Alabama Agriculture Commissioner candidate Dale Peterson, who finished third in the primary, is back with a new ad endorsing one of the two candidates in the run-off. Were I an Alabama Republican, the ad would not make me more inclined to vote for John McMillan, whom Peterson endorses.
Compared to the first ad, the second ad has an important improvement: Peterson keeps his finger off the trigger until he is ready to shoot.
However, this modeling of responsible gun handling is far outweighed by Peterson actually shooting. High in the air, over the head of someone who is stealing a McMillan yard sign. A very poor decision and a terrible example, in my view, even if it were legal, which I doubt it is. Among the many reasons for my conclusion: the yard sign is presumably located at the edge of Peterson’s property, near a public road, so that other people can see it. Ergo, Peterson’s high shot in the air traveled across a public road, and there was a very significant chance that it entered someone else’s property. I realize that for the production of ad, Peterson might have staged the shot so that it only went on his own property, but the story of the ad is still built around modeling recklessly irresponsible gun use.
In addition, the second ad repeats the claim that Peterson served in the Marines “during Vietnam,” which is true only in a Clintonian sense. He did serve in the Marines, but never left the United States. The second ad also repeats the claim (which was presented more elaborately in the first ad) that another candidate has been taking illegal campaign contributions, a claim which is, at best, based on a hyper-aggressive reading of the Alabama campaign finance law. Details here, from Politifact.
Tag line for the ad: “Don’t you wish you had Dale Peterson watching your back?” My answer: No. Among the people I do not want behind me with a rifle is someone of questionable character (a propensity for half-truths) and a record of “showing off” with reckless gun handling.
Stan says:
Ah? Did you just say, he was shooting at someone in a political ad?
June 17, 2010, 9:37 pmSteve says:
I had sort of hoped Mr. Peterson’s 15 minutes were up.
June 17, 2010, 9:43 pmAJK says:
I assume you opposed the Schwarzenegger candidacy on similar grounds.
June 17, 2010, 9:54 pmGaryp says:
Geez, let’s get upset about something real for a change. People are murdered by career criminals every day. The US govt has just announced that it isn’t safe to enter a national park because foreign criminals control it. You are worried about a gun fired in the air on a commericial?
June 17, 2010, 10:19 pmThe big, bad gun scared you? Get a grip.
(It was probably a blank and it was certainly not meant to be taken seriously as a threat to shoot sign stealers. It is an amusing bit of political theater that is refreshing after watching all the spineless mediocrities we elect emoting about how much they “care”.)
This country has gotten to be a bunch of wimps that wring their hands over commercials while we avert our eyes from our murdered neighbors. That guy can move in next to me any day as long as keeps his Winchester loaded with real ammunition.
Eli Rabett says:
Peterson is Mark Kirk’s dad?
June 17, 2010, 10:43 pmDavidson says:
I enjoyed the both ads. Hilarious.
June 17, 2010, 10:49 pmJohnF says:
Come on, it’s FUNNNY. If a good ole boy can’t laugh it up about his guns and politics, what is this country coming to?
June 17, 2010, 10:53 pmDanInAustin says:
Lighten up Dave :) I think it’s supposed to be funny. Anyone know if he’s like this normally or is this all just an act for the campaign?
June 17, 2010, 11:20 pmgooston says:
I bet Dale Peterson could out-shoot you and then kick your ass all over the county.
June 17, 2010, 11:44 pmMark N. says:
I like the tagline on one of his pages, Patriots know no boundaries. Good to see a conservative Republican in favor of open borders!
June 18, 2010, 12:07 amwolfefan says:
Nice catch, Mark N. I guess that means Patriots don’t respect property rights either. :)
It’s always interesting to see what kinds of posts bring new commenters, or at least commenters whose names I don’t recognize. Someone thinking that Dave Kopel is frightened by a gun clearly has read very little Dave Kopel.
June 18, 2010, 1:17 amAJK says:
Sure, but he’s clearly overreacting here. Gun safety is clearly very important. If there were evidence that Dale Peterson didn’t practice good gun handling techniques in real life, that would certainly reflect very poorly on his character. The same is true about driving a car. But if a politician came out with an ad featuring some stunt driving, I doubt Kopel or anyone else would be concerned about modeling unsafe driving habits.
