VA. Tech-- a PC liberal/rightwing joint venture?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby IanEye » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:06 pm

Rothbardian,
I am not trying to insult your viewpoint. I don't agree with your approach to Life, but I respect the amount to thought you have put towards it.
I want to live my Life in a way that I never kill anybody first. If I feel the need to kill someone, I would rather fail with my own bare hands than succeed with a gun and in the process, kill more people I didn't want to kill. But that is my choice, and you have made yours.
I just hope that, like in the old Reese's Peanut Butter commercial "your chocolate never lands in my peanut butter". It will suck for all of us.

Scene from Billy Jack:

"You know what I'm going to do? Just for the hell of it? I'm put to put this foot on that side of your face. And you know what? There is not a damn thing you are going to be able to do about it."

Billy succeeds in putting his foot on the face. But then Billy gets the crap beat out of him by a large group of white men.....
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby Sweejak » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:10 pm

It might be good to remember that the National Socialists took power legally, in a democratic fashion.


Rather more complex. It was deal making, maneuvering. 43% of the vote.
http://www.johnreilly.info/htdtp.htm

BTW
http://www.ewanco.com/%7eeje/robert.html
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nomo » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:15 pm

Sweejak wrote:
It might be good to remember that the National Socialists took power legally, in a democratic fashion.


Rather more complex. It was deal making, maneuvering. 43% of the vote.
http://www.johnreilly.info/htdtp.htm

BTW
http://www.ewanco.com/%7eeje/robert.html


Deal making and manoeuvring not unlike what goes on in many democracies, and the actual percentage is well-noted. Still, to suggest that history would be different if the Germans had been armed is as silly as suggesting that 32 students would still be alive if guns had been allowed on that campus.
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

roth

Postby professorpan » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:15 pm

There most certainly is a virtual gun ban. The reason being that the government has criminalized 99.9% of any sscenariowhere a citizen would be inclined to use a gun--

If I shoot a gun-toting intruder in my home but he somehow staggers out the front door and collapses in the front yard...I am in great danger of being sent to prison for twenty years (or worse).

If I shoot an intruder in my home in the darkness at 2 in the morning and it turns out he only had a stick in his hand (or something)...I'm in grave danger of being sent to prison for twenty years.

If I were to pull a gun out of my glove compartment and shoot a guy under almost ANY circumstances, no matter how dire (a violent carjacking attempt etc.)...it would an absolute toss of the dice as to whether I would be sent to prison, charged with homicide, or whatever.

Few people (myself included) want to put themselves in that kind of position. You hear of very, VERY few stories where law-abiding citizens took the risk of applying deadly force.


Then you're not talking about a "gun ban," you're talking about problems with the judicial system. And, honestly, though I've heard your arguments from plenty of gun enthusiasts, I don't just accept them because you say they're true.

Show me some studies or articles with statistics on how many law-abiding citizens have gone to jail for shooting armed intruders. Because I think that's another bogus assertion. But I'm willing to be enlightened -- so show me. Please.

And I don't think the PC/liberal view (whatever that is) is dominant in the U.S. I think most people believe in licensing and regulating guns, just as most people believe in licensing and regulating automobiles. That's not PC liberal -- it's a moderate position between the poles of "I want all and any guns, at any time, with no regulation" and "melt them all down."

Americans *love* their guns, and are very adamant about keeping them. I don't see legions of liberals picketing outside of gun stores and gun shows, nor do I see the Feds shutting down the multiple gun shops located within 20 miles of my house. So I don't buy it.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:20 pm

Or Supreme court appointments. Point taken, except I think it's pretty clear that, stripped from all emotion and agenda, it's very likely that the shooter at VTech would have been dispatched early on.
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Another thing...

Postby yathrib » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:07 pm

...about whether an armed student populace would have prevented this. Here it is. "Normal" people hesitate to kill or even hurt other people. Even "tough guys." How many fights, for example, get past the point of posturing, trash talking, and maybe a little shoving? The VT shooter had made his mind up to kill weeks ago. The students would have probably been shot dead while wondering whether this was a situation that demanded lethal force or not. Again, I'll draw on my experience as a martial arts trainer. Most people will hesitate to do anything that involves hurting or getting hurt. The biggest challenge in any martial art is teaching people to make the decision to use or not use force, and act on it in time to make a difference. In fact that's the reason behind many aspects of the martial arts that look silly or over the top to outsiders, like the yells, etc.


