home

Tom Selleck as Head of NRA?

By Jeralyn, Section Constitution
Posted on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:44:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

U.S. News & World Report notes that Charleton Heston may be replaced by Tom Selleck as head of the National Rifle Association.

Better Selleck than Ted Nugent, if you ask me. Of course, I have nothing against the NRA as I am a supporter of the belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms and I am an opponent of gun control. The way I see it, the Second Amendment is one away from the Fourth and I'm not yielding anything when it comes to constitutional rights. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

< David Broder's Priorities | Rewriting the Rules >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    TL, you're sounding more and more libertarian every day. That's NOT a compliment.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 07:01:36 PM EST
    Tough call. Creepy '80s mustache, or camo cowboy hat?

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    Should fully automatic weapons be legal? Should "arms" be restricted to weapons that merely fire deadly projectiles? What about other kinds? Grenades? Flamethrowers? What if I want to buy an operational tank and keep it in my yard? You want a fully armed society, then accept that massacres and senseless shootings will happen all the time, and if you're a victim or someone you love is, or you just take a stray bullet in the head, then don't start complaining.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#3)
    by s5 on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    It's interesting how the last 6 years of creeping fascism have caused me to do a 180 on gun control. I used to take the view that guns were inherently evil, the second amendment was antiquated, and that all guns should be rounded up. But as I've watched the Bush administration run the Constitution through a paper shredder, it's become clear to me that an armed populace, should the shit hit the fan, will be the last remaining check against the government. And since gun control has not proven effective against violence, why give up your rights?

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    TL, you're sounding more and more libertarian every day. That IS a compliment.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    So if you are against gun control, you must be a libertarian. A cynical person may reply that if you are for gun control you would either be a nazi or a communist. History would be on the cynical persons side.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    That was me.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    I have a friend down here in Texas who just got his license to carry a concealed weapon. He really likes guns, and he's the furthest thing you can get from being a nut. I think the Texas laws on this issue are just fine. The problem's the culture, not the weapons. This is something we liberals ought to rethink.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#9)
    by weezie on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    But Tom Selleck is still a hottie...

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    No gun control in a people-dense place like nyc?! You want to be locked in a subway car with even a couple of (no less several) idiots with guns?! No thanks. And the fact that the 4th Amendment is 'one away' is the WORST justification I've heard from people on your side. I'm disappointed...

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    They can take my Second Amendment when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#12)
    by stoic on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    New bumpersticker... I'm Liberal I'm Armed and I'm Pissed!

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    oddly enough, the second amendment says nothing about an individual's right to bear arms. just sayin.............

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    The way I see it, the Second Amendment is one away from the Fourth and I'm not yielding anything when it comes to constitutional rights. Must be the new math.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#15)
    by chuckj on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    Being able to own guns gives Americans the ultimate power over government. Exactly as the 2nd amendment was intended.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Guav on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:19:10 AM EST
    As a pro-2nd Amendment liberal, this is nice to hear.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#18)
    by roxtar on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:12:26 AM EST
    I am a liberal, I am armed, and I am pissed! I too have done a 180 on the Second Amendment. I still think it only authorizes the possession of firearms by a "well-regulated militia." Otherwise, the first phrase of the Amendment is superfluous, and the rules of construction require us to give language its clear meaning where possible. But when the shit hits the fan (and it's not tin-foil-hattery to say that it's certainly getting closer to the fan every day)I want to be able to hunt for food and protect myself. Me living in the country with rifles and shotguns is not the same as me riding the subway bristling with concealable firearms, and I have no problem with licensing or registration, but when we justify restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, it becomes logically difficult to defend the 4th, 5th and 6th.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:26:56 AM EST
    Roxtar, you might enjoy this article, arguing that the "well-regulated militia" bit, while not entirely superfluous, does not invalidate the claim that the 2nd describes an individual right.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:43:30 AM EST
    "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." -- Robert Heinlein.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    Why stop with a tank? If everyone has the right to bear arms then why not nuclear arms? Do I have the right to build a dirty bomb and keep it on my property? Why wouldn't I under the logic that says I can have assult weapons specifically designed to maximize the murder rate of humans?