(The “during Vietnam” criticism is more salient. And of course, if his allegations about his opponent are untrue, that seriously undermines his effectiveness.)
June 18, 2010, 1:31 amThe Unbeliever says:
Well then, put him in front of you. That way you can keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn’t start making any more political ads which trouble you so.
He made a good point though: he got a strong third showing based entirely on the previous viral ad. If amusing, unorthodox video segments are that effective, then he’s smarter than the average politician by continuing the “series” for any other message he wants to convey.
Just hope it stops before he gets his own sitcom on ABC.
June 18, 2010, 1:41 amOrenWithAnE says:
I thought warning shots were illegal in every State of the Union. If you have time to fire a warning shot then you clearly don’t have an immediate threat to your life that requires deadly force.
I’ve not known any gun owner that would ever endorse firing a weapon in such a fashion. I hope never to meet one.
June 18, 2010, 1:52 amEH says:
I thought “real life” was the point of campaign ads themselves.
June 18, 2010, 3:21 ampublic_defender says:
I can’t imagine voting for this guy, but I don’t think saying that he served “during Vietnam” is deceptive. I think that expression signals to everyone that the speaker was not actually there.
June 18, 2010, 6:22 amStephen Lathrop says:
Second Amendment absolutists are quick to assert that irresponsible gun handling by the law abiding isn’t a problem. There have been plenty of commenters on VC who have offered posts that basically assert that people like Peterson DON’T EXIST.
For some time I have been trying, without any sign of favorable response, to make the case that members of the pro-gun community, among whom I number myself, must cope with this fact: a universal right to bear arms is going to put arms into the hands of a random cross section of the population, including by percentages as many people who are impaired, irresponsible, potentially felonious, drunk, and stupid as you would find in any such sample.
Because of the deadly nature of guns, that has implications for the way the Second Amendment should be administered. Reasonable regulations must be part of it, because there has to be some way to protect everyone from reckless gun ownership.
There is a tone in the original post that suggests Peterson (and perhaps a few people like him) risk ruining it for everyone. That subtly invokes the crazily optimistic view that legal gun owners are, as a rule, exceptional paragons of virtue and judgment. It isn’t so. They are like everyone else.
The long-term viability of Second Amendment freedoms probably depends on coming to terms with that simple fact.
June 18, 2010, 6:28 amSnaphappy says:
David Kopel does not give a rip about Alabama!
June 18, 2010, 8:41 amT. Gracchus says:
The more apt analogy would be Reagan, who served the entirety of his time in service in Hollywood, something he forgot from time to time. Clinton did not serve at all.
June 18, 2010, 8:56 amRichard Nieporent says:
Do you also agree with this Stephen Lathrop?
June 18, 2010, 8:56 amDJR says:
Actually, even regular First Amendment advocates (and presumably absolutists too) are quick to defend the most reprehensible speech on the ground that the freedom to speak is exactly the freedom to say what others consider to be irresponsible or much worse. If you want to analogize the First Amendment to the Second, you should be saying that RTKBA demands that people like Dale Peterson be able to carry guns anywhere, finger on the trigger or not, and shoot them anywhere so long as they do not harm others. After all, we have criminal and civil law to deter them from killing people or harming property in the exercise of their constitutional rights.
June 18, 2010, 9:15 amRichard Nieporent says:
No DJR, you are missing my point. If the government only allows “responsible people” to exercise an Amendment then the Amendment is no longer a right but only a privilege that can be withdraw whenever the government decides that it is in its interest to do so.
June 18, 2010, 9:36 amtroll_dc2 says:
Richard Nieporent, you write as if “the government” is something completely separate from, if not alien to, American society. In truth, it reflects from time to time the views of a substantially agitated bunch of citizens. The more that gun owners engage in reckless behavior, the more the populace is likely to get riled up, and the more likely that regulations in one form or another will be adopted and found reasonable. Stephen Lathrop hit the mark.
June 18, 2010, 10:11 amTamerlane says:
This is unfair. If he served in the Marines during this period, he volunteered with the very real possibility of being sent into combat. And this was during a period when many people I knew were desperately trying to avoid any kind of military service in any under-handed manner they could come up with.