Another straw man alert: Who are you talking to who says private citizens don't have a right to defend themselves?That isn't to say that in many or most such situations, contacting the blue hats isn't the reaction of choice. If your house is burgled, call the police. Don't go out hunting for people who look like they might be burglars. If an armed individual demands your wallet, please, please, please give it to him, then *call the police.* Don't try to outdraw him.

That's their job. It's part of the stinkin' social contract you libertarians didn't freakin' sign.
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:20 pm

Most people will hesitate to do anything that involves hurting or getting hurt. The biggest challenge in any martial art is teaching people to make the decision to use or not use force, and act on it in time to make a difference. In fact that's the reason behind many aspects of the martial arts that look silly or over the top to outsiders, like the yells, etc.


Perhaps, maybe the Austin incident was an exception. I find it unbelievable one would choose to literally die of embarrassment in a situation like this.
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:39 pm

yathrib--

I don't need or want the people with the magical blue hats to preside over my life. I find the concept of one human presiding coercively over another person's life to be absurd and unjust. Don't know what else to say. I live in peace with my fellow man, in the meantime. I even have friends who are police officers. I still have my worldview, nevertheless.

IanEye--

I didn't think you were trying to offend anyone. You were just making an argument. OK by me.

Nomo--

You're setting up another straw man. I haven't said that the German people would have remained free if only they had kept their guns. (?)

Pan--

I think I understood almost nothing of what you said, at least in terms of logic. Sorry. There IS a virtual ban on guns. You want to say it's a "judicial" problem...or a 'legal' or 'legislative' problem"? What are you talking about? How does that change my point? There is a virtual ban. It's the net effect.

And you claim you don't understand that almost all gun handling has been criminalized (and want me to rifle through a thousand tons of legal records for you)? Don't know how to help you with that one. If you want proof that the government guys send people to prison for having guns, skip the thousand hours of research you had in mind...and look no further than New Orleans. If those lawful gun-owners hadn't turned over their weapons in this illegal confiscation...they would have gone to jail.

And by the way, the New Orleans scenario puts to rest one of the long-revered bogeyman (a big favorite of the left)...that all these crazy right-wingers will raise holy Cain if anyone tries to take their guns:

In New Orleans, all the gun owners complied very quickly and very meekly. There was barely a whimper from the NRA. There wasn't a single 'incident' in New Orleans.
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby erosoplier » Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:48 pm

Firsly, I should have mentioned before now: I realise I'm preaching to the wrong people (Americans) at the wrong time (2007). Now more than ever it seems as if you might one day need your guns to defend yourselves against your government, or maybe lunatics at your gate. Though I'm sure you've got a much better chance of successfully doing this using political acumen, rather than guns and ammo. The second amendment looks a lot like a self-fulfilling prophesy in this respect - a neat three card trick even. If someone can convince you that you've at least got a fighting chance of leading a free life as long as they don't take away your right to bear arms, well they can pretty much have the run of the ranch, can't they? As long as they don't take away your precious guns, you are free as a bird! Honest!! And it certainly looks as if they have had the run of the ranch, and that the interests of the ordinary American citizen have long ago been put to one side. If the second amendment were a psyop designed to keep people's eyes on the wrong hand of the magician all these years, it appears to have worked like a charm.


Rothbardian, you keep making the claim than 33 people would now not be dead if there weren't an on campus ban on guns. No one has responded with the obvious, so I will say it myself: If the killer weren't allowed access to guns in the first place, no one would be dead, not even the "killer." (And on that note, I saw that his English lecturer, concerned with his state of mind, went to the authorities, but nothing could be done. What if they could have suspended his right to buy or possess guns? Wouldn't that be an idea? Yes, it's yet another rule which is open to being misused, but it certainly would have changed the course of evens in this case).

Your chiding "men in blue hats" line is a little bit weak I think. You say you "find the concept of one human presiding coercively over another person's life to be absurd and unjust." You must find life almost unbearable then, you poor sod - you're not too far away from the bleeding-heart liberals after all! The point is, the blue hats are there to step in precisely when one person threatens to or actually does infringe upon the rights of another. You misidentify their essential function when you label them as merely "coercive presiders." They are redemptive coercive presiders. This is an important distinction. And you mix up the order of events - first someone's rights are infringed or threatened or some law is broken (and what is a law if it is not the rights of the community-at-large?), then the blue hats step in.

