Skip to main content

View Diary: Sandy Hook - Just Follow the Money (10 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  True. The Supremes disagree, sometimes with (0+ / 0-)

    themselves. But then, the Constitution, other than paying lip-service to an endowment from the "Creator," disagreed with the whole concept of human rights. Necessarily so. After all, the ownership of humans, as well as servitude of various kinds, could not be considered legal unless property rights trump human rights.
    And that attitude persists in the argument over owning guns. Which is more important: the human right to go on living until the natural terminus arrives or the right to own a gun to "protect" that right to go on living?
    What I would argue is that the persistent threat to life from the community of the living -- aka "capital punishment-- validates the need for self-protection. It is a fact that the state kills people on purpose, employing due process sometimes and sometimes not. It is a fact that hundreds of innocent people have been snatched from the jaws of death (death row) after having been falsely convicted of deprivations they didn't commit, even as innocent children and parents and old people are being deprived of lunch.
    The resulting atmosphere is not one to promote confidence in the good intentions of the state. Never mind that people are gunned down by law enforcement on an almost daily basis. The U.S. is fixated on death and dying with good reason. The possibility of being shot dead on the spot at any moment is not only real, but well publicized -- all in the interest of rendering the population compliant.

    It's my contention that owning a gun is not a solution to the problem. Ownership may assuage the fear of being owned, but guns merely increase the chance that one's life will be cut short in its prime and death will arrive before its time. George's definition of the U.S. as an ownership society was both wishful thinking and accurate. Because ownership is a false flag. Ownership is not a ship that will take you anywhere you want to be. Esau was induced to trade his birthright for lunch. The Old Testament did not question how come Isaac did not share lunch with his brother without being asked. In the New Testament, thousands are fed, no questions asked, but the message didn't stick. Modern Christians, in particular, insist on "no free lunch." In some parts of the country, a cane pole, a snare and a long gun still belie that dictum, but all the evidence suggests an interest in making it stick.

    What were the two characteristics of Occupy Wall Street which raised the most official concern? Free food and the walk about. People roaming the countryside at will and being fed to boot are signs that the strategy of confining the populace to cages on wheels has failed.

    You see, suburbanization is conventionally blamed on "white flight," but, in fact, the suburban enclaves had to be built before people could be induced to move there by deteriorating conditions in the cities. Putting people in cars and moving them around like gerbils on a treadmill was a conscious strategy in response to the popular uprisings in the cities where people could get together and unite in opposition to those who would exploit their labor. Relocating populations to the suburbs was a variant of "divide to conquer." The only mistake was the continued concentration of youth in educational institutions to which they were bussed. It got the youth used to working and playing together on foot and the millenials are the result. Young adults are no longer getting cars at the rate they did in 1985. Indeed, large numbers are putting off even learning to drive. They insist on public transport, which is, after all, what they are used to. It may be ironic, but public services promote individual liberties. People can go where they want by just hopping on a train or bus and hopping off when it stops. Can't do that with a plane.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 03:14:17 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure how to respond to all your (0+ / 0-)

      changes in topic, so I'll hit some high points.

      I don't know who "George" is.

      I don't know what suburbanization, busing, driving, and planes have to do with the 2nd Amendment.

      I'm disappointed in your ignorant broad-brushing of [sic] Modern Christians (inconvenient fact: if it weren't for modern Christians, John McCain would've won in 2008, and God/ Goddess/ Nothing knows who would be president now).

      And I'm having a hard time making sense of your assertion that the Constitution "disagreed with the whole concept of human rights." The Constitution was the mechanism used to end slavery, then to enfranchise people of color and people of XX chromosomes, and is the mechanism through which civil rights are finally being extended to LGBT people. Once again, you and Constitutional jurisprudence do not seem to be in communion.

      Which is more important: the human right to go on living until the natural terminus arrives or the right to own a gun to "protect" that right to go on living?
      What's most important to me is that this is not the zero sum game you portray.

      I live in a massive land filled with 1/3 of a billion immigrants or offspring of relatively recent immigrants, wanderers, rootless people, seekers, the desperate, the curious, people who -- unlike so many others in the world -- were sufficiently weakly socialized that they were able to leave family, land, and traditions for an unknown country. An unknown country that was taken by force from its original human occupants. Not an auspicious beginning. People of all stripes, their subconscious populated with archetypes of all stripes, many of them traumatized into their decision to uproot, and further traumatized en route and once here. Imperialist/colonialist origins to our power structure and national psyche. The psychic residue of two centuries of hideous wars. A gigantic, steaming, fragrant gallimaufry of the worst possible power problems.

      You fucking bet your life I believe the right to keep and bear arms is still necessary. Someday may it not be so, but today is not that day, and I do not believe the first thread we pull to unravel the proverbial fabric of violence endemic in our culture is to cede our private gun ownership right.

      I believe we can keep reasonable gun rights and extend full civil rights to LGBT people, atheists, and Scairy Moozlims.

      I believe we can keep reasonable gun rights and fight all the battles it will take to grow out of racism, homo/transphobia, misogyny, and rape culture.

      I believe we can keep reasonable gun rights and pay women equal pay for equal work. I believe we can keep reasonable gun rights and tear City Hall down to the ground if police are not constrained from and punished for brutality.

      I believe we can keep reasonable gun rights and marshal people on both sides of the political divide to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing campaign finance control and denying non-human entities the rights of personhood -- a difficult but very necessary step in reasserting the will of the less powerful over the plutocrats.

      I believe we can keep reasonable gun rights and restrict magazine capacity, require all gun transfers to be mediated by licensed dealers who perform background checks, require all gun buyers to present proof that they have successfully completed some reasonable degree of firearms safety and law education, require owners to timely report gun thefts (to short-circuit strawman purchases and unregulated private transfers), and hold gun owners civilly and criminally responsible for failing to secure firearms.

      And I believe we can recalibrate if and when we choose to do so, and repeal the 2nd Amendment.


      by raincrow on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 04:55:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Culture (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Environment (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (18)
  • Law (18)
  • Spam (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site