General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEleanor Roosevelt, gun owner
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by cbayer (a host of the General Discussion forum).
I think that having an icon in the political arena and, truly, someone who was a world leader, having a true understanding of what your Second Amendment rights are, as an American, is just incredibly enlightening, said Mike McCormack, chairman of the Dutchess County Republican Committee. She got it.
Dutchess County Democratic Committee Chairwoman Elisa Sumner had a very different opinion.
I dont think you can compare what she did in 1957 with 2015, Sumner said. At the time, you werent having mass shootings. You didnt have Sandy Hook (elementary school shootings). You didnt have people walking around with semi-automatic weapons, Uzis and Kalishnikovs. I dont think there is a comparison at all. Youre talking about two different time periods. She needed protection because of her liberal, civil rights circumstances. She needed protection, Sumner said.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/2015/07/12/eleanor-roosevelt-gun-owner/29953377/
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Shamash
(597 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)This issue is more accurately described as urban and rural. The bottom line is that it isn't really an issue most people are concerned about, and those who are concerned are about 90% in the Eleanor Roosevelt/no more gun control camp...
Vinca
(50,261 posts)We can assume, right off the bat, it wasn't a semi-automatic handgun able to kill dozens of people a minute. There are guns and then there are GUNS. And what is the reason behind owning a gun? A rifle for hunting? An AK for hunting? A little S & W pistol for protection or a room filled with every gun known to mankind? There is common sense gun ownership and "nut" gun ownership. I would guess Eleanor was in the former group.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)Of course, the chairman of the Dutchess County Rep. comm. would frame in the way he did. That's what Republicans do. But his Dem counterpart set him straight. That's what Democrats do.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Except there were plenty of gangland murder sprees, like the Valentines Day Massacre (1929). Yes, she needed protection, as Sumner states, and there are those everyday people today would like the same liberty.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)that makes sense, given the gang she ran with...oh, she tried to hide her criminal past but we're not fooled...that photo of her on a private estate firing on a target in that get up was just a set up to deflect us from looking into her sordid life of crime...
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)I didn't claim she was involved with gangs, but these shootings were happening on public streets and settings. The potential for gun violence was very much on the minds of many people just as it is today when mass shootings occur.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)was an enormously privileged woman who may very well have feared for her safety once out in public view, but had a pathetically uninformed way of dealing with it. I guess if Jackie Kennedy had been packing heat that day in Dallas, nobody wudda dared shoot her husband...
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)There are scenarios when having a pistol can help and they are scenarios where having pistol wouldn't help. Surely you understand that.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)And I too am truly sorry I had to go to reductio ad absurdum in order to make a really rather simple point.
Glad we're all straightened out now.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)like the Saint Valentines Day Massacre, were criminal on criminal violence.
Where were the 'Sandy Hooks' of those days? They weren't.
She 'needed protection' because she was part of the First Family. She wasn't carrying a pistol to protect her simply from getting mugged, but as part of her protection from assassination, something 'everyday people' don't have to worry about.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)You may say that everyday people don't have to worry about getting killing, but most of the people getting murdered and assaulted are not first ladies of the United States, are they?
And sometimes schools were targeted for violence, albeit not always with guns.
For example, thirty-eight elementary school children and six adults
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)have prevented those kids from getting blown up? Oh wait, it wouldn't. So your argument is total non sequitur.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)When I add you to my 'timewasters' ignore list for first trying to 'rebut' my argument with your non sequitur, then disingenuously pretending, a single comment later, that that's not what you were trying to do.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)You brought up mass killings at schools with the claim that they didn't happen.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Yet guns were far more openly accessible in those days. It seems as if accessibility is not the controlling factor for spree killers.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)It was a trade off agreement that the secret service would keep their distance if she carried a gun. She did it because she wanted some privacy in her life,she was hardly a gun enthusiast.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)that makes the difference between ignorant and misguided claims and reality. Thanks.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)pistol packin' mama. She was a woman with a mission,that mission had nothing to do with brandishing a gun.
MerryBlooms
(11,761 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/first-lady-eleanor-roosevelt-i-carry-a-pistol-and-im-a-fairly-good-shot/#ixzz3fmAbW0LK
Sounds like she enjoyed shooting well just like other gun enthusiasts.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)Thanks so much for sharing...
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)But the article is sourced and verifiable if doubt its veracity.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Yet, at the time gun laws were far less restrictive.
Perhaps something culturally changed, such as the Drug War and a PIC that leaves people caught in it no future except a future of crime.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Host consensus is that this violates the prohibition on gun threads in the forum.