Guns, Liquor and the Age of Obama

Pro-gun sentiment in America is rising, not falling. Firearms sales are up, and there are reports of ammunition shortages.

By Jon Meacham | NEWSWEEK
Published May 30, 2009 | Updated: 1:21  p.m. ET May 30, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 8, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: BeastofaBeast @ 06/14/2009 4:27:24 AM

    Who actually thought guns in a bar was a good idea? That was eventually going to get messy the first time a simple bar brawl escalates too far.

  • Posted By: Morgan2008 @ 06/14/2009 1:21:39 AM

    People are frustrated with all of this political correctness in our American society now. Aren't we still people with free speech? Someone needs to start making jokes about Barack Obama. Oh, excuse me, Barack Hussein Obama. In his speech in Cairo, Egypt, Barack Obama made it quite clear to the Muslim society that his middle name was Hussein and that he was born a Muslim and spent his early formative years in Muslim society, while he apologized to them for America's past behavior. Come on people...it is getting a little harder to talk out of both sides of one's mouth now with all of the video replays. Obama has to make up his mind: If he is Barack HUSSEIN Obama in Muslim countries, he is HUSSEIN Obama in America also. This is a world of technology..Obama cannot wear two or three faces in this kind of world without being caught at it. America is not a closed society (yet) where we are so easily deceived. Word gets around about games of deception that the power players are playing. Obama showed one face to the idealistic young people who voted for him and he showed another face on his World Apology Tour in the Muslim Countries. Plenty of people in America don't like it at all, and they don't trust Obama or his handlers. There is no SPIRIT in the world like the SPIRIT ,OF AMERICANS to reject oppression because we have been the Land of the Free for too long for the likes of an egotistical maniac like Barack Hussein Obama to oppress it. If some of these night time talk show hosts don't have the courage (or to put it more crudely; the balls) to start making jokes about the ego of this Obama and his mistakes and gaffes, they might as well kiss their careers goodbye. It is becoming boring listening to them make jokes about Joe Biden's hair or something as insignificant or trivial as that. If they don't start hitting it smack-damn right where it belongs, they might as well go do something else since they might not have an audience left to listen to their lame jokes.

  • Posted By: skyway45@comcast.net @ 06/09/2009 7:21:07 PM

    To TennesseeLibrarian. I also grew up in the South. I received my first 22 rifle when I was 12 years old. I was also taught how to handle the gun etc by a very strict father. We had a number of guns in the house but never to my knowledge did he or anyone there carry one except when hunting. I can't remember anyone with a gun rack in their pickup and that is all we had. I did carry a hand gun when we went into the mountains and did one time scare off a bear with it. I could not hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun but was fair with a shotgun or rifle. I think the real problem is the atmosphere of fear that a lot of the media and others have spread. Carrying a gun to anywhere like a store is just stupid and asking for trouble. Most of the people who do this do not know how to use them anyway and are more likely to harm themselves than anyone else. I have a number of guns including two from my father that I treasure and have taught my two sons how to handle a gun. More should follow that example.

  • Posted By: TennesseeLibrarian @ 06/08/2009 3:38:46 AM

    I have to question the concept of this being an issue of culture. I am from the South (for generation after generation back) and I live in Tennessee. My father grew up in Alabama shooting guns, mostly hunting, and mostly eating what he shot. To this day he still keeps a handgun in the house somewhere. My maternal grandfather in North Carolina had a cabinet full of guns, mostly hunting rifles and he was an avid hunter. He also made sure to carry a handgun with him to his very remote cabin up in the mountains. I lived with a boyfriend who was from Tennessee for eight years and there were a couple of rifles and a handgun around the house. He was a crack shot as was his father who was on the Air Force pistol team. What is different is that none of these men ever carried their guns around with them like some kind of accessory. They didn't carry them to go grocery shopping, to the movie theater, or out to dinner. This seems like some kind of pathological fearfulness that causes people to feel unsafe unless they have a handgun on their person at all times. If this is a part of Southern culture, it is certainly a surprise to me.