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    So you are opposed to gun control? Let's take that to a logical extreme. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, not guns. That should, if you oppose control laws based on constitutionality, mean that you oppose limits on arms. So weaponized anthrax, howitzers, dirty bombs, fully automatic rifles with copper-headed bullets, etc. should all be easily available and stored in the front closet. Of course, if you accept that arms doesn't mean all armaments because the courts have said so, then you should accept that courts have also said we have no universal rights to bear arms. Opposing all gun control based on the constitution is just not rational. The 2nd amendment is a gray area that needs to be defined, and that is what gun control is. Opposing a ban on guns based on the constitution makes perfect sense, though.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    you all are, at best, laughably naive. you truly think that double barrel 12 gauge is going to be a problem for an m-60 mounted on a tank? get real. let's also point out that troops won't have to be brought from 3,000 miles away, by sail boat, they'll be right here. as well, how many of you have any actual training or real life combat experience? very few, i'll wager. this explains why so many gun owners find themselves on the wrong end of it, when confronted by a burglar or other criminal. just think what'll happen when you're confronted by a trained pro. we'll say kadish for you.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    I'm hoping for Nugent. Then the world can see how fricken crazy the NRA really is. I live in Texas and I am for gun ownership, but I am anit-NRA. If it were up to them, we would all have rocket launchers mounted to our front doors. Ev, if I am locked in a subway (when does that happen ?) I want my own gun to protect myself or I want the bad guys at least thinking I could legally have and use a gun.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:29:55 AM EST
    if I am locked in a subway (when does that happen ?)
    Anytime the doors are closed.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Al on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    But as I've watched the Bush administration run the Constitution through a paper shredder, it's become clear to me that an armed populace, should the shit hit the fan, will be the last remaining check against the government.(Steve Simitzis)
    So let me get this straight: You think the way to bring down the Bush regime is through an armed revolution? I mean, what is this "armed militia" nonsense? You think having ordinary citizens armed is somehow going to frighten an authoritarian government? They're going to say, "Oh, we better respect the law, because otherwise we'll have the armed citizens come after us"? Give me a break. The only reason why there is a gun lobby in the United States is because there is a salivating gun industry behind it. You don't like the government, vote against it. It's called democracy. You want to own a gun, make sure you keep it pointed at your head.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    You think having ordinary citizens armed is somehow going to frighten an authoritarian government?
    depends on how many pi$$ed people there are. It worked for the IRA, it's working for the civil war in iraq, it's worked for every revolution in history. What hasn't worked is not having arms.
    You don't like the government, vote against it.
    That works great ... until the votes aren't counted.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#26)
    by chuckj on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 05:04:30 PM EST
    "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." -- Robert Heinlein.
    We actually agree on something.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    You know the conservatives have won, and won big, when the (erstwhile?) liberals admit to rethinking their positions on gun control. Gun control - say it with me - gun control. See, it's easy. It's not dirty at all. Gun control. That gun control is currently taboo - even (especially!?) among liberals - is a magnificent testament to how much ground the liberals have given up in American culture. Sure, go ahead, arrest me for failing to keep my automobile registered, inspected, and/or insured, and for driving with an expired license. But, by gawd, don't you DARE enslave me by taking away my purported individual right to bear arms by doing something so heinous as to make me register my weapons, inspect my weapons, insure myself regarding said weapons, or demand that I be properly licensed to possess, use, and maintain said weapons. This ain't the Wild Frontier. This is High-Density America. Perhaps we all need some very bad shite to happen, again, and again, and again, for us all to get the picture. Otherwise, we will all only be safe when we are all armed to the teeth. And if you want to protect yerself from The Evil Government, one might want to friggin VOTE FOR CHANGE rather than succumb to inertia and complacency and buy a weapon. What a cop-out!

