Other than a random round of skeet shooting a while back, I haven't pulled a trigger in a very long time. I'm a lousy shot, and my night vision sucks, so prowl away, friends. That is to say I'm hardly locked and loaded for the gun-rights fight, although I'll note that if liberals really wanted to ban guns, they could try to ammend the Constitution, rather than pretending that it says something other than what it plainly says.
But guns, even by proxy, put me in a revolutionary mood, and since La Greenwald and others want to know whaddawedo?, let me just say this about that: My preference is to watch America slide under the waves. My affinities for the nation in which I live are purely sentimental; my affinities to its institutions are increasingly weak, bordering on nonexistent. Some bad things will happen; some good things will happen. As has usually been the case with the dissolution of this or that political entity, most folks'll go right on leading their lives of quiet desperation, pace Roger Waters, for the truth is that individual existence is not so overdetermined by the State as either the State or its bitter anklebiters (e.g., IOZ) would have you believe. In the great circus of human history, our society amounts to a fart in the monkey car; in the biological history of the world, we amount to less than that. Reformations are for chumps. The Church got corrupt and what did the world get? Martin Luther. We'd've been better off sticking with the Curia. The risk of burning at the stake seems to me to be altogether better than the low jowls of the barking high priests of the Evangel who right now pollute our airwaves and brainwaves. I see our empire hastening its own end, and therefore feel no especial desire to knaw any warts off its fast-aging body. Attached though I am to certain luxuries afforded by my nation's pseduoenslavement of a good portion of the rest of the world, the truth is that I contemplate a slightly more hardscrabble life as a citizen of the Free Nation of GreatLakesia with a fair amount of optimism, and wouldn't mind trading in my blue-covered passport, if push came to hug.
Update: Shameful typo corrected.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Happy Friday dewds & dewdettes!
Hot enough for ya'll?
Monsieur: I agree with 99.9% of what you write on this here blawg.
I would add a caveat.
I am fine without the State, provided the State is fine without me.
Anyone here who has run afoul of the Law Enforcement types, chosen to fight, and spent time in the county jail, knows whereof I speak.
(I spent the time in jail not for breaking any existing laws, but simply because my P.O. didn't like the cut of my jib, and wanted to teach me a lesson.)
Everyone knows that if you have the scratch, or the power, the Law can be finagled. Being broke, or of moderate means (and/or non-White), means you're basically fucked.
Other than that, I'm up for joining you "as a citizen of the Free Nation of GreatLakesia", provided there is pie.
Mike
"lives of quite desperation"
Desperation Desperados. Buy a quiet gun, the Supreme Court rules it's better than two in the Bush.
since apparently human thought presupposes human action, I'm like, beckoning our downfall, yo.
God willing.
although I'll note that if liberals really wanted to ban guns, they could try to ammend the Constitution, rather than pretending that it says something other than what it plainly says.
Um.
Actually, while I'm just as inclined to mock Kossian warnings concerning "how closely [Scalia's] idea of government attacking citizens matches the paranoid, right-wing view of government as the enemy of the people advanced by post-1960s movement conservatism," (to quote a recent diary on that site's "recommended list" as more evidence of the incoherence and perniciousness of contemporary American liberalism, I'm still inclined to believe that the (cue soaring soundtrack) Founders Vision concerning the 2A was far more about allaying the fears of state elites than the yeoman rabble.
But, hey, I'm not a constitutional fetishist.
Oh, if only I could correct shameful (truly horrific, in retrospect typos.
Also, I should be clear that I'm not accusing anyone here of being a constitutional fetishist.
I mean typo's
(ok, I'll stop now)
oops,
I meant "(ok, I'll stop now"
Doh!
While I was dicking around with the weird internet-type self-referential jokes about typos, I failed to notice a far more consequential one in what I wrote. Videlicet: "Founders Vision concerning the 2A was far more about allaying the fears of state elites than the yeoman rabble" should read "Founders' Vision concerning the 2A was far more about allying the fears of state elites than that of the yeoman rabble."
Of course I had to fix the possessive while I was at it. Whaddayagonnado?
Ok, now I'm truly done. I even used preview this time!
Did someone really link the Rude Pundit in my comments. Weak, dude, weak.
There's an excellent reason why the left has never tried a constitutional amendment to ban guns or revise the 2nd Amendment -- it wouldn't work. Shot down, as it were, in flames...
Like Monsieur, I haven't shot at anything in years although I am a pretty good shot. I routinely shot expert in the Army with pistol and rifle, and I grew up with and around guns. I still have a M1911A2 clone by Springfield arsenal in a case in a drawer someplace. I don't shoot anymore because it's an expensive hobby...and, hypocrite that I am, I won't shoot game. I eat meat, although less than I used to, but I draw the line at killing under the pretext that it makes me more of a man or that I like the taste of it. But, if the state or the county or the city decides that I can no longer have a gun, I'm going to buy more of the damn things.
As that great American camp figure Charleston Heston used to routinely say, "From my cold, dead hands!" Scratch a right-wing republican, find a Fascist; scratch a left-wing democrat, find a Maoist.
I don't know, Crusader. Being a Maoist requires following a Mao. Not sure I could do that...I'm not that bloodthirsty, for one thing.
But...if our host were to lead our Long March....????
I'm with Thoreau on his wouldn't it be cheaper posts. Plenty of other countries like Japan get along fine without sticking their dicks in every hornest nest they can find.
As I discuss here, I'm conflicted about Heller. Because I'm a weirdo.
It occurred to me that if the gun control freaks (myself included) wanted to start arguing a different way, we could start splitting hairs over the word "arms".
If Scalia is such Constitutional Realists, then I argue the Constitution only allows us to bear muskets, since that's all they had at the time.
If they wanted us to own handguns and semi-automatic whatevers, they would had been more broad. Instead they use the word "arms," which to me says old-fashioned weaponry. It's worth a shot!
I guess "ammend" and "knaw" have no shame?
Post a Comment