I'm not naive enough to think that this is the only way it happens in the real world, but this is the the ideal way it is supposed to happen. I know its a system open to all sorts of abuse, but the idea that giving more people access to guns will provide any kind of efficient check on government power is fanciful. The game is already lost if you think your right to bear arms is going to have any influence in terms of forcing the real-world operations to conform more closely to the ideal. Guns are inefficient at promoting good governance, and gun ownership rights actually appear to lead to complacency amongst the citizenry in terms of the promotion of good governance.

Guns should be distributed on a "need to use" basis. (And there should normally be very little need for their use). As I said earlier, allowing one person to bear arms reduces the freedom of us all - so the distribution of the right to bear arms should be minimised.
User avatar
erosoplier
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:11 pm

This guy shouldn't have a gun either. And there's the rub?

Image

erosplier, I believe Rothbardian was in agreement that things would be better, maybe only different, if there were no guns.

I'm ok with reasonable regulations, I would like to see education classes offered at schools. If the accounts are correct there were PLENTY of warning signs about Cho and the police on the scene did NOTHING. So one can make a case that the current system, flawed as it is, should have worked... if only.

Also, while some may have the idea that the end all and be all of freedom is owning a gun I don't think people really have the illusion that they will survive a SWAT team of soulless Iraq vets arriving at 3 AM. In any case I don't think that owning a gun relieves you of other civic responsibilities.

About the 2nd being a ruse I think it's more likely that leaving the vast ammo dumps in Iraq undefended was intentional.

And what about the psy-op angle to this, or Port Arthur, or Ruby Ridge? Is it ok to fall into that trap, unless one believes that the gov needs to do this for our own good.

This reminds me of Bernays and the cigarrette PR which was so nicely shown in "Century of the Self". Once the parameters were set and cigarettes became "freedom" how could you be against freedom? How could you be against a womans right to smoke, just like men, even if you knew it was PR?
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

roth

Postby professorpan » Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:38 am

Roth rites:

I think I understood almost nothing of what you said, at least in terms of logic. Sorry. There IS a virtual ban on guns. You want to say it's a "judicial" problem...or a 'legal' or 'legislative' problem"? What are you talking about? How does that change my point? There is a virtual ban. It's the net effect.


Consider the confusion mutual :-)

You're saying there is a "virtual ban on guns." Look up the word ban, then try to reformulate your thoughts. If what you're trying to say is something like "There are legal prohibitions that frequently result in law-abiding gun users going to prison," then say that instead.

And you claim you don't understand that almost all gun handling has been criminalized (and want me to rifle through a thousand tons of legal records for you)? Don't know how to help you with that one.


"Gun handling" criminalized? Do you mean holding or fondling a gun, or shooting another human being? I don't want you to rifle through thousands of tons of legal records, amigo. But if you claim that people who use guns against violent criminals go to jail -- resulting, in your words, in a "virtual gun ban" -- then have the decency to back up your assertions.

If you want proof that the government guys send people to prison for having guns, skip the thousand hours of research you had in mind...and look no further than New Orleans. If those lawful gun-owners hadn't turned over their weapons in this illegal confiscation...they would have gone to jail.


I agree with you that the seizure of guns in the aftermath of Katrina is disturbing. According to Reason (a right-ish libertarian mag):

Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Governor Blanco has done), "the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition." But the statute does not, and could not, supersede the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."


I don't deny that the fascists currently in power would take advantage of any "extraordinary conditions" to seize private weapons. But one thing you left out -- how lawmakers FOUGHT the confiscation and created new laws to make it illegal to seize private weapons.

From wikipedia:

On June 2006 Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco signed the NRA-backed Act 275, forbidding the confiscation of firearms from lawful citizens during declared emergencies. Similar legislation had already been adopted in nine other states.

On October 4, 2006 President George W. Bush signed into law the NRA-backed Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill). This legislation prohibits the confiscation of otherwise legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency by any agent of the Federal Government or anyone receiving Federal funds (effectively, any Federal, state, or local governmental entity). Introduced in Congress by Rep. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter, both of Louisiana, this bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support, passing the House of Representatives with a margin of 322-99 and the Senate by 84-16.