It would take more than an advertising sound-bite to convey the concept you think he should have. In this context what he said is the absolute truth.
By the way, I’m modestly proud of the fact I even volunteered for the Marines at that time (though I was rejected out of hand for certain medical conditions of which I was unaware). This at least shows I was willing to seerve my country when so many of my Baby Boomer colleagues were desperately striving to avoid doing the same. Kudos to Mr. Peterson for actually serving.
June 18, 2010, 10:22 amChrisIowa says:
The way it’s stated, it’s clear that he is not saying he served in Vietnam. It does say he was available to go if ordered.
June 18, 2010, 10:30 amAngus says:
He could have accomplished the goal of pointing out his military service by simply saying, “when I served in the Marines.” The only reason for adding “during Vietnam” is because he wants to leave viewers the impression that he was actually in Vietnam and in combat.
I understand Peterson is an intellectual idol for grassroots conservatives, but even reasonable people should be able to agree that the way he phrased his service was an effort to mislead.
June 18, 2010, 10:32 amUrso says:
Of course, even First amendment absolutists agree that there are problems with giving unfettered free speech to the random cross-section of drunks, fools, and would-be demagogues that Steven Lathrop described. Which is why courts have consistently upheld laws forbidding categories of speech like fraud, defamation, threats, and fighting words.
And, pragmatically speaking, the 2nd/1st amendment analogy only goes so far. Generally speaking, a lunatic with a bullhorn is an annoyance; a lunatic with a gun is a danger.
This is all a bit off topic. The ad referred to in Kopel’s post is neither an indictment of the 2nd nor the 1st amendment; it’s an indictment of Dale Peterson, personally, and to those commentators who would defend him.
June 18, 2010, 10:33 amFub says:
Depends on circumstances where stunt actually driving occurs, and who is actually at risk of injury.
On a private track with only ad production participants at risk, no concern.
On a public road with general public at risk, concern, and possibly felonious.
June 18, 2010, 10:34 amJPG says:
Richard Nieropent is absolutely right, speeches don’t hurt people. People hurt people.
June 18, 2010, 10:42 amFrank Drackman says:
Alabama leads the US in per capita ownership of legally purchased fully automatic weapons. Used to go to a public range in one of the National Forests and you’d routinely see someone lettin loose full magazine dumps with real MACs, UZIs, MP5s. Which was totally within the range rules, which were posted behind umm nothing, cause the original glass had been shot out shortly after it was put in, cause thats what we DO with rules posted behind glass in Alabama.
June 18, 2010, 10:42 amYou can even carry a full automatic weapon concealed on your person, as long as its the one you claimed on your concealed carry application.
Can’t use em for huntin tho, its agin’ the law.
aeronathan says:
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the other candidate is taking illegal campaign contributions. I wouldn’t be surprised if ANY candidate in AL is taking illegal contributions. As the cynical part of me likes to joke:
Q: How can you tell if an AL politician is corrupt?
A: Check to see if he’s breathing….
It differs county to county, but most counties don’t require you to list a specific weapon on your carry permit application. Mine for Madison County didn’t.
June 18, 2010, 10:58 amBama 1L says:
Agreed. He would be better off just saying “I was a Marine.” Adding “during Vietnam” makes the viewer either assume, erroneously, that he was in Vietnam or perhaps wonder why he wasn’t (family connections, safe billet, some sort of problem, etc.). I did the latter: no one says they were doing during a war unless they weren’t there.
Robert Bentley, a candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Alabama (which has also gone to runoff) handles Vietnam-era service better:
So he makes clear that he wasn’t in Vietnam, but he explains the connection between his stateside service and Vietnam.
I’m not voting for Bentley, by the way.
June 18, 2010, 11:05 amGerbilsbite says:
So the problem is that the round might have traveled onto someone else’s property, and not, say, the idea that firing a rifle over a CAMPAIGN YARD SIGN is completely unwarranted and excessive?
Guns fire bullets. Bullets kill things. If you’re firing a gun in response to someone’s actions, that person better be getting ready to seriously injure or kill someone, or at least steal something of considerably greater value than a $2 sign on a $.40 stake.
