Maggie’s Wednesday Links

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

(Thanks to Jack Shafer for the first item, Radley for the next three, Furry Girl for the fifth, and Agitatortot Robert Chambers for the sixth.)

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

61 Responses to “Maggie’s Wednesday Links”

  1. #1 |  generalgarbage | 

    Feminism is a hate movement? Like the Nazi’s but more successful? You can disagree with folks, but that’s a ridiculous caricature that kind of throws the legitimacy of everything that you say into doubt.

  2. #2 |  FridayNext | 

    You know. Even if you had a tv, you don’t have to watch every show on every channel. You are free to pick and choose. You can even, I know this unbelievable, leave the thing off until you want to watch something you like. I have a tv and am stronger by the will power of choosing to ignore 95% of it, which we know is crap because 95% of everything is crap.

    And, just as an aside, those shows are on the internet somewhere so you still have the option of watching them 24/7. So you will be getting rid of your computer and/or router now, too so you can be lead not into temptation?

  3. #3 |  David | 

    @#1:

    The feminism-to-Nazi comparison becomes a little bit more awkward when you realize that, from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Gloria Allred, feminism as a cultural and political movement has been almost entirely Jewish-lead.

    (Though I don’t think any “Nazi” comparisons were meant to be taken too literally. Rush Limbaugh was able to joke about “femi-Nazis in the ’80s and ’90s without anybody getting too self-righteous, though he’s since abandoned the term.)

  4. #4 |  David | 

    Citation for above comment: http://truthtellers.org/alerts/FemiCommunismPt1.html

  5. #5 |  generalgarbage | 

    @#4 -That link was…ahem…interesting. So, feminism isn’t nazi-like, because it’s the Jewiest component of the Jewy Jewish world domination plan. Gotcha.

  6. #6 |  AlgerHiss | 

    Regarding the puppycide, here’s the Morgan County website:

    http://www.co.morgan.al.us/

    The Morgan County Chamber of Commerce:

    http://www.dcc.org/

  7. #7 |  Other Sean | 

    I was all ready to be like “Maggie, you’ve got to give television a chance, there are many fine things…” Then I decided it might be a good idea to actually check that link before I said anything.

    Having seen it, I think I’ll opt for tactical retreat instead.

  8. #8 |  Mattocracy | 

    I had a similar reaction to the citation provided by comment #4. The National Prayer Network sounds very…agenda driven.

  9. #9 |  Michael Chaney | 

    Kudos to the Bakersfield police for handling that situation appropriately in every way.

  10. #10 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Link #3; I haven’t watched broadcast television in a quarter of a century. Oddly enough., shows like this one have nothing to do with why. This doesn’t actually look any more nauseating than a lot of cr*p I flipped channels through as a kid. What beats me is the effort that Show Biz has gone through over the years trying to duplicate the success of Shirley Temple with Child Stars that superficially look like her and have maybe one tenth the actual talent. And I never liked Miss Temple.

    Link #4: Any gun control advocates who are not prepared to do the heavy lifting involved in getting an amendment to the Constitution passed obviously believe in the State above the Law. They think that the authority of the Political Class has or should have no limitations, and any limits they are prepared to accept are only because they happen to agree on the issues involved, for the moment. Such people are far more dangerous to the public safety than spree-killers, if only because there are more of them. Bloomberg is a prime example. I sincerely hope that the voters of New York have the sense not to extend his reign by another term (I believe he’s supposed to be limited to what he has had, but I’m sure he believes he ought to be an exception). My personal hope for Bloomberg is that his afterlife be one spent in a peaceful and happy society where nobody will listen to a word he says. Twerp.

    Link #10; Yes, Feminism has devolved into a hate culture, because doing so was the only way to boost its Political Class leaders into power. An awful lot of decent causes that got captured by the Political Class have turned into Hate causes. It’s one of the major reasons why I detest Crusades. The one that angers me the most is environmentalism; I think that there are any number of environmental issues that should be addressed with careful analysis and thought, and to do that we would have to put the board of directors of the Sierra Club to the sword, just for a start. People who ride Causes to power do not want solutions; they want followers. They should be treated with the suspicion one accords a possibly rabid dog.