  • Posted By: tiggertiger @ 06/03/2009 9:06:25 PM

    How about requiring all citizens to be trained in threat assessment so that they may be somewhat competent judges, jurors and executioners if the right to use deadly force to protect person and property is a given? It is not a skill that comes naturally to all. The police and military require such training. It would be helpful if unarmed citizens had such training also to help them avoid being killed. Just make it required in school.
    It is not an issue of how many people are killed with guns in the US; it is a question of how many people possess guns because they are willing to kill another human being.
    I

    • Posted By: brenniewinters @ 06/05/2009 5:19:46 PM

      Better learn the laws of your state and follow them. Most times going to prison is not worth it for it is not a good place. The food is poor and living in a cage is not my idea of a good time. With DNA and time, crime should be lessened in America like it is in most foreign countries.

  • Posted By: brenniewinters @ 06/05/2009 5:17:07 PM

    My father taught me about guns,hunting for food and gun safety many times from a very early age. He taught me not to point a gun unless I intended to kill. With the unreal games on video today, some youth cannot distinguish between what is serious and wht is not in life.

  • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 1:54:11 PM

    Canada's firearms laws are restrictive and are not supportive of the concept that a people's militia is the best defense against tyranny. Many firearms are illegal or highly restricted in Canada, due in part to cosmetic features like pistol grips and collapsing stocks. If all you want to do is hunt moose (eh?), Canada's firearm laws are right in line. If you want to defend your country from the tyranny of corrupt leaders, you're going to need a bit more than a few bolt action rifles.

    • Posted By: Liam_ORegan_PEI @ 06/02/2009 2:23:20 PM

      Thanks PunkRockPatriot for your comments on Canada's firearms laws. I find your comments interesting however, I would like to clarify a few things:

      Firstly, Canada's firearms laws are not that restrictive to most Canadians. I am a legally registered firearms owner. It only took me one summer to get all of my paper work in order.

      Secondly, Our government is corrupt alright, but our politicians are only interested in stealing our money, not terrorizing us.

      Thanks again for your comments and feel free to reply

      • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 2:30:43 PM

        You don't consider those laws to be overly restrictive? What if someone threatened your life, and you needed to immediately procure the means to defend yourself? What then? Would you just buy a hockey stick and hope for the best?

        The problem with gun regulations is that they just don't do anything to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the criminally-minded.

        You admit that your leaders are corrupt, but not necessarily tyrannical. What guarantee do you have that will remain to be true? In the USA, our guarantee is called the 2nd Amendment. Over there, what do you have? Long waiting periods to get a gun, and even still, only guns which would be unsuitable in a paramilitary engagement are legal in the hands of the citizenry.

        • Posted By: Liam_ORegan_PEI @ 06/02/2009 2:43:46 PM

          Since only about 25% of Canadians own guns and of those a large majority are legally owned, we don't feel the need to carry firearms. In fact, the majority of Canadians, according to Stats Canada, are against carrying firearms on our persons. In response to your comment on long waiting lines for FAC's (firearms Acquisition Certificates), the lines are not really that long. I went and applied for the training class on Monday and the class was on friday and Saturday. Six weeks later I had an FAC for non-restricted firearms (long-guns). I then applied for the Restricted class FAC and within another six weeks I had that certification as well.

          As far as your comments on tyrannical governments, past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. In Canada's History we have not had any tyrannical leaders, and we had a peaceful separation from the UK. Also, what type of firearms do you own? This is only a question out of curiosity.

          • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 4:03:12 PM

            Your statistics are probably incorrect when it comes to illegal firearms. I say that because an illegal gun isn't tracked so well in the Candian system, so who knows how many of those you have floating around?

            History is the best teacher for why gun control simply does not work. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. What do all those leaders have in common? They all felt that only the State should possess firearms. In America, it's no coincidence that the most corrupt of politicians (Feinstein, Boxer, Barney Frank 'n co, liberals representing banking interests, etc) are vehemently opposed to gun ownership.