If I knew of someone shooting a rifle over a yard sign, I’d want to check their backyard for the graves of neighbors who let their dogs poop on his grass and door-to-door salesmen who interrupted him during “Wheel of Fortune”.
June 18, 2010, 11:06 amBama 1L says:
The pity is that there’s no need. Our laws are very lax, so you can sell out without breaking the law. Yet people do.
June 18, 2010, 11:08 amAnton says:
I’ll leave Mr. Kopel to his night terrors about Peterson’s gun handling. Me? I’m more worried about this: Afghan Troops Disappear From Air Force Base in Texas
June 18, 2010, 11:25 amBugz says:
I think Dave Kopel’s complaint qualifies as an example of someone stupidly pulling their dress over their head over an innocent, entertaining joke.
I really get sick of the League of the Perpetually Aggrieved and their stupid politically correct complaints. Are there no real problems left in the world to get worked up over?
Why don’t you go join hands with the LA NAACP over Hallmark’s graduation card, and the NAACP complaint that Hallmark’s use of the astronomical term ‘Black Hole’ is racist. You dimwits deserve each other.
June 18, 2010, 11:25 amUrso says:
I’m looking forward to his next viral video, where you see a guy in a voting booth pulling the lever for Peterson’s opponent. He smiles, walks out into the sunshine, and BAM! right between the eyes. Camera pans to Peterson, holding his rifle with a devilish grin on his face. Voiceover: “Vote Dale Peterson. IF you know what’s good for you.”
June 18, 2010, 11:27 amrmd says:
Thanks for the morning chuckle.
June 18, 2010, 11:29 amAJK says:
So you’re concerned because you think that while filming the ad, Peterson actually fired a live round into a public road? Do you think that the guy was really trying to steal his yard sign too?
June 18, 2010, 11:59 amgeokstr says:
Toothless inbred candidates down there probably turn off the credit card security functions so that no one can track who is “donating” on the internet or if they are even citizens and not foreign nationals. Most likely they’ll refuse to release the names of small donors so it can’t be determined if they violated the legal limits or come from foreigners. Then they’ll slyly refuse to take federal matching funds after loudly and publicly promising to do so, so then they won’t be subject to audit by the FEC, even after revelations of bushelbaskets of dollars in campaign funds coming from Beirut and “Doodad Pro”, and “ahfoienodbdb” and “M. Mouse”.
Yeah, you really can’t trust those
June 18, 2010, 12:08 pmChiAL politicians, can you?Urso says:
Treat every gun like it’s loaded.
June 18, 2010, 12:09 pmFub says:
I was responding to a hypothetical about stunt driving, which was apparently offered as an analogy to the actual video production under discussion.
See above.
The issue is whether any nonparticipant in the video production was endangered.
That is independent of the message, “modeling”, or effectiveness, of the video.
If a politician has so little sense that he endangers the public in production of his ad, his judgment is more than highly questionable; and his actions in its production possibly felonious.
June 18, 2010, 1:00 pmBugz says:
I think the only felonious conduct going on here is the criminally PC ‘taking this crap too seriously’ nonsense.
June 18, 2010, 1:13 pmJust Dropping By says:
Seems kind of silly to worry about that. From the article:
It seems extremely unlikely that their “badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations” are still good after having been AWOL for several months to up to two years.
June 18, 2010, 1:38 pmAJK says:
You must not enjoy going to the movies very much!
That’s true. It’s also clearly not relevant to the ad in question here, so I’m not sure why you would bring it up.
June 18, 2010, 2:07 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
I suspect he could kick my ass. But I’ve got $500 that says he can’t outshoot me.
June 18, 2010, 2:36 pmJKB says:
Really, MP5′s, Uzi’s and MACs? Highest per capita ownership when Alabama just last March repealed a state ban:
Please, pray tell, where does one buy these long barreled Uzis? Are these ancient weapons since no new automatic weapons have been permitted into private ownership since 1986?
June 18, 2010, 2:42 pmSeaDrive says:
Not necessarily. The day I was drafted in December 1968, 25% of the draft (at that center) went to the Marine Corp.
Letting yourself get drafted also had a real possibility of getting sent into combat.
June 18, 2010, 2:51 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Really? Because I see unlawful discharge of a firearm and assault with a deadly weapon.