  11. #11 |  Chris Berez | 

    One of those things that make me glad I don’t have television.

    This pretty much sums up my response to that link.

  12. #12 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Feminism article reminds me of Camille Paglia, who, in her brilliant essays,
    allayed my fears that I might be a bigot when I started realizing
    Gloria Steinem was an obnoxious bitch.

  13. #13 |  Nick T. | 

    Re: police torture, I’d just like to make the obvious comment about:

    - how casually that article uses the word torture because.. it applies 100% to what happened and is not a hard word to use or define
    - how torture in this case lead to a false confession because it wasn’t about getting at the truth but getting the victim to say what the torturers wnated him to say.
    - compare and contrast these things with torture committed systematically by the country’s most powerful officials

  14. #14 |  GeneralGarbage | 

    @ #9- So, by your standard, is Libertarianism a “hate cause”, or is it different because you believe in it?

  15. #15 |  Maggie McNeill | 

    #1 and #3 – You haven’t ever read anything on Radfemhub, have you? Radical feminism is NOT the same as garden-variety feminism; it is indeed a hate movement. I have no other term for a “philosophy” which regularly publishes articles on why men need to be physically or chemically castrated, why women should selectively abort male fetuses, how to reduce the number of men in power, how to define almost anything a man might do as “supporting rape”, etc.

    If you don’t call that hate, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject.

  16. #16 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    GeneralGarbage

    By my standard, Libertarianism is in danger of becoming a “hate cause”, just like any “cause”. I see it sometimes in the comments on Reason Magazine’s site. I don’t criticize Environmentalism and Feminism as Hate Cultures because I am against equality for women and safeguarding the environment. I criticize them because the people who have turned them into Hate Cultures have perverted serious issues that I care about. I don’t give a fat damn that the KKK is a Hate Culture, because I despise everything they stand for, or could stand for.

  17. #17 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    So, Baum claims for politicians the drop in gun crime (when almost every crime* has fallen across the West, regardless of specific government actions and policy), and he’s claiming that people are ignoring the moderate right for the far right because they don’t want them owning military weapons.

    He’s unbelievable, rather. A typical propaganda puff piece.

    (*Some kinds of white-collar crimes like fraud…)

  18. #18 |  Robert | 

    ‘how to turn 2.5% into “one in four”’

    Simple. Move the decimal point one place to the right. ;)

  19. #19 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @10 – Militia. Armed militia. Not individuals. This really isn’t hard to understand. I believe they’re called “National Guard” in this day and age.

    Also, given the Sierra Club is among the moderates, you’re calling for a massacre again.

  20. #20 |  BamBam | 

    Militia. Armed militia. Not individuals. This really isn’t hard to understand. I believe they’re called “National Guard” in this day and age.

    It isn’t hard to understand that you cannot interpret the Bill of Rights from today’s lens, but must do so from the lens of when it was written, and thus understand the meaning of the words. Militia meant “able bodied citizens”.

    And then throw in disarming a populace, well understood by the Founders to be a cornerstone to tyranny, and one can understand that asking for only police/military to be armed is asking for a repeat of tyranny. And then understand that only YOU owns protecting yourself from harm, in many instances harm brought by .gov.

    It isn’t hard to understand what personal responsibility for your safety means. It cannot logically come by having others do it for you, nor will disarming a populace ever equate to no firearms being used for violence.

  21. #21 |  HoldingTheFire | 

    RadFemHub is not in any way mainstream feminism. Most modern feminism is interested in intersectionality. Radical second wave like RadFemHub is very transphobic.

    Are you seriously saying there is no rape culture?

