Alan Keyes — August Wrap Up
| August 30th, 2004As an Illinois resident, I am having way too fun watching former Ambassador turned social conservative radio talk show host Alan Keyes run for Senate. First, he explained why it’s ok to run for Senate as an invited carpetbagger who is not nominated during a primary, while it’s not ok to runs as an uninvited carpetbagger who is nominated during a state primary. Next, he flipped on slave reparations (if you can call his change of view a real reversal.) Then, while at the very agriculturally oriented Illinois State Fair, Keyes announced “he no longer favors abolishing the U.S. Agriculture Department”. (See abc news. )
Now, for Keyes on gun control! Of course, every politician has a right to take a position, but let’s just say Keyes’s rhetoric cannot be called subtle. The Chicago Sun Times reports:
“Have you ever been to Israel?” Keyes asked the reporter. “Because if you’ve ever been to Israel, you wouldn’t ask that question. And in the midst of terrifying dangers, you walk around the streets of Israel and you see every other person carrying arms and Uzis and so forth and so on, and believe me, you do not feel less safe on that account.”
Well, Alan, I don’t know about the reporter, but, I have never been to Israel. I’ll take your word that I wouldn’t feel less safe because of the Uzis.
But Alan is not content to raise the specter of Uzis when advocating machine gun ownership in the US. What we are we to think when Keyes says things like this:
True. Permitting people to carry machine guns is not like letting them carry atom bombs.
Evidently, Keyes volunteered the “machine guns are not atom bombs” argument at a press conference he called to attack Obama as an extremist.
It must be rhetoric like this that garnered him enthusiastic words from Illinois State GOP Chairwoman Judy Barr Topinka. When questioned whether she would vote for Obama or Keyes, The Chicago Sun Times reported she answered:
But, I’m forgetting; Barr Topinka said that five days before the atom bomb reference.
With rhetoric like this, I suspect we can all understand why I hope Keyes will continue to focus on gun control . There is evidence he will begin to discuss same sex marriage.
August 31st, 2004 at 4:37 am
The problem is–if you think the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning private ownership of machine guns, there is no principled reason why you shouldn’t also concluded that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning private ownership of atom bombs
This comment was written by rea.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 5:13 am
I used to discuss this with a pro-gun friend of mine and he said the same thing. (He wasn’t , btw, pro-atom bomb ownership.)
Keyes seems to be making the following argument: The 2nd amendement permits ownership because we need a well armed millitia. Therefor, people should be allowed to carry weapons that the infantry carry.
I don’t know if that’s a reasonable or unreasonable reading. When I read the definition of militia, it’s fairly non-specific. But, they do seem to be an untrained army– so possibly that would exclude cannons, tanks and atomic weapons.
Still, I really don’t like the idea of people walking around with Uzis. I doubt a whole bunch of people really want to see people walking around with Uzi’s. I can’t help wondering why Keyes would bring the image of “every other person” walking around with an Uzi — and characterize that as a “ok” thing– in a conference where he claims his intention is to show Obama is an extremist– and that Keyes himself is moderate.
With luck though, next week we’ll get some really fun rhetoric on marriage, women, children and ssm!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 7:51 am
I certainly don’t want to see a lot of folks running around with Uzis, or any other weapon, myself … the very thought is frightening.
I’ve been kinda fascinated by Keyes since I first heard of him several years ago — and found his 2000 run for prez full of lots of surprises and great fun.
But I really can’t for the life of me understand why Illinois Republicans would EVER pick him to be their nominee … (frankly, I can’t imagine why anybody anywhere would pick him; he’s enough on his own without the backing of a whole party).
Was the Illinois GOP that desperate?
This comment was written by NewsWriter.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 8:47 am
And Keyes is spending more time during national media interviews than at the RNC events or meeting with the Illinois delegates. But if he didn’t we wouldn’t get Freudian slips like this.
This comment was written by striker.Then it was on to the Talk Radio News Service to explain why he’s not a carpetbagger and Hillary Rodham Clinton is.
“She was imposing herself on the state of Illinois,” Keyes said, his arm around host Alan Nathan’s chair, his suit jacket buttons undone. Nathan jumped in to quickly correct him: “New York,” he said.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 8:53 am
I think I get it. The Illinois GOP, for some unfathomable reason, ASKED Keyes to come in and take over the spot on its ticket, ergo, Mr. Keyes was merely doing the honorable thing by accepting their sincere offer.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, somehow forced New York Democrats to vote to make her their nominee, and I suppose she must then have forced the entire state to vote her into office.
And Judy Barr Topinka’s “vote vegetarian” comment is really, really, really weird.
This comment was written by NewsWriter.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 11:50 am
Speaking of comedy gold . . .
This comment was written by Raznor's Rants.Lucia over at Alas, A Blog has a good post about Alan Keyes. My favorite thing is Keyes talking about his opposition to gun control . . .
Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 11:51 am
I love Alan Keyes. Since he really has no chance of winning, his zany antics are keeping this election season humorous.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 1:59 pm
The atom bomb question arises a lot in libertarian circles, where some people sincerely DO believe that private individuals should be allowed to own atom bombs. I suspect that’s why Keyes volunteered it.
(Let me hasten to add that I am not one of these people!)
In this vein, I’d like to address rea’s point, stated as follows:
if you think the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning private ownership of machine guns, there is no principled reason why you shouldn’t also concluded that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning private ownership of atom bombs
I would say that there is absolutely a principled reason to distinguish among various forms of arms as to whether the second amendment covers them. The amendment was designed to allow private individuals to protect their own security and their own property, if necessary by banding together and forming a militia. Militias aren’t popular these days, and given the specimens that we now encounter, it’s not surprising. But still, I do believe that allowing people to arm themselves for their own protection is entirely proper.
The words “for their own protection” now become key: There is no possible situation where an atomic bomb could be used for personal protection or for the protection of an individual’s property. Thus in my view personal firearms should be legal–with fully automatic weapons as an arguable case–but anything beyond that should not. Rocket-propelled grenades, incendiary bombs, and the like are right out of the question, and so are nukes.
This comment was written by Jason Kuznicki.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 2:06 pm
Why is an RPG not useful for protecting one’s own life and property? If you are being threatened by armored vehicles a rifle isn’t going to do you much good, but an RPG might. You can go right on extending this all the way up to nuclear weapons (what if you are threatened by some entity that has nuclear weapons?) and all the way down to rocks. Why not draw the line at clubs or arrows? Why firearms (w/ automatic weapons being up for debate)?
Obviously, your argument doesn’t make much sense to me - it just seems like an arbitrary line you have drawn.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 2:25 pm
Jason,
You may be correct that Keyes brought it up because some Libertarians are for private ownership of atomic weapons. (I shudder to think!). So, if Keyes were actually speaking at some convention hosted by Libertarians, and someone brought it up, then I would sort of understand why he might discuss the difference between machine guns and atomic weapons.
That said, I still dont’ “get” why he brought it up as a political move at this particular conference which he called himself– with the express intention of showing that Obama is an extremist. I doubt if there were a whole bunch of people in the audience thinking “What’s your stand on atomic weapons?” So why introduce the idea into the audiences heads?
I’m afraid I have this vision of Keyes staying awake at night thinking up metaphors for the next day. I imagine him saying “Should I say people can’t own grenandes? No, not extreme enough. How about anti air craft guns? No, not extreme enough. Oh, I know! Atomic weapons! There’s the ticket! ”
I just end up gasping at and being distracted by the image of mushroom clouds! (Not to mention Uzi armed people strolling about town.)
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2004 at 3:57 pm
Protection against what, by the way? I think that’s the relevant question. The 2nd Amendment was clearly intended to allow the citizenry to arm themselves against tyranny, but the moderate pro-gun arguments tend to be anti-crime arguments. A handgun is no protection against tyranny when tyranny has nukes–and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect your right to arm yourself for police action, only for military action.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2004 at 6:40 am
Amanda and Jake,
Call me a moderate then. There are a whole range of political questions that involve this sort of balancing act–and any amount of weapons prohibition is going to be arbitrary to some degree. (So we prohibit guns. What about swords? Knives? Crossbows? Nail guns? Mace?)
At some point you have to draw a line, and it’s going to be somewhat arbitrary, much like it is in criminal sentencing.
I think my line is reasonable and somewhat less arbitrary for two reasons: First, the weapons I mention are generally available now and are likely to remain available even if they are banned. This is not true of heavier armaments. Second, these weapons are at least roughly similar to the ones that existed from the time that the second amendment was adopted until the era when gun control became a popular idea. Historically, we have been able to keep these particular arms responsibly more often than not. If the problem these days seems worse, I would suggest that other factors besides the weapons themselves are to blame–such as our misguided drug laws.
This comment was written by Jason Kuznicki.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2004 at 10:05 am
The fun just doesn’t stop. Keyes made these comments during an interview Monday with Sirius OutQ, a satellite radio station that provides programming aimed at gays and lesbians.
This comment was written by striker.Keyes said: “The essence of … family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it’s possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism.”
Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney was “a selfish hedonist,” Keyes said: “That goes by definition. Of course she is.”
Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2004 at 10:54 am
Hey, at least he’s honest about his extremism. That’s more than we can say for our current junta.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2004 at 11:25 am
Yep. It’s also pretty likely Keyes’s isn’t going to win the Senate race. The question: How many people can he take down wth him?
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2004 at 1:33 pm
Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist? See here: .
This comment was written by Robert Skipper.Report this comment to the moderators