An ex-student recently sent me two links from Reason.com which I found interesting. It bears mentioning that I've always had at least a third of the classes I teach be comprised of libertarians. These aren't like the conservatives that post here. In fact, they are mostly like one of my star commenters, juris imprudent.
They don't give a crap about gay people, abortions or any other social issue. They think our military budget should be slashed dramatically along with everything else in the federal budget. They think the United States should not have foreign troops stationed anywhere in the world. This last one has caused many an intense debate in class and usually marks the one time when I get the most opinionated, citing example after example of why it is necessary, at times, to have an American military presence in parts of the world. One such student asked me if if I though he was being naive. Since I don't lie to kids, I said yes. He's the one that now works for the Cato Institute, btw:)
Anyway, another ex-student sent this article to me regarding Jon Stewart's recent piece (which I posted here) on the gun debate and this article from last December on the NRA's massively tone deaf presser. I found both to have some very interesting tidbits. Let's take the last one first as that was the first to be released. First we have the title...
NRA Fights Anti-Gun Hysteria With Pro-Gun Hysteria
No shit. That's really what's going on, isn't it....pro gun hysteria.Reason's analysis of their statement?
Not exactly the voice of calm reason. LaPierre evidently wants people to panic, as long as they stampede in the direction he prefers.
Which would be right out to buy more guns...just like they did. And they like to throw out words like "sheep" and "useful idiots"...
The article then takes an interesting tack...citing how rare these mass shootings are so why is he encouraging people to go out and buy guns? Oh yes, the federal government.
After a very funny comment about LaPierre (" but it is drowned in the flood of foam flying off LaPierre's lips"), the article concludes with this...
Last night I suggested that Piers Morgan's televised faceoff with Larry Pratt "pretty accurately reflects the general tenor of the current gun control debate, with raw emotionalism and invective pitted against skepticism and an attempt at rational argument." The NRA and Wayne LaPierre seem determined to prove me wrong.
It's nice to see an admission of error from the Right.
The other article expands on this amazement at the irrational behavior by the gun people.
So, should we be pursuing new, "common-sense" restrictions on the buying, selling, owning, and operating of guns? I am not a gun person - I've gone shooting exactly twice in my life and didn't enjoy either experience - and I find many of the arguments of gun-rights advocates unconvincing or uninteresting. The notion that a rag-tag band of regular folks armed with semi-automatic weapons and the odd shotgun are a serious hedge against tyranny strikes me as a stretch (and I even saw the remake of Red Dawn!). Hitler and the Nazis didn't take away everyone's guns, as is commonly argued. They expanded gun rights for many groups (though not the Jews). When the whole mutha starts to come down, if the choice is between Jesse Ventura or Janet Napolitano, I'm not sure where to turn.
This is an excellent summation of the libertarian youth of today and how they think. It's a very astute statement that relies on facts and has criticism in it that is highly justified. Who are the real leaders here and why should any young person follow them?
My only criticism of the article comes at the end.
Once you strip away the raw emotionalism of the carnage at Sandy Hook, or the Aurora theater, or Columbine, or Luby's, or whatever, you're left with a series of inconvenient truths for gun-control advocates: Over the past 20 years or so, more guns are in circulation and violent crime is down. So is violent crime that uses guns. Murders are down, too, even as video games and movies and music and everything else are filled with more fantasy violence than ever. For god's sake, even mass shootings are not becoming more common. If ever there was a case to stand pat in terms of public policy, the state of gun control provides it (and that's without even delving into the fact that Supreme Court has recently validated a personal right to own guns in two landmark cases).
This is one of the problems with the youth of today. They lack empathy. We can't "stand pat" after Sandy Hook. I think it's fantastic that the numbers are going down but that doesn't mean we should ignore the qualitative analysis of these crimes. And, even one death, as the president said yesterday, means we're not doing something right. Further, those same landmark cases also said that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. That means there is room for new policy.
But I take a great deal of heart in these points of view because they have kernels of rational thinking in them. At least that's a start.
7 comments:
This is one of the problems with the youth of today. They lack empathy. We can't "stand pat" after Sandy Hook.
Pure, unadulterated emotionalism.
You keep trying to claim that we're evil for not grovelling at your feet over the evil committed by one man.
The problem is that you insist on closing your eyes to the evils enabled by gun control.
Evils like this.
And this.
And this
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
I could go on and on and on showing you the results of evil. There is one attribute shared all of these victims. They were unable to resist their murders. They had all been disarmed and "for their safety" is a common excuse.
Remember:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
— Adolph Hitler
You claim we are evil because we won't throw down our arms at the death of 20 children. What does it say about you that you demand we make ourselves defenseless given the cold blooded slaughter of MILLIONS of children and their families?
To think we can magically wipe the self-evident lessons of history from our minds is sheer madness. You might as well ask us to think that gravity is a figment of our imagination.
that doesn't mean we should ignore the qualitative analysis of these crimes.
You want "qualitative"? I got your "qualitative" right f****n' here. Look through that archive then try your "qualitative" bullshit again, you evil bastard.
It's nice to see an admission of error from the Right.
WTF? You still try to cast anything not-of-your-tribe as "the Right"?
[heavy sigh]
This is one of the problems with the youth of today. They lack empathy.
On the one hand that is a rather bold statement - one you probably can't back up. On the other hand, you are just another old guy complaining about today's youth.
We can't "stand pat" after Sandy Hook.
Of course we can, and we probably will. But some sleaze-bag opportunists thought they had a good crisis and they weren't going to waste it. Since your nose is buried deep up that ass, of course you follow along. If your leader ever backs up it will probably break your neck.
Here is something that isn't very reasonable either. I'm betting you will eat it up with a spoon. But let me share the bottom line, since it should offend you:
"Well, I don’t want to learn. That doesn’t work where I live — geographically or metaphorically."
No by God, he has his tribe and his turf and fuck anyone that won't properly kow-tow.
Interesting. I hadn't read it, juris but it speaks to a point that I'll be making tomorrow.
Thanks for that article, Juris.
He sure sums up his attitude nicely with that statement. And finishes up with a wonderful dollop of irony.
Problem is, reality—and I would say God—has an interesting way of forcing us to learn:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
— George Santayana
For double-plus irony, Josh is basically talking culture-war, which used to be a trope the left played against the right. Here he is full on indulging in it.
Another case of it's only wrong when the other guys do it.
Post a Comment