            With regard to the guns I personally own, I have many. As an avid shooting enthusiast, WA State CPL holder, and collector, I have amassed a collection nearing 30 firearms. Some of the more notable additions to that collection include:

            (mind you, these are all legally mine, and they are NOT machineguns as classified by the NFA)
            3 AR-15 rifles, in 3 different chamberings. One is 5.56 NATO, one is 6.8 SPC, and one is 5.45x39 Russian.
            2 Polish AK-74 derivatives known as "Tantal" rifles. They fire 5.45x39 Russian.
            1 Yugoslavian RPK-47. It is a long-barreled AK-47, chambered in the venerable 7.62x39 cartridge.
            5 Pistols, in calibers .40 S&W, .380 Auto, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and 10mm Auto.
            1 Weatherby Mark V Accumark, chambered in .30-378 Weatherby Magnum. Capable of downing an elk at 1000 yards.
            1 Winchester model 94 Angle Eject in special edition trim. Chambered in .44 Magnum.

            In addition to those pieces, I have a number of other, less interesting rifles. Many of them are competition pieces designed solely to put holes in paper, fired from a benchrest. While putting holes in paper is what I enjoy doing with my firearms (I don't hunt, and don't go around randomly shooting people), the non-sporting arms are the most important parts of my collection. It's just not practical to defend one's homeland with a gun designed for hunting, or benchrest shooting.

            • Posted By: Liam_ORegan_PEI @ 06/04/2009 10:23:52 PM

              In 1970 there were, according to the Canadian Government ten million firearms in Canada (estimated) both legal and non legal. I would also have to agree with your comment on gun ownership rates. However, the small number of firearms that are registered in this country is not at all representative of the true number of firearms. There is not nearly enough firearms registered in Canada for 25% of the population to legally own firearms. That 25% is estimated and it does include criminals in the estimation.

              Also, I agree that strict gun control does not work. Look at Canada. Our new regulations which were implemented in 2000 have cost the taxpayers at least 1.5 billion dollars and even the RCMP agree that the registration of long guns is a complete waste of time and expense. The next time you are debating with a fellow American about gun control, make sure to mention Canada's idiotic and expensive long-gun registry.

  • Posted By: KennedyReyes @ 06/01/2009 2:47:39 PM

    I am a former paratrooper and veteran who owns no guns, i find them totally useless for home protection ( 2big dogs work better). All they do is increase your chances of being killed by your own gun.

    All these gun loving asses need to join up and see how much fun it is to actually HAVE to tote one in a conbat zone. These laws they want are totally riduculous (guns in bars?)

    As far as feeding your family , that's a joke , it cost more than $30 a pound to kill a deer , after all the oak moss, bullets, boats, etc....get a life gun freaks

    • Posted By: Fridge @ 06/01/2009 6:00:43 PM

      In total agreement, fellow veteran, as a cold-war vet, never had to go into combat, but I find it totally laughable when i think about these punks on the streets, blowing each other away while they strut about like turkey cocks, trying to emulate some character from a Hollywood movie. Where I live, we have tons of hunters. Last year, I spotted some moron, all painted up like Scwartzenegger, strutting down the railroad tracks near a main arterial, toting some superpowered rifle. What a joke. All these silly fools are trying to do is go back to the days of Dan'l Boone and Davy Crockett. They just can't accept that those days are gone forever. And what if they could go back to those days? How long would these morons last, without electricity, heating, purified water, and doctors. Ha!

      • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 5:08:39 PM

        Please define "superpowered rifle" in less sensational terms. Rifles commonly referred to as "assault" rifles typically fire underpowered cartridges. They are especially underpowered when compared to cartridges commonly found in most families of bolt-action rifles.

        All your statement does is demonstrate your ignorance. You have no idea how powerful the gun was, based on a casual glance. I'll bet you live in California, New York, or Massachussets.