  22. #22 |  Maggie McNeill | 

    #21 – Was there some part of “Radical feminism is NOT the same as garden-variety feminism” you didn’t understand? And yes, that’s what I’m saying. “Rape culture” is a political construct; rape is a CRIME, not a “culture”. Those who pretend otherwise are in the same philosophical boat as those who blame American “gun culture” for mass murders.

  23. #23 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    “A Bakersfield police officer is accused of withholding previously stolen property from a female theft victim and asking the woman for sex in exchange for returning her property. ‘

    That’s one of the problems with authority, isn’t it? We see it all the time from cops, politicians, corporate managers, landlords and others who are granted significant power over others. Those who could fuck up your life in a heartbeat if you don’t get on your knees, baby! As hierarchy increases, the expectation of “favors” from the powerful becomes more common Why do they do it? Because they can, of course. It’s part of the entitlement complex. This officer got caught, but how many others get away with it?

  24. #24 |  EH | 

    Helmut: It’s the dark flipside to zero-tolerance: all-discretion.

  25. #25 |  GeneralGarbage | 

    @#22 – You’re being disingenuous now. You never said “Radfemhub” in your article. You were talking about “Women’s Studies Departments” (with scare quotes!), and when I suggested “Hmmm, maybe most Women’s Studies departments don’t have gas chambers?” you moved the goalposts?

    Maybe a site that ills itsleef as “radical” isn’t going to have mainstream opinions.

    That’s like me launching into a polemic against libertarianism, and then when you object I say “Have you ever seen LordThorsLibertarianLightningOfRacialPurity.com?”

  26. #26 |  HoldingTheFire | 

    http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/03/rape-culture-one-what-is-rape-culture.html

  27. #27 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @20 – Trying to pretend you can understand it in any other way is silly. “But I know the secret sauce” is what “Founder” arguments amount to.

    And yes, yes, you’re making REAL sure that the system can’t be changed by protest by making any protest a threat. Prop that system up!

  28. #28 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Leon Wolfeson,

    Please check out Lawrence Tribe’s reluctant support of “the right to keep and bear arms” as an Constitutionally protected right of individuals. Look it up yourself, so you know I’m not selectively quoting out of context. Tribe doesn’t go as far as I would – he thinks that some forms of gun control somehow do not violate the very broad wording “shall not be infringed” – but he does a pretty thorough job of kicking the “It’s all about militias. As long as the National Guard exists, the Second Amendment is preserved” argument to pieces.

  29. #29 |  Mattocracy | 

    The Second Amendment says this.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Grammer was a little different at the time that Congress first convened. Today we would write this:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

  30. #30 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Mattocracy,

    I have been following this debate for decades, and I have never understood the “It’s about the National Guard” delusion. This is because, as I see it, the way we would write the Amendment today would be; “Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The important part of that is “Shall not be infringed.”. The Reason is nice; it gives it balance, but the force is the last phrase. It could read “Because we like Howdy Doody, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The reason only matters if you are trying to find a way to weasel out of a limitation on the power of the State that the Founders thought was important enough to put in the Bill of Rights. The wording is plain; the State does not have the authority to tax, license, issue permits for, inspect, or otherwise interfere with privately owned weapons.

    Now, a case can be made for that being an awful idea. There are some awful ideas in the Constitution; legal Slavery springing first to mind. But if you aren’t prepared to amend the Constitution, and you are still talking about Gun Control, you are a Statist hack who doesn’t recognize Constitutional limits of government power.

    And I despise all such.

  31. #31 |  krulac | 

    #19 | Leon Wolfeson | July 25th, 2012 at 11:21 am
    @10 – Militia. Armed militia. Not individuals. This really isn’t hard to understand. I believe they’re called “National Guard” in this day and age.

    It doesn’t say that the right of the “militia” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says the right of the “people” to do so shall not be infringed. Now, you may say that the founders worded it this way because they considered the people to be the militia. Fair enough – but you need to amend the second amendment to READ that way before you start talking about infringing the SPECIFIED right of the people.

