Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Policy & Issues

Rolling Stone ‘gun lover’ shows curious interpretation of Second Amendment

See also

It’s fair to say Rolling Stone is not only notoriously anti-gun, but also representative of a “progressive” mindset that, true to the “Every Day is Opposite Day” maxim, is anything but.

In recent days, we’ve seen an interview with Michael Bloomberg revealing not only the squire’s insufferable snobbery, but also unabashed misogyny that only an elitist surrounding himself with sycophantic lickspittles could hope to get away with.

We’ve seen blame for violence placed on every gun commonly owned by Americans. We’ve seen a Seven Step program that reveals nothing so much as its author hasn’t thought through what he’s going to do when people who disagree tell him where to go and how to get there.

And we’ve seen a patriot trashed as a zealot and a hater, and in turn snitched on to the authorities by this ... this thing, in the hopes of putting the kibosh on pesky irritants to the ruling class. You know, inconvenient impediments like free speech...

What else should we expect from flacks in the employ of Jann Wenner, a doctrinaire Prozi so fixated on his hatred of guns that he ordered... well, read it for yourself:

A cover picture for Rolling Stone magazine was altered with the computer (O'Connor, 1986). The gun and shoulder holster were removed from "Miami Vice" actor Don Johnson because editor Jan Wenner is an ardent foe of handguns (Lasica, 1989).

But wait, as late TV pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there’s more.

In its midsummer pile-on against all things gun, Rolling Stone tells us the motivation for women wanting to possess and become proficient with firearms is “murky.” We get the latest on the crusade by Richard Martinez against private ownership of kniv... no, car... uh, guns. And we also hear the ... wait, can this be right?

Confessions of a liberal gun lover”...?

“I've had guns in my household for a dozen years and no one I love has been killed, nor has anyone I don't love,” Christopher Ketcham tells readers in an article that included references to the Kates and Mauser study, among other arguments against “gun control.” Funny -- when I referenced that five years ago, a monopoly of violence troll called me a liar in comments under my article for doing so.

“I say gun ownership is a necessary line of defense ... and I want the Second Amendment protected,” he declares.

Wonderful. So we agree? If so, why did Ketcham support Bill DeBlasio, who’s not likely to be very receptive to the writer’s “don't you dare try and stop me” challenge?

Just what are this guy’s guns “a necessary line of defense” against?

“[I]nvestment bankers,” he tells us. “Wall Street lawyers, big business, the corporatized wing of the Democratic Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, ALEC, Nazis, gangbangers, meth fiends, cops and politicos who cut welfare and education programs while refusing to downsize the military or raise taxes on the rich.”

While there are some odious groups on Ketcham’s hit list, like his fellow national socialists, as well as some downright dangerous ones, I note he doesn’t flesh out how it is morally justifiable to use guns against, say, the group that stands for limited government, free markets and federalism. What would the circumstance be for whacking them, and who else would make his list? At what point will it be cool to start targeting “teabagger” firms, and is anyone who works for or with them fair game?

Can you imagine how Rolling Stone would howl if someone from the “right” were to call for “Second Amendment remedies” against, say SEIU, or the Southern Poverty Law Center or Everytown? Or Organizing for Action? How does Yawn feel about his guy singling out “the corporatized wing of the Democratic Party” -- the folks like Wenner, who put Obama, Pelosi and the entire leadership in office -- for the same treatment?

What do you think the chances are Carolyn Maloney will now demand a criminal investigation?

And where are all the indignant (and frankly, pretty damn creepy) anti-gun males peppering Rolling Stone’s “Comments” section with unoriginal snark about a subject they sure seem mighty interested in... ?

-----------

If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."

------------

Sure we won Heller and McDonald, but what have the black robes done for us lately? My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Full Court Press.”

------------

My latest JPFO Alert JPFO Alert isolates the deadliest plague to ever threaten humankind. See “The Biggest Public Health Threat is Government.”

------------

Don’t like the latest Supreme Court ruling? My newest entry in The Shooter’s Log recommends “To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight.”

Advertisement