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#29)
    by roy on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    You know the conservatives have won, and won big, when the (erstwhile?) liberals admit to rethinking their positions on gun control.
    Don't worry, it'll turn out to be temporary. Republicans and Democrats alike are averse to government controls only when they lack the power to have the government implement their controls. As soon as Democrats get majority federal representation again, they'll go back to discouraging those of us who'd rather rely on ourselves.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#30)
    by roy on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:23:59 PM EST
    Rats. Above is meant to read "Most Republicans and Democrats..." I know there are exceptions, who have my appreciation and apologies for over-generalizing.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Al on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:14:30 PM EST
    Oh, come on, Sailor:
    It [armed revolution] worked for the IRA, it's working for the civil war in iraq, it's worked for every revolution in history.
    You can't be serious. Is this what you want the US to become? Northern Ireland? Iraq? Iraq? This is what you want the right to bear arms for? And in any case: Of all people, Americans are the least likely to rise up in arms against their government. Bush stole the election in 2000, and what happened? There weren't even demonstrations. When the elections were stolen in Ukraine, people just filled the streets and refused to go away until the real winner was proclaimed president. In Mexico, Lopez Obrador has declared that he will head a parallel government, guaranteeing chaos and turmoil for the entire term of the guy that got in by stuffing ballot boxes. In the US, people get arrested for wearing an anti-government T-shirt and nobody lift a finger. Diebold fixes voting machines, and people publish research papers. How about burning the damn things? Right now, America is sinking fast in the quagmire that is Iraq. Where are the protests? Where are the demonstrations? Where are the acts of civil disobedience? Don't tell me you want to have guns because you want to be able to overthrow a dictatorship. People can't even march against a dictatorship. You see Tom bloody Selleck leading an armed revolt against a dictatorship? You want guns because you like guns. Period. Don't give me this armed militia crap. IRA, indeed.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    you all are, at best, laughably naive. you truly think that double barrel 12 gauge is going to be a problem for an m-60 mounted on a tank? get real. let's also point out that troops won't have to be brought from 3,000 miles away, by sail boat, they'll be right here. as well, how many of you have any actual training or real life combat experience? very few, i'll wager. this explains why so many gun owners find themselves on the wrong end of it, when confronted by a burglar or other criminal. just think what'll happen when you're confronted by a trained pro. we'll say kadish for you.
    Oh we just crap ourselves when facing some felon... Sure We do

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:24:36 PM EST
    ...well regulated militia... Doesn't that entitle every male oh, let's say, over the age of 18? You know, when we register for the military? And don't throw some ridiculous comment out about our military not being "well regulated". The only reason you are allowed to speak your oppionion is because we are "well regulated". Also, I just love how immidiatly many of you jump to the whole, "well arms can mean flamethrowers and .50 caliber machine guns and tanks and oh shit! Nuclear weapons! Give me a break. Talk about a flaw in your argument. Anyone who has taken philosophy and knows how to argue knows that a slippery slope (which all of that is) is a big flaw.

    Re: Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    I'd rather be in a crowded subway car where everyone is armed, than to have one or two bad guys with the upper hand. Nuts and criminals are going to get guns anyway... no matter how what the laws say. Arm the citizens.

    sorry so late... (none / 0) (#35)
    by tankboy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:03:19 AM EST
    First let me respond to Talkleft Visitor #10. What makes you think those idiots aren't armed? They are far more likely to be packing than any law abiding NYC citizens under the current law. And I should feel soooo safe knowing they can't possibly buy baseball bats or knives.

    Next, cpinva #20. We aren't going up against tanks, just local yokel law enforcement officers who might over stretch their authority. If given a free run of things, these people would walk all over you and get away with it. They must be respectful of our rights to avoid getting shot accidentally. Besides, even if we were going up against tanks, I think al Queda has shown us just what a 12 gauge can do. Sure they'll loose but if were up to the far left, Uncle Sam would just quit when the first soldier got a broken nail - so who's got the force now?

    Finally, Talkleft Visitor #17. Quit playing games and read the Constitution. No one likes to waste time on an argument with no basis. What rewritten phrase from the Constitution do you use when you tout redistribution of wealth? Nuclear weapons, give me a break. FOCUS!!!

    Now that I'm caught up on this thread, if you don't like guns, don't own one. But you do not have the right to take away my rights. I may need a firearm. You do not know my situation. You do not know my life. You do not represent my beliefs. You do not know what's best for me. You do not speak for me. If you are worried about accidental deaths from firearms, run an educational campaign on firearm safety. You don't seem to have a problem with educational campaigns on seatbelts, smoking, and the merits of being gay. If you are worried about the criminal element attempting to kill you, you might want to be aware of the fact that they can do it without a gun.

    This thread has drifted into a gun control debate. Now back to the point. I like Tom. I think he'd be great. But I like Ted too.

    Tom Selleck as Head of NRA? | 30 comments (30 topical)