NPR Talks About Gun Control

I heard this NPR story on the way home today and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.  The story took place in the home of Paul Gwaltney along with 6 others who were invited to share their diverse opinions on the supposed national conversation we are having on Gun control.

The views expressed by George Hartogensis were the ones that I bristled at and I’ll share them with you here (emphasis mine).

Gwaltney’s friend George Hartogensis has very different views on guns. Hartogensis, 54, served with Gwaltney in the Air Force nearly 25 years ago. “I’m a moderate, a political moderate,” he says, “which means to my leftist friends I’m a conservative, and to my conservative friends I’m a flaming liberal.”

Hartogensis does not own a gun. And among the group assembled in Gwaltney’s home, he’s the most ardent supporter of gun control. “We just have so damn many of them out there,” he says. “We’d be better off if we banned them.”

For his part, Hartogensis says it “would be a good thing” if all guns were confiscated. And it’s not that he doesn’t think hunters and handguns are cool, he says. “I went out with Paul one time and shot and had a great time. But I’m willing to give that up.”

Not surprisingly, Hartogensis favors gun registration and restrictions on magazine capacity. “I mean, what do we really need handguns for? I mean, they’re cool, but what do we really need ’em for?” he asks.

Hartogensis is, in a sense, resigned. “I have to be honest — to me it’s just more of the same,” he says. “Until we change our culture and get guns off the street, we’re gonna see that. That is the price we pay. I have a 10-year-old son and that is why I’m against guns. I don’t want him to be shot.”

Yes, it’s amazing that someone who describes himself as ‘moderate’ thinks it’s perfectly ok to ignore the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, confiscate guns from private citizens and make their purchase illegal.  Perhaps Mr. Hartogensis should move to the South Side of Chicago where he can live in the Utopia where guns are illegal to purchase.  He might then realize why someone might need a handgun.

To end on a positive note, at least Mr. Gwaltney brought some sanity to the discussion:

“Certainly to protect children in schools, certainly we don’t want to see mass shootings. But will those laws fundamentally ever change that equation?” Gwaltney asks. “Trying to restrict either magazine capacity or assault weapons because they look different than other firearms that might have the same destructive power — those ultimately don’t get you to that goal.”

“When you get into the semi-automatic realm, everywhere you put the line … is arbitrary,” Gwaltney says. “If you put it down at a single bullet coming out of a gun, and you have to reload every time, you’ve completely restricted my right to self defense.”

Leftist philosophy is taking over and creating a culture where people in America cheer the comments of Mr. Hartogensis and vilify the comments of Mr. Gwaltney.  I wish more people studied history and understood why we have the 2nd Amendment.  Hint – It has nothing to do with hunting or target practice.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in npr, politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to NPR Talks About Gun Control

  1. Wolf Homma says:

    Different people, different opinions. The real issue is that there is almost no dialog. I see little middle ground between gun nuts and gun haters. Everybody has dug their heels in and refuses to listen to new ideas.

  2. With all respect, I’d like to know what “new ideas” there are. Every law-abiding U.S. Citizen has a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment to own firearms, and the right to protect both person and property. It’s the so-called “middle ground” that concerns me, in that it usually means I am supposed to give up a portion of my rights to make someone else happy.

    The guy who committed the horrific crimes at Sandy Hook PURPOSEFULLY chose a school because he KNEW there wouldn’t be anyone there who was ARMED and who could stop him. Those children apparently didn’t “deserve” to protected. But, the children of the President and other government officials have armed guards protecting their children. I guess SOME kids are just more important than others…..

  3. Thanks for sharing this. It exposes the thoughtlessness of some who claim to be moderate. Your emphasis of Hartogensis’ questioning of handguns says it all. That, and “until we change our culture.” He has a total lack of understanding of human nature and the practical. Confiscating guns was doable in the UK, but any thoughtful person will admit the impossibility in the US. Not that we want the kind of crime a “gunless” UK has either.

    Wolf Hamma, respectfully, your comment is not worth the electrons that hold it on the wordpress server. Anyone can draw their own conclusions from what the Left and Right have said. This dialog didn’t start yesterday. I don’t know what real “new ideas” are out there. We already banned “assault rifles” to no effect from 1994 to 2004.

  4. tannngl says:

    I am not middle of the road on fire arms.
    If Pandora’s Box had not been opened and fire arms had never been developed, we would still have knives, hammers, our fists, feet.

    But the box was opened. Firearms are out there. They will never go away.
    The law abiding citizens have the right morally, to defend themselves from criminals.
    And
    all citizens of the United States of America have the right to fire arms to do our best to stop tyranny.

    It’s really pretty simple.
    Everyone who believes otherwise has an emotional opinion, not one based on fact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s