The continuing gun debate in CA-52; Atkinson responds

Greg Larkin Greg Larkin 3 Comments


On December 19, an article in The San Diego Union-Tribune, “Peters, opponents grapple over gun restrictions,” outlined the disparate views on Second Amendment issues between Congressman Scott Peters and his opponents in the 52nd District.

Two days later, December 21, the SDUT followed up with an editorial, taking Republican congressional candidate Denise Gitsham to task for not responding on the issue.

But, had Gitsham really been quiet about her views? The next day she responded on her Facebook page and here on Rostra that she had indeed sent the paper a statement, which never made it to print. While not acknowledging whether the SDUT had received her comment in time for their stories, incoming Editorial & Opinion Editor Matthew Hall thanked Gitsham for the statement and noted it was added to the editorial’s comments section.

Rostra comments on the Gitsham statement came fast and furious, with a few pro-2nd Amendment readers not happy with her response.

Another Republican candidate in next year’s race, Jacquie Atkinson, also sent this to Rostra

The newly proposed gun control measures pushed by Scott Peters and apparently supported by Denise Gitsham would not have prevented any of the mass shootings Mr. Peters cites, but in fact are an attack on our 2nd Amendment rights and distract from the real threat of terrorism here at home.


If this is an early indication, the next several months will be interesting to watch.

Candidates — and everyone else — are always welcome to weigh in with their views here.

Happy New Year!


Comments 3

  1. “few pro-2nd Amendment readers”

    What does this mean? I’m pro-constitution which, the last time I checked, is very much in keeping with the American tradition of defending individual liberty.

    Sorry to niggle here but just call us constitutionalists.

  2. That is a good point, Brian. We know that in fact you and the other commenters replying to Gitsham’s statement are constitutionalists, but as the post above was specifically about guns, the 2A term was used for ease. We note that nearly all the commenters referenced their concerns about her position on the Second Amendment specifically, not the Constitution in general (you noted both). But, we do get your point! Thanks.

  3. I know I’m being pedantic and addressing the wrong guy (the author who gets it). It drives me nuts that activists who support the 1st or 4th Amendments are constitutionaliststs and 2A supporters are “single-issue”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.