    The founders put a “vehicle” in place to get you what you want – however, you know that you don’t have the support for to amend that amendment in the manner you’d like to – so you resort to pounding the table and insisting that an enumerated right has been “overcome by events” somehow.

    It has not.

  32. #32 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Mattocracy,

    I just realized that my parting thought made post #30 look like a personal attack on you, and an absurdly off-target one since you hadn’t done anything to provoke such. I’m sorry. I was following along the train of thought, and it took me somewhere angry, but I’m angry at the weasels, not you.

  33. #33 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @28 – Then he’s a sophist too. The language is unambiguous, any kind of argument has already established that you don’t care about the constitution anyway.

  34. #34 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Re; #32;

    Oh. My. God. And he probably really believes this! Sorry, Leon, but you aren’t even worth arguing with. You’re just a Statist Twerp.

  35. #35 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    That’s right, I argue for the common people to have some power, so I’m a “stateist” to you. Never mind you’re a corperatist stateist.

    You go hold your gun and rock yourself to sleep now.

  36. #36 |  MPH | 

    Re: the 2nd amendment and the concept that it somehow applies to the National Guard. I once had the good fortune of looking up the word militia in a dictionary published in 1790. It meant: an armed body of men, raised for the defense of a region, not under government control.

    So to the framers, it was all the armed men in an area that weren’t in the army. The National Guard is most definitely under government control.

    I also looked up the word regulated. It meant: practiced.

    With this in mind, the 2nd amendment means something a little different than most people think.

    Also, a little tidbit about the recent massacre. We really need more regulations about the safe usage of these dangerous implements. The fact that nearly anyone can operate a device that can so easily be misused and result in so many deaths is unsupportable. I am, of course, referring to that incredibly dangerous device that was recently used to kill 14 people: the pickup truck.

    Seriously, I recently read that 80% of shooting victims survive, and 80% of stabbing victims die. So why aren’t the nut jobs going after knives if they’re really interested in saving lives? Because saving lives isn’t what they’re interested in; their agenda is something else. Those of us who are sane need to keep this in mind.

  37. #37 |  StrangeOne | 

    Leon,

    You argue for the common people to have “some power” by advocating completely disarming them? Your going to pretend that the National Guard is the recipient of the right to bear arms? The National Guard having guns really worked out well for all those kids protesting peacefully at Kent State. I’m sure the government duly noted and prioritized their complaints before deciding to open fire. And all those black people in the south who weren’t allowed to own guns, or hell, even use the same bathroom as white people, sure got a fair defense of their civil liberties. Except of course when the sheriff put on a hood and hung ‘em anyways. Lets just ignore the vast history of gun control being directly tied to suppressing and killing dissidents by government agents.

    What is the point of the 2nd Amendment if it only gives the government the power to have guns? Why would something like that even need to be in the Bill of Rights? Why would a body of amendments *whose entire purpose* is to outline explicit individual rights contain an article prohibiting personal gun ownership? If the founders intended for only state or federal bodies to have guns it would have been in Article Four or Article Two, the parts of the constitution dealing with the state and executive branch powers. According to you the founders said the wrong thing in the wrong part of the constitution in a manner that completely contradicts both their personal writings on the subject and their personal life experiences with attempts at gun control by the crown.

    If you want to advocate gun control, go ahead, that’s an argument many have no problem making. But don’t sit there and make bald faced lies about what the writers of the constitution intended.

  38. #38 |  Sean | 

    This puppycide in AL sounds a lot like the one the Columbia MO SWAT thugs did a couple of years back. It looks to be over a small amount of marijuana, and the things I’ve read indicate the owner of the golden retriever is an Iraq vet with PTSD and that the dog was like some kind of therapy dog for him.

    Now the Sheriff is threatening “legal action” against those who left negative comments on Facebook. Pics of the dog here : http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?384097-AL-Sheriff-angry-at-Mundanes-threatens-legal-action-against-shot-dog-activists./page3

  39. #39 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @37 – Blah blah excuses. Either the Constitution has power, or it doesn’t. You’re saying it doesn’t, so whatever the Government does is good.

