Two supposedly independent leaders of supposedly independent states, supposedly representing their own citizens, deliver exactly the same speech. Read, that is, the same script. Supporting the United States war on Iraq.
Who wrote it? Do you think it was a Canadian or an Australian?
These are satellite states of the American empire, their leaders are proconsuls, and the US government will never let them be anything but.
I guess I did go on too long for you, because you must not have gotten to the part where I say: "It is not plausible that in any modern society, guns would be entirely unregulated," and discuss the implications of that. My main point is to support the principle of gun ownership based on leftist premises regarding the empowerment of people, and to reveal and critique the refusal of the dominant strain of American "liberalism" to accept that principle. The discussion of "Where is the line" about reasonable regulation, I contended, should be based on clear acceptance of that principle, not a pretense of acceptance hiding a actual rejection. I don't think my essay is based on "silly phrases," but it's clear that I did not succeed in making my point for you.
ReplyDeleteThere it is again. The asinine assertion that if we don't accept "your way" we are accepting weekly mass shootings.
ReplyDeleteYou're a step above the shreikers shreiking "BUT DO IT FOR THE CHILLUNS!"
Then you gave us the bonus gun controller staple comparison of infantry small arms to multi-million dollar city destroyers that are technological nightmares to construct. Very intelligent. I also might add, it seems you believe the reason your neighbor has never had one is that the state says "no you can't." If that is the case, I feel sorry for you. If it is not, I will sigh in relief.
This article contained well-researched and articulate points. Not silly phrases. Part of it exposes the modern progressive for what he is: a fake-pacifist ivory tower hypocrite that will hem and haw and flat out lie about supporting the 2nd Amendment because to do otherwise is too politically challenging and it would do too much harm to the incremental disarmament movement.
What is your name, polemicist? It is nowhere listed here. Bluedemocrat@hotmail.com
ReplyDeleteNot much in this essay to argue about. I am a Left gun owner who has always guided his dealings with guns according to the premise that a disarmed populace is at risk. One thing though I must take issue with: the SSRI antidepressants haven't got a thing to do with LSD (yay) or PCP (boo), which haven't got a thing to do with each other, neither chemically nor psychotropically. I'm surprised you let that canard through this excellent treatment, which was, as promised, a polemic, but not to be dismissed as merely that.
"At this point, it is blindingly obvious that, as Etienne Balibar so cogently put it over thirty years ago, the modern capitalist state, ours included, 'is expressly organized as the State of pre-emptive counter-revolution.'”
This section is really well put. And I would add to it that all efforts are being made through the ubiquitous media to stroke people into accepting their roles as compliant consumers until the planet's resources run out. It's BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION, Skinner crossed with Huntington on steroids with a touch of Joe Goebbels. The idea is to channel people into the present of consumption. "Don't think about the past, it's gone and you can't change it. Don't think about the future-- NOBODY can predict the future!-- just worry about the present, here on your screens (and by the way, buy our [fill in your favorite flavor of bullshit})."
Pre-emptive counter-revolution. You have nailed the concept. And as you say, the only brake on the juggernaut may be young American citizen-soldiers deciding that they had to point their guns in the other direction.
Interesting isn't it, that there actually ARE pro-gun---rights liberals, or at least progressives out here.
ReplyDeleteI think there's allot more of us than people think/believe.
Believe me, there are a whole bunch of us out here. .: )
ReplyDeleteI'm so tired of referring to the 16th century U.S. Constitution for todays lifestyle. The right to bear arms was before we had a police state. Many citizens HAD TO defend themselves so using that example today is taking it out of context just as abortion issues are. Freedom to abort was NEVER a consideration by our forfathers because it didn't exist in their wildest of dreams. Why not meet halfway. You have the right to have a licensed PISTOL, not an akg or a "street sweeper". Come on people. Hunting rifles tell you right in their description and names. "HUNTING". Are we at that time in our civilization where the hunting of people is acceptable???
ReplyDeleteThere are some good points here, but it comes across as very arrogant and like a smart teacher talking to dumb kids. YOu lost me.
ReplyDeleteHalfway? .... Ok How about, repeal the Gun control acts of 1986 1968 and 1934 and we can keep the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms That would be some where around "Half" way...
ReplyDelete"Are we at that time in our civilization where the hunting of people is acceptable???"
I don't know, why don't you ask the people with all the big scary people hunting weapons.
That would be the government in case you did not know.
-Find me the firearms manufacturer that puts the word "hunting" in the name of their any rifles.
ReplyDelete-Tell me what techincal aspects of a street sweeper make it more dangerous for civilians to own that a pump action "hunting" (as you would put it) shotgun?
-Did you just jump from the legalities of owning a given weapon to the legalities of murder?
Wow.
-Did you just literally say you have a RIGHT to be licensed by the government? Wow.
-Did you just legitimize having a police state? If not, did you just use the existence of something illegitimate to justify citizens not being allowed to bear arms? Wow.
You call your beloved police state when you need them. They will be pretty Johnny -on-the-spot to write that incident report.