Shortly after the Newtown horror, I wrote an angry post in which I, in effect, accused Obama of sacrificing those murdered children in order to make progress on economic problems facing the nation. I was wrong. He and his administration are moving with commendable speed and energy to seize this moment and convert it into lasting gun control legislation. He may fail, of course, but not through any inadequacy of his effort. I am delighted to be able to take back what I said and -- should he be listening -- apologize.
Now, on to the trillion dollar coin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Now is the time to pass a bill. Gun believers will see that they still can have some guns and the NRA's paranoid arguments will be disproven.
Wide gun rights for everyone are just not worth the consequences. When protesting, I have had to deal with gun threats and have seen people stay home because they worry. (The odds are low but the image is disturbing.) Our other rights are being curtailed by abstract gun rights.
Paranoia might be animating for some of rank and file NRA people. But the NRA itself has two major roles. It's a marketing arm of the gun industry and it's a vote mobilizer for the Republican party.
The rest is smoke and mirrors.
I'm probably the only leftist that supports full blown gun rights, and the reasons may sounds ridiculous but I stand by them.
1. They forfeit our success at any future revolution by surrendering our arms to the class that is armed.
2. I just - especially after reading in defense of anarchism - cannot concede to giving up my arms, while the state maintains similar and more powerful arms, and will use them corrosively. On what principle or right can they take my arms away and continue to carry same?
I agree with Chris, and add the thought that the Second Amendment was born during a time of armed insurrection. I am just becoming acquainted with the works of Mr. Wolff, and do not pretend to understand yet much, if any of it. However, I am curious about an individual who poses the question "What right does the government -- any government -- have to tell me what to do?" (About Philosophy, 10th Ed. 2009, p 2.) and also holds himself out to the public as ". . . in politics, I am an anarchist . . . ." now identifying himself as an old leftist and clearly advocating a politically liberal agenda. That's not a judgment, which I am unworthy to make, but merely an observation.
As I have many times explained, in any situation I advocate the farthest left position that has any chance of success. The alternative is just to endlessly repeat that I do not like the world as it is, and then consign myself to irrelevance. I have spent a long time trying to identify a plausible path to socialism, and in the present situation, I do not see it. The most I can see is to strengthen labor movements and anti-war movements wherever and whenever they appear, and soldier on. Now, I am a naturally cheerful person [perhaps not appropriate for a socialist?], so when small steps and half measures succeed, I cheer, rather than complain that they are only small steps and healf measures. it is also the case that I live a comfortable and privileged life, and I therefore think I have an obligation to work for measures that will benefit those less fortunate than I, even if they are only small steps and half measures. I do not have the moral luxury to cry "a pox on all your houses" and then go back to living my comfortable life.
Post a Comment