's likely that an animal suffers less from the hunter than from the slaughterhouse.
Also, nice post, SI.
Philly, OG:
I want to put this "defenseless animals" and "slaughterhouse" business to rest.
I should have left the words "defenseless animals" out of my post. It added an extraneous idea. The line should have read: I think any people for whom killing is an important part of who they are ...
Not knowing anyone who works in a slaughterhouse, I can only guess that it would be abnormal for a slaughterhouse worker to actually enjoy the process of killing animals. It's not the actual killing that I object to; it's the sport of it, the fun of it, the sheer enjoyment that so-called outdoorsmen get by lining up an animal in their sights in order to -- as one rifle ad says in its tough-guy style -- "hit 'em hard." If you go look at gun ads, you'll see that they're not about feeding your family.
Hunters have an expression they use that means reaching the legal limit for the species they're tracking. They call it: being "killed out." That's not about feeding your family, either.
Now, the question we should ask Hillary is: did she eat those bunnies she shot? Of course, the Republicans might ask her if she ate Vince Foster.
And I'm saying, I don't see a problem with "lining up an animal in their sights". I don't care for the machismo affirmation of one's prowess by parading the carcass around. I think if there's no guilt felt at all by hunters when they kill, maybe there's something wrong with them, but then again, maybe all that machismo "woo-hoo"ing and high-fiving is just a way to mask to their friends they're actually sobbing like little girls inside for just putting one between the eyes of Bambi. :)~
I'm not a big fan of hunting, either. But, seriously, folks, the real evil here is the livestock industry. I mean, not only is it cruel and barbaric but it contributes more man-made greenhouse gases than all forms of transport combined (U.N. Agricultural report). Talk about the worst of both worlds, huh?
"They revel in the act of hunting; they don't go hunting because they need its results."
Where am I going to get my venison if someone doesn't shoot a deer? My Grandfather used to make his own sausage from the deer he hunted. It was awesome. Are there domestic deer farms? One would imagine there must be.
If I scoop a bunch of crawfish out of a swamp and then boil them alive, is that any less barbaric because it doesn't involve a gun? What if I buy them (alive) from someone else? I certainly don't need the crawfish, except on a purely spiritual level.
"Killing for fun is sick."
What about cockroaches? I absolutely do "revel" in killing roaches. Admittedly, I probably take a little too much pleasure in it, but as I haven't graduated to any more complex animals, I think I'm ok.
I'm not averse to hunting, fishing or guns, just sitting in the cold and wet, absolutely motionless and bored to tears. Also, something should only be called a sport when there's the possibility you could lose.
Hmmm, that cockroach comment got me thinking. So we've been presented with "Killing for fun is wrong" from a guy named "The Exterminator" on a blog called "no more hornets". Very amusing. :)
Also, something should only be called a sport when there's the possibility you could lose.
Yes, very true.
So we've been presented with "Killing for fun is wrong" from a guy named "The Exterminator" on a blog called "no more hornets".
Well, I never said I take pleasure in it. And I certainly don't do it for sport. And remember: NRA does not stand for "National Raid Association."
Charlton Heston didn't hold up a flyswatter and say that the only way you could remove it was from his cold, dead hands.
Of course I'm jumping in way late in this conversation, but I still feel like saying a few things.
Both Slut and Roe made the point of the "natural" factor in hunting and killing. Ex already dealt with the point, but you can't emphasize it enough - we REALLY don't want to do everything that is natural for us. I don't know about Roe but Slut, as a woman, you certainly do NOT want men acting completely within their genetic, evolutionary nature.
Now, does this mean I totally agree with Ex in his post and some of his comments? Let's say I'm a much more sedate version of him.
I think if you get pleasure from killing (even cockroaches, Bullet) you might want to check yourself on that. A little introspective thoughtfulness on the issue wouldn't hurt. You may completely come back to the same rationale on the issue, but you might see it a little differently. Personally, I realize that it's something I could indeed take pleasure in and I don't want to and I fight the feeling. I definitely see myself as being more of the person I'd like to be because I don't kill. I still have a long way to go in being that person, but it's one area that I no longer have to worry about.
I may disagree with Ex and (it seems) everyone else here when it comes to the Constitution. 1. I'm not sure that the Constitution gives everyone the right to a gun. 2. (As Ex said) even if it does, it doesn't mean any type of weapon or any amount of weapons 3. There is no harm in rigid registration 4. (as Ex said) not all laws are good. The Constitution has been found, from time to time, to be out of touch with the times or just morally incorrect in nature. I don't think I need to give examples. We might be a better society if no one had guns.
Wow. 14 years later, and you still attract the nutters...
...like me.
Post a Comment