    You want guns as a *threat* to prevent real protest, it’s the same old stateist story. The 2nd Amendment says nothing AT ALL about prohibiting things, of course, that’s another fiction of yours which you spend so much effort expounding on for good reason.

    You’re INSISTENT that YOUR special faeries can distort the document to your meaning. i.e. you don’t believe in the document.

    Gun control is a separate argument.

  40. #40 |  StrangeOne | 

    Leon,

    What the fuck are you even talking about?
    Individuals having guns is statism?

    Are you even reading what others are typing? Are you reading what YOU are typing?

  41. #41 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @40 – You may choose to ignore the history of successful protests against Governments (tip: violence works REALLY badly), and the pretexts used to crush others, but I’m not.

  42. #42 |  StrangeOne | 

    Again, what are you talking about?

    You’re just tossing off flippant and incomprehensible statements about stateism and protests. Literally, the things you are writing do not make any sense within the context of this discussion. For instance, how can you draw the conclusion “whatever the Government does is good” from my post @ 37? Where the hell did that come from?

  43. #43 |  Linda | 

    Puppycide/Amazes me that police officers who conduct themselves in this manner can go home and look themselves in the mirror……Seriously, shooting a Golden Retriever……This is the THIRD Golden Retreiver (that I know of) that has been killed by law enforcement officers. This dog Aubie, Boomer in Atlanta, Georgia and another Boomer (12 year old dog) in St. Petersberg, Florida.

  44. #44 |  Sean | 

    There was another Golden Retriever killed in Waukesha, WI a couple of years ago, that one that really sticks in my mind. A woman called to report a break-in and a cop came to take a report. While he was in the back yard the dog jumped up on him playfully and he took a few steps back and put three shots into it, right in front of the family. Even the cops admitted that it wasn’t attacking. This woman called for help and became a victim of the police instead.

  45. #45 |  Matt | 

    @30

    Look at it this way:

    According to the “National Guard” types, gun control advocates think that if the second amendment didn’t exist government agents would be disarmed by roving bands of civilians. I can’t think what else they think the amendment says – the government has the right to have guns. Why would you need an amendment to give guns to the government?

    Not to mention that even if what they were saying was true, trying to ban/restrict guns based on the 2nd would be a violation of the 9th amendment, and trying to ban/restrict guns at all would be a violation of the 10th amendment. Those amendments that no one pays attention to ever.

  46. #46 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @45 – Not at all, it’s a States Rights issue, or – depending on how (and sure, this can be parsed) you take “well regulated militia” – a local one. It’s still a group right.

    Nowhere else in the constitution is there a functionless preamble.

    @42 – So your ideology bans thinking about unintentional consequences and being played by political factions for their benefits. Ah, well there we go then!

  47. #47 |  Matt | 

    Not at all, it’s a States Rights issue, or – depending on how (and sure, this can be parsed) you take “well regulated militia” – a local one. It’s still a group right.

    Lets localize it up a bit futher…by looking a bit further down the sentence – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Not the right of the “government”, or the “states” or the “local whatever” to keep and bear arms. Because that wouldn’t make any goddamn sense. And even if that is what it did say, against all logic, it doesn’t make the 9th and 10th amendments magically disappear.

  48. #48 |  Linda | 

    #44 Sean-Oh my God, that story you just shared is heartbreaking. I am at a loss why these events continue to go unpunished. Poor, poor judgement.

  49. #49 |  StrangeOne | 

    Ok Leon,

    1) States don’t have rights, people do. States have powers relegated to them. If maintaining an official state militia was all the founders had intended with the 2nd amendment it would have been included in Article Four of the constitution. The 2nd amendment wouldn’t exist within the “Bill of Rights” if it wasn’t an individual right, meant to be held by individual people. This is explained over and over with the personal writings, letters, and memoirs of the people who wrote it originally. No constitutional scholar maintains otherwise.