June 18, 2010, 3:52 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Seadrive,
Marine Corps, with an s on the end.
Stephen,
The argument, properly stated anyway, isn’t that careless or negligent, otherwise lawful, gun owners don’t exist, it is that statistically gun accident rates, at least ones that actually cause death or injury, are minimal compared to other dangerous negligent or accidental actions and, like violent crime rates, have continued to trend downward even as gun ownership has increased and carry restrictions have loosened.
There is no statistical, or even solid anecdotal, data that suggests, in the case of carry laws anyway, that mandatory training, in any amount, has any effect on later misuse (contraintuitively, the same appears to be true for permits themselves; carry by those lawful to possess, permitted or not, just isn’t a negative factor in general public safety).
However that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still promote voluntary continuing training ( I wish there was a national organization with that as its founding principle…. oh wait) and expect good gun handling practices from gun owners, especially those in positions of influence.
June 18, 2010, 4:01 pmBugz says:
Ok, show of hands. How many people here seriously think that video shows Dale Peterson firing a live round, and that is someone actually stealing a campaign poster from someone’s lawn? Yeah, I thought so…
You, sir/ma’am, must be one of the more stupid people on the planet. Congratulations. Your mother, I know, must be proud.
June 18, 2010, 4:07 pmFrank Drackman says:
JKB: Try “Birmingham Pistol Wholesale” which is actually in Hoover, a suburb of B-ham.
The ban that was repealed was for “Short Barreled Rifles, and Shotguns” a separate category from “Machineguns” which have been legal in Alabama(with appropriate ATF approval) since the National Firearms Act was passed back in the 30′s.
Your right that the pool of legal automatic weapons is limite to those that were registered in May of 1986 when Congress banned further manufacture(signed by Reagan :( if you can believe it) still, there’s alot of Macs, Uzis, M-16s, M-2 Carbines, and the occasional MP40.
Check out Subguns.com if your interested.
Frank
June 18, 2010, 4:19 pmVirginian says:
And an ‘e’…right?
June 18, 2010, 4:55 pmcurle says:
This post resembles the tired campaign whining one might expect to see in a local letters to the editor section concerning any down ballot race where candidates are desperate to dream up rationales to distinguish themselves from their otherwise worthy opponents. In other words, nitpicking angst and pointless hyperventilating over non-issues.
June 18, 2010, 5:49 pmRaoul says:
Its not that I actually disagree with Kopel’s comments, but think there are a hundred more important things to write about on any given day.
Kopel reminds me of a guy we used to have in our local 2A rights group. He was way more concerned that we all brush our teeth, comb our hair and dress for success than he was in defeating our adversaries.
June 18, 2010, 6:12 pmSteve says:
He was way more concerned that we all brush our teeth, comb our hair and dress for success than he was in defeating our adversaries.
Your mom probably feels the same way, and you really should listen to your mother.
June 18, 2010, 6:26 pmJK says:
Were people not brushing their teeth?
June 18, 2010, 7:22 pmOrenWithAnE says:
The video is a depiction of Dale Peterson committing multiple crimes, violating nearly every precept of safe gun ownership. As a gun owner, I cannot possibly endorse any such illegal, irresponsible and unethical depiction of firearm use.
June 18, 2010, 7:23 pmNick056 says:
Look: David Kopel frequently holds nothing back in demonstrating his mendacity. He gives the impression that Peterson shot a live round, but is there any evidence he didn’t just depict shooting a live round? Did Kopel try to pick up the phone and find out?
In the end, in typical Kopelsian fashion, he hedges by saying, whatever, I still don’t like the story of the ad, which is different from discussing “a shot that traveled” anywhere — because it’s very possible no live round was fired, and Kopel didn’t think to do any reporting work to find out.
All that said, I know that this guy’s “don’t give a rip” persona appeals to some people, but is it a surprise that a self-righteous dude sees nothing wrong with misleading people about his service and communicating his image by pretending to shoot randomly at guldarned fools? I find that usually supremely judgmental pricks who very loudly share their sense of great moral superiority have little difficulty deliberately lying and acting without regard to others’ safety in real life — not just on TV.