So... it looks like the PC liberals in Congress passed a law allowing people to KEEP their guns in the event of a disaster. Kinda shoots your theory right out of the water, dontcha think?
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby robert d reed » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:36 am

I've aways supported the right of responsible adult citizens to own personal firearms for self defense.

But I'm not gonna go to class strapped, for crying out loud. I had enough of a problem with wearing shoes while attending college, and in fact, I frequently didn't.

The atmosphere of a campus would be considerably heavier if sidearm holsters were the norm. I'd have to worry about Barney Phife Syndrome.

Packing heat is a huge added responsibility. It's arguably worth it when residing, traveling, or backpacking in remote countryside (which the USA has in abundance), especially with loved ones along. But in most other conditions, I'm willing to take my chances.

I don't care for all these hypothetical alternative fantasies that get trotted out on behalf of one agenda or another, for instance on the firearms issue. Years ago, it was the gun control crowd...now, it's much more common for me to encounter the same sort of specious argument emanating from the fringes of the firearms rights people. Hand-wringing "blame the guns" hysteria has been replaced by pre-emptive strikes on some imaginary "left-wing liberal" conspiracy to ban the individual possession of firearms.

Often, the attacks are phrased in paranoid, frothing-at-the-mouth tones reeking with menace and wrath- and it's all too clear that the real target isn't enemies of the 2nd Amendment, it's anyone who isn't on board with the Bush-Cheney Team.

Give it a rest this time, rothbardian. You don't want to have your views confused with those people.

And no Federal government effort is going to ban personal possession of firearms in this country, any more than they're going to outlaw the Plan B pill. The vast majority of Americans are Liberaltarians, however many may be loath to admit it...and if we ever got our stories together, we could unite and rid ourselves of fear-mongering power freak demagogues once and for all.

I mean, seriously...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041807R.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041707H.shtml
formerly robertdreed...
robert d reed
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:11 am

RDR--

I guess I can just keep saying this as long as nobody has a good response-- If people wearing blue hats are allowed the right of self-defense, it is absurd to deny that right to people who don't wear blue hats. It's absurd in any case, blue hats or no. No informed person is going to confuse me with Cheney et al. Fascists want to take away our freedoms. I want to keep freedom.

A "heavy atmosphere" you say? Would it be a consolation to the loved ones of these murdered students that they all died to keep a 'non-heavy' atmosphere intact on campus? I don't think so.

Erosoplier--

You stated--"You must find life almost unbearable...". At times you seem to be almost laughing out loud at my (silly?) insistence on equal rights. Isn't that a little awkward for a lib like yourself?

Yes, I expect and I demand equal rights...with people who wear blue hats, with people who have blue skin...or with people who claim they have blue blood. Laugh yourself dizzy...I guess. (?)

Another statement you make-- "If the killer weren't allowed access to guns in the first place, no one would be dead, not even the "killer." You must be kidding. If you figure out a way to keep bad people from having guns...so that the good people no longer need guns...please post it here. Meanwhile, Washington DC has a total ban on gun ownership and is still near the top of the nation in murder rates. Go figure.

Switzerland has more guns per capita than probably any nation in the world and has virtually a zero murder rate. Go figure.

If you would like to see all access to guns denied, I hope you mean to include the Blue Hats also...otherwise you're acknowledging that there needs to be at least some access to deadly force in the event of the occasional VA. Tech scenario. In which case we're now back to the beginning of this debate--which is that it is immoral to demand those dying students wait for the Blue Hat to finish his donut...because PCers (like you?) have absurd notions as to the magical qualifications that only blue hat-wearing humans have.

It might be interesting if you were assigned to present a conciliatory lecture to the parents and families of the dead: "Even though your loved ones died...if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have it any other way. Very appropriately, none of the students were equipped to defend themselves...as it should be. And if they had survived (because of some rogue student who had rebelliously and 'illegally' carried a weapon on campus)...their survival would have been the result of inappropriate behavior...and therefore their very survival would have been...well...technically inappropriate. Any questions?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.

You also state-- "The game is already lost if you think your right to bear arms..." You're the umpteenth person in this thread to set up this straw man about my alleged daydreams of storming the Pentagon. I have been talking about my right to self defense...and the absurdity of unequal rights...and the absurdity of the magical blue hats.