    2) Again, just nonsensical rambling. What the hell are you saying?
    What unintended consequences are you talking about? What do you even think my ideology is?

    Not one of your responses to any of my posts has been a full coherent thought. If you don’t understand why people call you a troll; this is it.
    Short, vague, pointless responses that never proposition or further any semblance of an argument.

    You just started with this notion that I said the government is good @37 (I didn’t), felt necessary to point out the 2nd Amendment doesn’t prohibit anything (no one said it did), something about faeries, claimed gun control is a separate issue (from the 2nd Amendment?), made a pointless comment about protests @41 (which clarified nothing), and finally when I point blank ask you about clarifying what you are even talking about you dismiss the whole thing as ideology @46.

    I’m not even going to respond to you after this. At this point I’m just leaving this comment for anyone else. Is he making any sense to anybody? Because I’m not seeing a point.

  50. #50 |  Rick H. | 

    #49 StrangeOne: It’s not just you. He’s completely incoherent. It reads as if Leon’s just windmilling in hope that one of his wild swings will somehow connect.

  51. #51 |  Christopher Swing | 

    I think Leon’s still upset about the Aurora thread.

  52. #52 |  demize! | 

    Please leave a comment on the Canicide link.

  53. #53 |  Loretta Nall | 

    On the puppycide in Morgan County…the dog owner is an Iraq war combat veteran, an infantry man.

    I’m planning a protest at  a Decatur park on Aug. 4 and
    plan to call it either “Bark Against Police Brutality” or “Protest
    Puppycide” and inviting concerned citizens to bring their four legged
    family members for a day of peaceful protest and to hear various speakers.
    The media has indicated they will be in attendance.

    There is a smack down editorial in todays Decatur Daily taking the Sheriff to task for her childlike behavior and threats to pursue legal action against the creators of the Justice for Aubie Facebook page. If you are near Decatur please consider attending. I will release firm details as they become available.

  54. #54 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    StrangeOne,

    “The National Guard having guns really worked out well for all those kids protesting peacefully at Kent State.”

    While I am more or less agreeing with you overall, this is a “Narrative” that I just cannot let pass. I refer you to James Michener’s KENT STATE; WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY. The day before the Guard was called in, the protesters set fire to the ROTC building and interfered with firefighters on the scene. Now, I expect that each and every one of those politics-addled children was thinking of that building in purely symbolic terms, but a building sized fire is not under anybody’s control. It is pure luck that that fire did not run out of control and burn down most of the town, killing hundreds. I don’t know why the Guard was sent for, but I know why they SHOULD have been; by setting a building sized fire the protesters had committed an act of potentially lethal violence. That they almost certainly did not see it that way was not a mitigating circumstance – if anything it should have frightened the authorities even more. That protest had to be shut down, pronto, before some raving nitwit committed another “symbolic” act that could kill lots of people.

    The idea that the Protesters at Kent State was innocent children has distorted the history of the event for far too long. Children they certainly were, and arguably innocent in intention, but they were quite literally playing with fire. They were entitled to no better treatment than the arsonists that set fire to Watts.

  55. #55 |  John Spragge | 

    On gun control: the basic argument against gun control stems from the inherent limits of government, and the related proposition that the government has no business prohibiting anyone arbitrarily from possessing, acquiring, or owning tools– of any sort. As long as an individual has not shown an unwillingness or inability to handle a tool responsibly, the government ought not to restrict their freedom to have it. And defense of gun rights needs to proceed from that larger concept of a right to free access to tools of each person’s choice, because despite attempts to portray them as special, guns confer no particular advantages, either against either of the problems they supposedly have a special role in dealing with: political repression or crime.

