I think the criticism of National Review not being behind the Second Amendment are a bit unfounded. I remember reading NR issues back in the nineties where they ran articles against the AGW and the Brady laws. In fact, my initial opinions about RKBA were informed by these articles.
The initial thought was that there were a lot of city and suburban boys and girls on NRO that hadn't had a lot of exposure to guns growing up. Their conservative credentials were generally fine, but they had a blind spot wrt guns. Hence Metro-Cons. There were always one of two gun guys there, but the gun stuff is spreading mainly because I think city and suburban types are starting to notice CCW stuff.
When I first started reading NRO only John Derbyshire talked about guns and shooting at the pistol range. And he is a Brit expat!
I expected Jonah Goldberg to talk guns more because he married and Alaskan and visits her in-laws regularly. No dice, yet.
Not a peep was heard from David Frum when he was a conservative. And Charles Krauthammer has said a word one way or the other as I have notice.
Kathryn Lopez and Maggie Gallagher are all about the abortion politics and Catholics stuff. More Social Conservative. Like Ramesh Ponnuru.
Don't hear from Californian farmer Victor David Hansen on the issue, neither. So he is neither Metro, nor a 2A type. But he is very politically conservative, natch.
Rather unfounded conclusion. National Review does periodically discuss 2nd amendment rights. Tried searching the NRO site and came up with well over 100 hits. Not exactly ignoring the topic.
David Kopel has articles there as a columnist so I’d say the editorial staff was looking for comment.
Goldberg and Frum both have articles listed discussing gun rights as part of discussions if not on the main topic.
Facetiousness aside, you don't get a good view of the trends with an archive search. Is 100 hits a big number? You'd have to read them every day since 2003 to get a better view of their treatment, and note the uptick relatively recently. When guns were in the news they'd be more likely to mention it, but often drag their heels about it. Lately they have actually posted stuff without any precipitating event, which is novel for them.
I never kicked them. I nudged them when they weren't in our corner. Now I do posts like this, praising them when they uncharacterically post pro-gun stuff. Somebody has to watch them or they'll think renewing the AWB is a good idea again.
Well it is a free country after all. If they don't care to make the 2nd Amendment a primary topic, that's their choice. They get pretty good readership without making it their primary cause.
I reserve the right to delete patently offensive comments. Or, really, any comment I feel like. Or I might leave a really juicy comment up for private ridicule. Also spammers.
You can always offend hippies in the comment section. Chances are, those will be held up as a proper example...
I think the criticism of National Review not being behind the Second Amendment are a bit unfounded. I remember reading NR issues back in the nineties where they ran articles against the AGW and the Brady laws. In fact, my initial opinions about RKBA were informed by these articles.
ReplyDeleteThe initial thought was that there were a lot of city and suburban boys and girls on NRO that hadn't had a lot of exposure to guns growing up. Their conservative credentials were generally fine, but they had a blind spot wrt guns. Hence Metro-Cons. There were always one of two gun guys there, but the gun stuff is spreading mainly because I think city and suburban types are starting to notice CCW stuff.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started reading NRO only John Derbyshire talked about guns and shooting at the pistol range. And he is a Brit expat!
I expected Jonah Goldberg to talk guns more because he married and Alaskan and visits her in-laws regularly. No dice, yet.
Not a peep was heard from David Frum when he was a conservative. And Charles Krauthammer has said a word one way or the other as I have notice.
Kathryn Lopez and Maggie Gallagher are all about the abortion politics and Catholics stuff. More Social Conservative. Like Ramesh Ponnuru.
Don't hear from Californian farmer Victor David Hansen on the issue, neither. So he is neither Metro, nor a 2A type. But he is very politically conservative, natch.
Rather unfounded conclusion. National Review does periodically discuss 2nd amendment rights. Tried searching the NRO site and came up with well over 100 hits. Not exactly ignoring the topic.
ReplyDeleteDavid Kopel has articles there as a columnist so I’d say the editorial staff was looking for comment.
Goldberg and Frum both have articles listed discussing gun rights as part of discussions if not on the main topic.
Of course they do. There was an election in 2010.
ReplyDeleteFacetiousness aside, you don't get a good view of the trends with an archive search. Is 100 hits a big number? You'd have to read them every day since 2003 to get a better view of their treatment, and note the uptick relatively recently. When guns were in the news they'd be more likely to mention it, but often drag their heels about it. Lately they have actually posted stuff without any precipitating event, which is novel for them.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is the point of kicking somebody in your own corner?
ReplyDeleteI never kicked them. I nudged them when they weren't in our corner. Now I do posts like this, praising them when they uncharacterically post pro-gun stuff. Somebody has to watch them or they'll think renewing the AWB is a good idea again.
ReplyDelete(Like they listen to ME... Kevin Williamson, Texas NROnik has commented in the past tho. Thanks Mr. Williamson)
ReplyDeleteWell it is a free country after all. If they don't care to make the 2nd Amendment a primary topic, that's their choice. They get pretty good readership without making it their primary cause.
ReplyDelete