Having said all that, I am amazed at your brushing aside of history. Recall George Washington. Recall the Revolutionary War. I don't know what part of the world you reside in but...thank the Good Lord you weren't there when the Founding Father huddled up and decided to lay it all on the line for freedom. I can imagine your comments--"You guys are silly...'the game is lost already' if you think you can wrench freedom for the Brits."

Pan--

Again, I don't know what to tell you. I find it hard to believe your that out-of-touch with reality. Yes, it is a crime to even "handle" a weapon, in a hundred different circumstances. If you are seen handling a weapon anywhere in public...you have gone a long way down the road towards arrest and a trip to the hoosegow. You didn't know that?

You don't know about the thousands of people who have been stuffed in prisons unjustly, in this country? You don't know about all the inner city folks who get caught in a dilemma...needing to carry a weapon to survive, and being busted for it? You didn't know there are thousands of black folks thrown in prison on gun-related charges...when many of them were only trying to survive in a virtual war zone (their own neighborhood)? Or were you just assuming that all fourteen hundred thousand black people in jail were all 'guilty'? Watch that wretched show "Cops" sometime. Each show they throw about five black people in jail on gun charges when the reality is, many of them just want and need protection.

I repeat...there is a virtual gun ban. And it played a central role in the deaths of those students. The restrictions are absurd and murderously immoral.

And George W and some legislators signing a piece of paper...that means something? A majority of these 'PC libs' you have pointed out, signed off on the Iraq War too. Woodrow Wilson practically signed his name in blood pledging that American boys would never go to war. 99.5% of those politicians are absolutely meaningless and utterly corrupted. And yet you think their actions signify something? Count me out.
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby erosoplier » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:41 am

rothbardian wrote:Erosoplier--

You stated--"You must find life almost unbearable...". At times you seem to be almost laughing out loud at my (silly?) insistence on equal rights. Isn't that a little awkward for a lib like yourself?

Yes, I expect and I demand equal rights...with people who wear blue hats, with people who have blue skin...or with people who claim they have blue blood. Laugh yourself dizzy...I guess. (?)


I think it's funny that you make such an issue of the unfairness of the blue hats having guns if everyone else is not allowed to have guns, when life is full of inherently unfair situations which people must essentially grin and bear, and the blue hats are in fact here to make life fairer for us. Lots of naturally occurring unfairness in the world/blue hats commissioned in part in order to address some of that unfairness/you complain about the blue hats being appropriately equipped in order to enforce said fairness. Call me strange, but I find that funny. If everyone including you are allowed access to guns, then the people you are potentially wishing to defend yourself against are given access to guns too! If we just make it that the blue hats can have guns and no one else, many complications will be avoided.


Another statement you make-- "If the killer weren't allowed access to guns in the first place, no one would be dead, not even the "killer." You must be kidding. If you figure out a way to keep bad people from having guns...so that the good people no longer need guns...please post it here. Meanwhile, Washington DC has a total ban on gun ownership and is still near the top of the nation in murder rates. Go figure.

Switzerland has more guns per capita than probably any nation in the world and has virtually a zero murder rate. Go figure.


Is Washington one of the places where all the black guys are getting arrested for carrying guns? And are they killing each other with guns anyway, even though they're "banned"?

It's all relative. In Australia, where I live, hand guns haven't been allowed since at least WW2 I think. People may go on a shooting spree here, but they probably won't use a revolver, because they probably won't be able to access one. The Port Arthur massacre brought in a ban on semi-automatic weapons here. Lots got buried, but lots got handed in. In crude terms, less guns in circulation means less chance of a gun being used. Step 1: Stop the introduction of new guns into the population. Step 2: Remove illegitimate guns as they are discovered. Repeat steps 1 & 2 ad infinitum.

If you would like to see all access to guns denied, I hope you mean to include the Blue Hats also...otherwise you're acknowledging that there needs to be at least some access to deadly force in the event of the occasional VA. Tech scenario. In which case we're now back to the beginning of this debate--which is that it is immoral to demand those dying students wait for the Blue Hat to finish his donut...because PCers (like you?) have absurd notions as to the magical qualifications that only blue hat-wearing humans have.


No, blue hats get to have guns for a while yet. In Australia, with handguns and semi-automatic rifles illegal and scarce, how many people do you think the shooter would have killed if he had to make do with a single shot rifle?