    American levels of violent crime, particularly murder, remain stuck at about three times the Canadian rate, concealed carry laws, capital punishment, and unprecedented levels of incarceration notwithstanding. As a guarantee of political freedom, guns have an especially unimpressive record. Since the nineteenth century, how many violent revolutions have led to greater democracy, as opposed to how many peaceful mass campaigns? In the United States, the expansion of permission to carry weapons, the so-called “concealed carry” laws have gone hand in hand with the highest incarceration rate in the world, and certainly the highest in American history, and an extension of criminal law so great that a public official intent on denying an individual the ability to legally own guns will almost certainly have the ability to find some act or oversight possible to turn into a “felony” and a permanent bar on legal ownership of guns. You have more prisons, more people in those prisons, more people under the supervision of the judicial-prison-industrial complex than ever before, and a higher rate of incarceration than anywhere else. You have an ever more heavily armed and armoured police establishment, one that flaunts its ability to terrorize anyone correctly or incorrectly suspected of drug involvement and slaughter the family pets in front of them, apparently more or less as a policy of establishing dominance. And, of course, you have the fungus of asset forfeiture, that institutionalization of corruption in the justice system, a practice that in many cases has led to legal highway robbery by agents of the state. Basic principle of democratic governance, such as the accountability of the authorities to the people, based on the dependence of those authorities on the support of the people, have gone by the wayside over the past thirty years. In this context, the expansion of so-called “concealed carry: permissions looks more than anything else like a consolation prize, even a distraction.

    Looking at the current state of American political culture, I think it makes more sense to disarm the government, or at least check and reverse the rampant militarization of police that has taken place since the 1980s, than to fight over the ability to carry pistols in public. However, since a border protects me from most of the undesirable developments to the south of me, I’ll leave my observations at that. If you want to make the letter of the second amendment a priority, rather than asking whether your current legal system really reflects its spirit, well Ben Franklin did observe that in order to have a republic, you will have to take care of it.

  56. #56 |  Kolohe | 

    After reading some of the comments on the article on the shot Golden Retriever, there is more divergence in the sensibilities on this sort of thing than I realized.

  57. #57 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    John Spragge,

    Both violent revolution and peaceful campaigns have poor track records overall, with violent revolutions having a tiny edge in terms of actually accomplishing SOMETHING, good or bad.

    As to your observation about disarming the government; I have been toying with the idea of proposing (as a Constitutional Amendment, since I think that is what it would take) a measure that would allow citizens to buy and carry without interference any weapon available to any government enforcement agency, excepting only the Military which would be allowed other weapons only on designated military reservations or outside the national borders.

    That way if the Gun Nuts want Uzis they can put up with the local beat cop carrying the same, and if the Gun Controllers want to disarm the public they can have the BATF do it while armed with nerf bats.

    Probably wouldn’t work in real life, but as a thought experiment it has a pleasing symmetry.

  58. #58 |  Johnny Clamboat | 

    Leon: “It’s still a group right.”

    Group right, your oxymoron of the day.

    Efutue, servuus dominum.

  59. #59 |  Sean | 

    http://www.kens5.com/news/Two-Bexar-County-K-9s-reported-dead-163866306.html

    Deputy “forgets” two K9s in a patrol SUV, leaves them to die overnight. I love how the media spinned it on the radio this morning : “Hot weather to blame for death of police K9s.”

  60. #60 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @58 – Oxymoron? Oh right, you think two people cooperating is illegal, whereas two companies cooperating to crush those two people’s rights is just dandy!

  61. #61 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @49 –

    1) The only thing which matters is the text of the Constitution. You’re saying MAGIC FAERIES over and over. Doesn’t matter.
    2) You’re a Corporatist Capitalist of course. As you’ve made clear repeatedly.

    I’m “trolling” because I actually believe in the things you work to suppress, right. Typical totalitarian thinking.

    Gun control outside militia has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. You keep pushing your fantasy of it being the ONLY meaningless pre-statement in the entire Constitution. MAGIC!!!!!!!

    @51 – Yes, you keep pretending that trying to get innocents killed is amusing.

Leave a Reply