August 29, 2004

Machine guns are your constitutional right says senatorial candidate from Illinois Alan Keyes, and in the same breath accuses his opponent Barack Obama of "ideological extremism". Here finally is a candidate who is unafraid to become a laughing stock when loyalty calls. Let us all laugh at him; it is the least we can do.

Apologies to non-USAians for the political and USA-centric nature of this post. I was once one of you, so I sympathize with your annoyance. Perhaps we can discuss why so many Americans feel naked without their guns?

posted by fuyugare 20 years ago
  • What's even better about Alan Keyes, as Jon Stewart pointed out, is that he isn't from Illinois, and he happens to be one of the Republicans who denounced Hilary for running in New York.
  • His comment on Hillary was "I deeply recent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there." I heard him talking about how his situation was different in a radio interview.
  • You left out the most interesting part of that quote, PY. The quote in full is:
    I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.
    (Emphasis mine.)
  • Why did he call him an Obama an extremist? I used to think people should have the right to bear arms so that they could throw off the shackles of their oppressive governement if they needed to. I'm a little bit more ambivalent now, but if I ever embraced the notion again I think I'd want some pretty good hardware if in the hands of the people to be able to fight the fucking US military. Most of you are probably greatful you forefathers didn't find revolution an unreasonable proposition. Just a thought. The Hillary thing is bullshit though.
  • Eee, sorry, I should have read the artcile, huh? Yeah, Uzi against terrorist is dumb and Obama was hardly being extreme. Sorry.
  • He's a putz, but I'd support Uzi legislation.[satisfied nod]
  • Here's what I think. I think if people wanted to throw off the shackles of their government, they could do it with forks and spoons, or even their bare hands. You cannot stop a revolution with a military, even one as powerful as the US military. You might disagree. Now I certainly don't want the second amendment to be repealed, or anything that drastic. I do, however, want nobody in my workplace or school or on the street to have access to machine guns. I don't care how much work they might have to do to get permits for assault weapons. Will criminals find a way to get assault weapons anyway? Certainly.
  • True, and I suppose if people have to revolt with great numbers, that avoids the possability of factions taking control, but what if only a minority is oppressed? Whole nations have been known to back some truly odious despots. I suppose you could unify people the way Gandhi did. Then you could use "non-violent" protest (though some say the reason Gandhi's hunger strikes worked was because of the uproar that would follow his death more than the attention it brought to his cause). Then again, we would need another Gandhi. But on the other hand, if men always took the most secure course, there would've been no Gandhi.
  • When minorities have been oppressed in the US, they did use non-violent protests - it's called the civil rights movement. Violent protests seem to get only worse oppression - has it done the Palistinians any good? Non-violence does not work against a truely ruthless government, who would be happy to simply kill dissenters, but against a government that follows certain rules and cares about its image to the outside world - non-violent resistence is the most effective.
  • Thanks, fuyugare. I hadn't seen that last sentence, and it seems that the comment was in response to Pat Buchanan's 2000 invitation to run against Hillary. I guess it makes his situation today even less different than the one he criticized back then. Brady blasts Keyes' stand on gun control
  • Apparently he opposes marriage for sterile people as well as gays.
  • For the record: My point was I didn't think it was extreme to be prepared for the need for revolt. I always had in mind that there would need to be some extreme changes in our government for such a need to arise. Violent protest and war are signifigantly different in the sense that the latter has gotten some things done. But Keyes doesn't go that far, he just wants people to discourage terrorism by getting people to carry machine guns everywhere they go, he apposes possession of military grade firearms, therefor, I agree, he is a fuckwit.
  • Violent protests seem to get only worse oppression The Irsh Republicans seem to have done ok out it.
  • Irish even.
  • My personal experience as someone who's lived in both gunless (UK) and gunful (US) countries is that the difference is mostly academic. Violent crime is rare enough that the average citizen will never have a need to use a weapon. IOW, let the gun freaks have their guns, and let the pacifists fight with their deadly thought rays. Total derail: Gandhi had his good points and bad points. If he hadn't listened to the quarreling Jinnah and Nehru, India/Pakistan probably wouldn't have had to endure the horrors of partition which last even to this day. He is deified far too much, methinks.
  • As an Illinoisan and a registered Republican, the whole casting about for a candidate to take on Obama was embarassing, and settling on a total douche like Keyes for what must certainly be the simple basis of race insulting. There are plenty of good Republican candidates in this state, moderates who are fiscal conservatives who aren't totally devoid of pragmatism and understand the concept of civil liberties - solid state legislators like downstater Ron Stephens, ex-governors like Jim Edgar (who apparently they asked and he declined, he has a heart condition); Congressmen like John Shimkus or Denny Hastert (who has drank fully of the Bush kool-aid but prior to that was an accomplished and accomodating legislator with many supporters on both sides of the aisle). The point being, they had choices, and they acted like wantons. No one thinks to have a backup choice? Knuckleheads. Personally, I think Jim Edgar, in particular, would have handed Obama his hat. But the embarassment of watching Keyes try to carpetbag his way into the Senate after (rightly, imo) denouncing Clinton for the exact same thing smacks of situational ethics and, frankly, total bullshit. He won't get my vote.