It might be interesting if you were assigned to present a conciliatory lecture to the parents and families of the dead: "Even though your loved ones died...if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have it any other way. Very appropriately, none of the students were equipped to defend themselves...as it should be. And if they had survived (because of some rogue student who had rebelliously and 'illegally' carried a weapon on campus)...their survival would have been the result of inappropriate behavior...and therefore their very survival would have been...well...technically inappropriate. Any questions?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.


I hope I'd have the balls to stick to my guns, so to speak, and insist that it's stupid and uncivilized to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to walk in off the street and buy a semi-automatic pistol. I'd be interested to see if any of the parents see the situation the same way you do.

You also state-- "The game is already lost if you think your right to bear arms..." You're the umpteenth person in this thread to set up this straw man about my alleged daydreams of storming the Pentagon. I have been talking about my right to self defense...and the absurdity of unequal rights...and the absurdity of the magical blue hats.

Having said all that, I am amazed at your brushing aside of history. Recall George Washington. Recall the Revolutionary War. I don't know what part of the world you reside in but...thank the Good Lord you weren't there when the Founding Father huddled up and decided to lay it all on the line for freedom. I can imagine your comments--"You guys are silly...'the game is lost already' if you think you can wrench freedom for the Brits."


We'll have to agree to disagree. I've spelt out my side - allowing guns willy-nilly for "self-defense" cuts away at the rights of the individual, and the group, incrementally. Less is best. It does not increase the rights or the freedom of the individual, it reduces them. So for me the only argument left is for protection from your government. And really, we're talking about two different worlds, chalk and cheese, between the drafting of your constitution and now. What was the population of America during the Revolutionary war? It may as well have been a war in some other country for all the relevance it has for the modern day US citizen, one amongst 300 million. All the revolutions of the future are going to have to be peaceful people power revolutions. And at any rate, there's currently enough guns in America to see you through, come-what-may, don't you think?
User avatar
erosoplier
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Salon: More Cruelty from Right Wing Crackpots

Postby yathrib » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:24 am

Joan Walsh
Wednesday April 18, 2007 17:22 EST
More cruelty from right-wing crackpots

The difference between liberals and conservatives, Chapter 973: While liberal Salon readers were debating the decorum of criticizing the president on a national day of mourning over the Virginia Tech massacre, conservative bomb throwers wasted no time criticizing ... the victims.

It's not just Mad John Derbyshire yesterday -- "Where was the spirit of self-defense here ... [W]hy didn't anyone rush the guy?" That was bad enough. Today the National Review's Mark Steyn blamed the "awful corrosive passivity" of Virginia Tech students for not defending themselves against Cho Seung-Hui. He even mocks the male students as somehow not quite being men. (I found this at Think Progress.)

"I’m not sure I'm ready to go the full Derb but I think he's closer to the reality of the situation than most. ... Point one: They're not 'children.' The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and -- if you'll forgive the expression -- men.

"We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom's security blanket. Geraldo-like 'protection' is a delusion: when something goes awry -- whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus -- the state won't be there to protect you. You'll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision."

The hideous Michelle Malkin is even worse. "There's no polite way or time to say it: American colleges and universities have become coddle industries," she begins (as if she's ever thought about a polite time or way to say anything). She continues: "Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

"And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense." Malkin then goes off on a predictable rant against the Virginia law that prevents guns on campus.

So let's sort this out: On a day when people of conscience and common sense are asking what makes a miserable young man turn to guns and violence, conservative provocateurs are insisting the answer is more guns and violence. Over three tragic days, I've found solace in the actions of two Virginia Tech professors: the courageous Holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu, who died blocking the door so his students could get away, and English department chair Lucinda Roy, who tutored Cho personally when other students were afraid to be in class with him; who tried to get him counseling, and even went to the police with her concerns about the dangerously depressed student. But Malkin and Steyn are telling me Librescu and Roy are actually part of the problem.

Of course, I'd rather be in the camp where people debate whether it's OK to criticize the president in a time of tragedy than in the camp where people blame the victims of the tragedy. I actually feel sorry for decent conservatives today, having to be soiled by association with such garbage. But if you ever find yourself wondering why liberals are so often out-shouted in the public sphere, even though most Americans agree with their politics, remember this moment. It isn't easy to compete with wingnuts who will say absolutely anything to make their points. When Ann Coulter's cracks about the 9/11 widows start to look tame by comparison, you know standards of public discourse are continuing to erode.
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests