winterbadger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterbadger) wrote2004-09-13 01:16 pm
winterbadger) wrote2004-09-13 01:16 pm
politically smart, but intellectually dishonest
"Let me be very clear. I support the Second Amendment. I've been a hunter all my life," Kerry said. "But I don't think we need to make the job of terrorists any easier."
from an article in the Washington Post
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. Kerry is taking exactly the right tack on this issue. I don't expect him to take my position on gun control; in fact, I would be upset if he did because I think it would harm his candidacy far out of proportion to any positive effect it would have, either on his chances for election or for the debate over gun rights in the United States. Right now it is too critical to get him into office and remove the Bush-Cheney team than to try to make progress on demolishing the gun lobby. Let's work on one Big Lie at a time, and the Bush-Cheney national security state is a far more crucial Big Lie to take down.
But after admitting that, let's look at his statement. It's perfectly consistent with the debate over gun rights as the firearm lobby has framed it in the last few decades.
Kerry attempts to demonstrate his support for the Second Amendment by citing his lifelong practice of hunting.
But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The SA does not exist to protect people's right to a deer rifle, or a 9mm pistol to deter burglars or muggers. The Second Amendment says: "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."
The SA is about preserving the armed power of the militia. That power existed for three reasons. To protect the state and the federal nation from foreign foes, as a supplement to the army and navy of the federal nation. To protect the state against the armed power of other states. To protect the state against the armed power of the federal nation itself.
The SA exists to allow people to carry arms as part of a militia, a public or private entity created and organized for the common defense. That role today is filled by the National Guard. In many states, it is further supplemented by a state self defense force or something actually called the state militia. In the past, such organizations have been privately organizaed and funded and licensed by the state government; I'm sure if states wanted to handle things that way, they still could.
Militias are not, have not been, the modern survivalist ideal touted by many extreme libertarians, every man for himself against whatever evil government exists. If those who favour a broad interpretation of the SA want to reach back into the 18th century mythology of the citizen soldier grabbing his rifle or fowling piece off the wall and hurrying to the village green, they must also remember that those sorts of militias were either whole-community endeavours in which every able-bodied man was *required* to own and maintain weapons (though often these weapons were centrally stored) and *required* by law to attend drill sessions and musters on a regualr basis (though plenty of scofflawing went on, with the same equipment being handed from one neighbor to another or one person taking anothers' place). Self-selecting volunteer militas, and privately financed militias, appeared later, in the 19th century, but those too were licensed and regulated by state government.
At some point in my lifetime, I would love to see an honest, historically based destruction of the gun lobby and their pretense that the Second Amendment exists to protect sport shooters and vigilantes. It doesn't. Let's have a public debate about the ideas that the authors of the Bill of Rights *really* addressed and what those mean for us today, and stop pretending that their words mean something they don't.
no subject
Glen Coe is another of my favourite places.
In fact Scotland is full of favourite places of mine.
Was it suitably misty and atmospheric when you were there?
no subject
Why am I not surprised to hear that? *smile*
In fact Scotland is full of favourite places of mine.
Mine too, even though some of them I have only seen in pictures or read about in stories.
I could stand on the ramparts of Stirling Castle and stare at the Wallace Monument for all of an autumn afternoon. What an incredibly beautiful piece of Victorian melodrama! What an incomparable setting!
When we got to Glen Coe it was late afternoon of a cold, grey, windy afternoon. We stopped along the road at a pull-off (a lay-by?), got out, and walked down towards the WHW, and just stood and felt the wind hurlting through the glen and let the green mossyness, the rusty bracken, the cloudy fogs around the mountaintops soak into us. Then we drove (carefully) on down the road and claimed our rooms in the Clachaig Inn, appreciated its warmth, and sallied out onto one of the smaller roads to explore and get a proper chill into our bones so as to properly enjoy the fire and the drinks and dinner later on. :-)
I've always found that I was happiest in places with water, and forest, and mountains. One of the things that astonishes me about the pictures of Scotland I've seen and the place I've been is how two or three of those call out to me in place after place in a way that only a few places I've been here in theStates do (though I'll be the first to admit that I've not traveled as widely here as I might have done). I know there are many beautiful places here, and many of them are dear, dear to my heart, and many of them I have yet to see. But having been to Scotland just twice in twenty years, I know that there's something that draws me there more powerfully than any place I've ever been. I have (I think) a good bit of my life yet left to live, and I hope to spend a sizable portion of it there, and elsewhere in Britain and Ireland.
no subject
It's a curious thing, but when I lived in the North of England (age 0-9) many of my family holidays were in Scotland, but mainly on the west coast. When I and the family moved to Scotland (age 9-17) the holidays I remember were in the Bournemouth area. Now that I'm in the South of England, Scotland is one of my preferred places.
Having said that, I have still only been back just over a handful of times. Three of those visits have included Glen Trool, where I was a frequent visitor as a child.
http://www.m-j-s.net/photo/scot1997/1997-01-20080100.html
http://www.m-j-s.net/photo/scot1997/1997-01-20080200.html
Water, forest and mountains all neatly packaged!
Just avoid it in July/August. The midges are voracious.
no subject
And those are just the things that a sensible person wants to have in combination. :-)
Just avoid it in July/August. The midges are voracious.
Mmm. Thank you. I had gathered that even Scotland had a few (clouds of small, biting) drawbacks.