        • Posted By: Fridge @ 06/04/2009 5:00:38 PM

          Obviously you are unable to define sarcasm, or you wouldn't get so upset about something like 'superpowered'. No, Not NY, CA or or anything alse you suggested. Someplace with lotsa rednecks and good ole boys just like you.

    • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 5:09:25 PM

      So you must have those dogs trained to attack intruders then, is that it? A dog might bark loud enough to wake you up, but they still aren't going to change the fact you're unarmed and the person breaking into your house, isn't.

    • Posted By: Independant1 @ 06/01/2009 8:52:53 PM

      I fully doubt you ever served in the military. I served and you are obviously some drug smoking deviant claiming to have served. Nobody I know who served would ever say that owning a gun is better then a dog...unless they were blinded in combat then its a tossup.

  • Posted By: harrysmatic @ 06/03/2009 2:57:41 PM

    Comments are not posted in chronologiocal order...

    Thus,the thread is ruined.

    There is no normal flow of thoughts...

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 05/31/2009 4:00:07 PM

    I totally agree with Jon Meacham. Owning a gun gives gun owners a sense of power. I can only imagine the power high they get when they go out to a shooting range and empty a couple loads of ammunition into some old beat-up jalopy that serves as a target. Shades of Bonnie and Clyde! However such power trips are merely illusions - like many (but not all) varieties of religion.
    Let's look at Tennessee for an example where everyone seems to want a gun. Last December a dike of a pond containing coal ash broke spilling 1.1 Billion gallons of toxic sludge into the Tennessee River watershed. (Source: an article by Jeff Biggers on the Huffington Post.) the good people of Tennessee can shoot all the rifles they want, but they can't stop the toxic chemicals from seeping into their drinking water. Nor will they be able to stop the inevitable results. According to another article, people who live near sits which store ash and sludge from coal-fired power plants have a 1-50 chance of developing cancer.
    These facts will not be lost on insurance companies. And soon people on coal producing regions will face soaring increases in health insurance premiums - providing they can get health insurance at all. They won't be able to solve these problems by shooting a gun.
    Right now the ration of carbon emissions in the atmosphere is about 387-to 389 parts per million Scientists agree that 350 ppm of carbon emissions or below is a "safe" level of carbon dioxide. Recent reports tell us that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is increasing, and methane is an even more dangerous carbon dioxide gas than carbon dioxide. We are increasing our carbon count by 2.2 ppm. If we approach 450 ppm, horrifying catastrophes will occur. (Already 300,000 people a year are dying as a result of global climate change.)
    People can shoot their guns all they want- but they will not be able to shoot down the growing carbon dioxide count in the atmosphere.
    Guns are becoming the new drug. Like other drugs, whether tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana, they do not solve any of problems we need to face.

    • Posted By: nightprowl @ 06/02/2009 11:20:54 PM

      You fell off the rocker her buddy. I love shooting, I loved it in the Army when I shot my M-4, M249B, and M9, and I still love shooting, but it has nothing to do with power. It is a good stress reliever for me, like sex, but I don't feel power. The ability to point a gun at someone is just under the ability to actually pull the trigger. Just because people own guns and practice with them, does not give them the capability to use it. For a lot of us that own and appreciate guns we are very well aware of the safety measures involved, and the repercussions that follow with the intentions to use them on human life.

      The liberals like to create, yes CREATE, loopholes around the 2nd amendment in order to slowly control it and then eliminate it. You think I am lying? The 2nd amendment gives the people the right to bear arms....that is very simple, that we as a people have a right to own guns. Now the liberals look at that and say, no you have the right to own a few guns after we judge you yes or no, and only the guns we say you can have. Which is sooner becoming, you can own a gun only if we say so. Now the amendment is clear, we have a right to own guns. Not be regulated on which guns we own, not to dictate to us how the amendment is to be interpreted.

      I do agree in regulations on mental patients and criminals. But average Joe American does not need to be told yes or no, this or none. And of course, no high powered sniper rifles, machine guns, or tanks. But to say no to assault rifles is basically saying, Americans when the time comes you want to overthrow us we want to make sure we can subdue you with our troops. You cant have guns like theirs because it makes it too fair of a fight.