June 18, 2010, 7:38 pmOwen H. says:
How does it being staged help here? Advocating shooting at someone for stealing a political sign is ok, as long as they miss?
June 18, 2010, 8:16 pmFedya says:
It’s interesting to see which forms of bigotry are still considered acceptable….
June 18, 2010, 9:06 pmAJK says:
Again, did you oppose Arnold Schwarzenegger on the same grounds?
June 18, 2010, 9:16 pmgeokstr says:
It’s also interesting to see that some people can’t read with comprehension or recognize sarcasm. My comment was a response to aeronathan’s about dishonest AL politicians taking illegal contributions, when the Community-Organizer-in-Chief was guilty of the same, big-time.
I really can’t believe I have to actually explain that.
June 18, 2010, 9:50 pmFantasiaWHT says:
Both of my parents served during Vietnam. Neither one of them were stationed overseas, but that has never stopped me. It’s not at all wrong or misleading, I don’t think.
June 18, 2010, 10:52 pmOrenWithAnE says:
He never purported to depict lawful activities, did he?
Certainly I’m against intelligent robots from the future come to kill John Conner, if that’s your question.
June 18, 2010, 11:11 pmHarry Eagar says:
Dunno how it is where Kopel lives, but Peterson’s handling of firearms is pretty close to the norm in east Tennessee, where I grew up, pretty close to Alabama.
June 18, 2010, 11:12 pmAJK says:
Did Peterson?
June 19, 2010, 12:23 amDale Petersen’s Bad Gun-Handling | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] People like him give gun owners a bad name. [...]
June 19, 2010, 1:03 amCombaticus says:
Hike up your dress and get back to the kitchen, Kopel.
June 19, 2010, 6:16 amOrenWithAnE says:
It seemed to me that he was endorsing as lawful and beneficial the acts depicted in the ad.
June 19, 2010, 9:48 amAJK says:
Really? Because it seemed to me that it was very obviously exaggerated for humorous effect.
If you grant that it was, would you still have a problem with the ad?
June 19, 2010, 2:07 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Yes, if he was just exaggerating and actually clarified that he understands that Alabama Law permits neither warning shots nor deadly force aimed at a mere sign thief, it would be fine.
I would advise him in the future to either exaggerate much more (say by shooting evil robots from the future) or much less — the uncomfortable middle leads to doubts.
June 20, 2010, 8:05 amMikee says:
“The uncomfortable middle leads to doubts” is exactly what draws attention from a nationally prominent blog to a down-ticket race in Alabama.
I’d say the ad got it just right – drawing quite a bit of attention to sign-stealing miscreants who support the opposition candidate.
June 20, 2010, 12:33 pmOrenWithAnE says:
While that is undoubtedly true, I recall that two wrongs are not the same as three lefts.
June 20, 2010, 2:15 pmgullyborg says:
Ronald Reagan says:
http://ndn2.newsweek.com/media/65/reagan-actor-politician-gun-celebrity-politician-BK02-vl-vertical.jpg
June 21, 2010, 1:17 pmmarkm says:
“During Vietnam” does not mean “in Vietnam” – but it is very likely to be mistaken for that. If you are honest and understand anything of how the half of the public that isn’t above average, and also anyone that didn’t clearly hear the words, is likely to interpret it, you would either leave out all mention of Vietnam, or say where you served.
So it seems to me that there are these possibilities:
1) Peterson taped his commercials without planning what he was going to say beforehand, getting comments from others to spot issues you might miss, and polishing the words to clearly convey his message.
2) Peterson did all the above, then failed to follow the script, and spent scads of campaign money to get the commercial aired. Neither 1 nor 2 sounds like a guy I’d trust to spend public funds.
3) Peterson meant to mislead, while being able to claim it wasn’t technically misleading. I would compare that to Clinton finely parsing the definition of “sex”.
June 22, 2010, 5:29 pmBugz says:
If you were honest and understanding, you wouldn’t be coming here foaming at the mouth over trivial nonsense. “In Vietnam”, “During Vietnam”. You’ve got to be kidding me.
Try me again when you’ve got something worthwhile to complain about. Is there anyone here who really and truly gives a crap about that, other than people pursuing an agenda?
What’s yours?
June 22, 2010, 5:35 pm