      Like I said I was Army, but our oath is to the Constitution not the government we created. Buy guns, stockpile ammo, its your right!

      • Posted By: drklassen @ 06/03/2009 2:48:44 PM

        All rights can be proscribed. Just as freedom of religions does not mean you can sacrifice humans on an alter, the right to bear arms does not imply unfettered access to any and all weapons. You point out that regulating mental patients and criminals is OK; well so is outlawing types of weapons. One could argue that, so long as you have access to muskets, all is fine. Oh, and mandatory registration of weapons and mandatory reporting of lost/stolen weapons, also do not abridge the 2nd amendment.

    • Posted By: AmericanMan63 @ 06/02/2009 6:48:49 PM

      What are you talking about? I thought this discussion was about guns? Where does Carbon Emissions come into play here?

    • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 5:14:49 PM

      Wow, really? You turn a discussion on gun ownership into an excuse to spout granola propaganda? Unfortunately for Al Gore and the rest of his liberal friends, the scientific community roundly rejects man-made global warming.

    • Posted By: rocude @ 06/01/2009 1:45:53 PM

      Just curious since you bring up carbon and "global climate change" vs what used to be "global warming" but that's not really holding up... How would you explain the change in the Sahara desert from a lush environment to desert wasteland thousands of years before the first automobile was invented or coal plant put into operation? If such a drastic change were to take place today everyone would be screaming global warming or whatever the chant is these days.

    • Posted By: dmb12345 @ 05/31/2009 8:39:55 PM

      What is your point, teach. You just lost your own argument. You then admit that CO2 emmissions are more dangerous than guns. Therefore why aren't libs such as YOU fighting to bring down emmisions in the state. Or are you biased to the point that these folk in rural county do not deserve better.

    • Posted By: cwolff99 @ 05/31/2009 6:30:08 PM

      Long range psychological diagnoses are fraught with Freudian Slips. I feel no sense of power ..... target shooting is a skill. Just like martial arts or shooting a bow and arrow.

      Part of all this is simply psycho-cultural in that rural folks see themselves as independant and self-reliant (govt services are far away) vice city dwellers who see everything as being handled by the government.

      More people are killed with knives, baseball bats, etc. than rifles 7,800 folks are killed by aspirin/year.

      Not sure what the point is. Nobody is suggesting guns solve any social-political-environmental issue. All folks are saying is that before the Government confiscates your private property and decides what you are limited to, they should have evidence to support it.

  • Posted By: harrysmatic @ 06/03/2009 11:28:06 AM

    Soproudliberal.America is not for u. Go to europe...

  • Posted By: soproudliberal @ 06/03/2009 1:39:48 AM

    Guns everyone ?? what an insane society ! this country is reallly full of deranged people. Not a society I want to live in, that's for sure.

  • Posted By: heglock @ 06/03/2009 11:01:59 AM

    I have the God-given right to protect myself and THE DUTY to protect my children. A firearm is the best tool to deal with stronger and multiple threats. I've studied the civil and criminal responsibilities of using a firearm to fend off a lethal threat...I'll do just fine thank you. Having had a friend drowned in her own bathtub, chopped into pieces, stuffed into a barrel, and dumped into a river...I don't take kindly to people telling me that I don't have a right to defend myself. Beyond that, ask yourself why our framers wrote down those first 10 Amendments. They were a list of rights that were trampled on by the government and they wanted to remind all posterity so that they would not repeat the future. Here in rural AZ, everyone has a firearm and it is one of the most peaceful places on earth. Open borders, welfare, the erosion of our core values, and the decay of "family" is what is breeding violence.

    When seconds count, police are only minutes away!

  • Posted By: heglock @ 06/03/2009 10:54:39 AM

    I have a God-given right to defend myself and THE DUTY protect my children from predators of all kinds, and there is no better way to defend yourself from stronger or multiple predators than with a firearm. Having had a friend killed in her own home, strangled / drowned in her own bathtub, chopped into pieces, stuffed into a barrel and then thrown into a river, I don't take kindly to people trying to tell me that I don't have a right to protect what is most precious...LIFE.

  • Posted By: tiggertiger @ 06/02/2009 11:51:33 PM

    Isn't there a bigger question related to 'bearing arms' in America? Why are Americans so insistent that they have the 'right' and the unregulated means to be judge, jury, and executioner; able to take another person's life for whatever reason? Seemingly to 'shoot first and ask questions later'...

  • Posted By: harrysmatic @ 06/02/2009 8:48:58 PM

    To the anti gun I say :

    Try to bring Feinstein down,if you can...

    To the sensible gun owners I say that if we don't support Dianne,we will have that unbelievable Brown for Dem candidate...

    See what happened with those anti Hillary nuts ...they paved the way for Obama...

  • Posted By: hungarianpsychrn @ 06/01/2009 3:20:17 PM

    I know a lot of guys with drinking problems and anger problems who have a lot of guns, one just bought a machine gun and another one of them just got a permit to carry a concealed gun. These guys also have borderline intelligence, even might be considered slow. This is just brilliant.

    • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 5:12:15 PM

      A person would have to be borderline retarded to not understand that firearms are able to kill people. Your one friend was smart enough to understand the process for legally transferring a machinegun to an individual, so he must not be *that* stupid.

    • Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 06/02/2009 9:43:34 AM

      While there is allot of good posts yours just hit home for me.

      Years ago a group of us while up hunting (I Bow hunt) were sitting around the fire at night (yep and drinking), blam a gun went off and the tree 2 feet over was hit the powder and embers hit myself and the people next to me cloths and faces. Across the fire was sitting ????, he was laughing hard, so was I, as I told him "???? you stupid-son-of-a &#$% put it away", it was just him and you expected it from him; He is the kind of person who plays really rough but in good nature way and everyone made him put his gun away. Guns in Bars, I can handle it can you?

  • Posted By: sacleven @ 06/01/2009 4:52:26 PM

    Griphen02, the government is not punishing you, more like they're avoiding idiots drinking at bars while toting a gun around. One could easily upholster someone's gun while not looking for it. Why do people need to feel the right to carry a gun into a restaurant/bar let alone in public in general. I own a half dozen guns and there is no need to tote them around with me. Assault rifles will be legal as far the Dems can throw it, even though the hillbillies really have no use for them, except target practice or WW III.

    • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 5:03:38 PM

      The last time I had a gun upholstered, I had the smith put suede on the grips.

  • Posted By: harrysmatic @ 06/01/2009 5:35:14 PM

    U can take your slurs about rednecks & hillbillies & ..... them...

    Those who don't like guns & sit tight & take it...

    Those who like guns ,have the right to own them & bear them,everywhere & we will win over the infringment of that right...

    • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 5:02:28 PM

      I vote we designate those places "free gun zones", where unarmed people can go to obtain a tool for self-defense.

  • Posted By: harrysmatic @ 06/02/2009 4:23:08 PM

    Let us not mix Feinstein with Frank...She is a lady who fires blanks,in order to appease the anti gun nuts & get their votes...

    She has a CC permit & does carry.

    The essence of the gun issue is liberty vs prohibition...

    We,the pro-gun do not want mandatory armament. We don't want to arm people against their will.

    On the contrary,the anti gun want mandatory disarmament. They want to disarm people against their will.

    So,the anti gun have as their basis the element of dictatorship & tyranny.

    They represent the agressive evil & we represent the good in defence...

    We must turn the tables ,change the game & become offensive...

    • Posted By: PunkRockPatriot @ 06/02/2009 4:33:06 PM

      How typical for Feinstein to rail against gun rights, while she carries herself. Oh, but I suppose her safety is more important. Either that, or the rest of us are too stupid to know which way to point the thing when we pull the trigger. How asinine. That sort of hypocrisy is the very reason why Feinstein does not deserve to be in Congress.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse