Heller and 30 Days ... Flame On
OK, I lied. I watched another episode of Morgan Spurlock's warm, steaming pile of TV excrement also known as 30 Days, though I swore I'd never do so again after watching about an episode and a half when the show premiered. I should have known, after watching Supersize Me -- what a turd of a movie that was. I thought I understood the term "flawed premise..."
Hey, it was the gun episode ... what was I gonna do, turn the channel?
Like so many contrived arguments over guns in American society, the pseudo-discourses the characters ... er, I mean, participants in the show had concerning guns barely scratched the surface of the argument. It was the whole "guns are bad" versus "it's my riiiiiiight" (insert stereotypical "redneck" accent here) argument, recycled ad nauseum. In the episode I just watched, the girl who hates guns was like, "guns cause people to die, so we shouldn't have guns." He makes a nice, simplistic case for your average nice, simplistic TV viewer.
Don't question what you're being spoon-fed, Mr. and Mrs. TV Viewer ... what Mr. Spurlock is presenting is all you need to know about the gun argument...
I have the same misgivings about the recent DC vs. Heller decision. Sure, SCOTUS affirmed my riiiiiiiiight (insert redneck accent) to have a gun. I'd be thrilled, except the court and the entire argument around the case missed the point, as did Mr. Spurlock in his show.
It's generally acknowledged that our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they feared what would happen if the Federal Government had the power that came with a standing army. Relying on state militias for the nation's defense kept power nice and decentralized, which is a common theme in our government. The problem is, people seem to jump from that acknowlegement straight into, "well, they couldn't have forseen that we'd have .50 calibers or assault rifles, and if they did, they would have worded the amendment differently..." Oh, and they go to town on the word "regulated". "The Second Amendment clearly states that guns should be regulated!"
Like hell.
Let me get to the whole "regulated" part first. "A well regulated militia..." What, you think that means the militia was supposed to be limited in the kinds of weapons they could have? "No cannon for you, militia ... those things are dangerous!" "You don't need a handgun, minuteman! That serves no military purpose!" See how stupid that argument is? The militia was supposed to be "regulated" in the sense that they were supposed to maintain a state of readiness. They were supposed to be "regulated" in the sense of, "Is your rifle clean, Minuteman?" "When was the last time you sighted that rifle in, Minuteman?" "Do you have enough powder for your guns, Minuteman?"
"Regulation" didn't mean "restrict", you morons, it meant to make sure things were ship-shape so that the citizen/soldier would be ready to fight and kill his enemy - the one who threatened the security of his free state - at a moment's notice. It didn't mean, "your gun is dangerous and should be locked up." Rather, it meant, "your gun needs to be ready for the time when you'll use it for the common defense."
To get to the rest of the argument, sure ... our forefathers couldn't have forseen lots of the problems we have today. They probably couldn't conceive of an AK-47 or a Glock. So what? They could never have conceived of 9/11, either. Nor the modern suicide bomber. They probably never could have conceived of the evil on the scale of Hitler or the slaughter in Rwanda.
The specifics of what they could or couldn't have predicted is irrelevant ... what they understood was Machiavelli, and that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They had suffered under an all-powerful British king. That same understanding applies to the power the Nazis had over the German people when they took power of the German government. It applies to the power the Catholic Church had when religion controlled government and they went hog-wild with the Inquisition. It applies to the horrors the Soviet government heaped on its own people. It applies to how the all-powerful, two-term Bush administration uses our standing army, with the consent of our government ...
See what happens when the government has the guns, instead of "the people?"
It's not about self-defense in the home (though I wouldn't argue that it's a convenient by-product of the inherent right...) The argument specifically for self-defense misses the point. The argument that "guns = crime" misses the point.
The point is that the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms because if we totally cede that power to the government - if they're the only ones with the guns - that power will be abused to a degree that no homicide rate or suicide rate will ever touch. Look at how the Bush administration uses our standing army. You want to give him all the guns? Really? Why? Because the government is doing such good things with the guns? Because the government is doing such a good job at protecting its citizens (ask anyone who rode out Katrina in New Orleans ... "looter" is just a word to most of us...) Right ... the cops will protect us. Just like the N.O.P.D. did... Dick Cheney should have a gun ... because he can handle it?
Only cops and soldiers and Dick Cheney should have guns ... right?
I don't want or need the government to speak for me. I don't want or need the government to control the press. I don't want or need the government to be the sole provider for my needs. And I don't want or need the government to be my sole means of protection.
A government of, for and by the people isn't about government ... it's about the people. Just because we have a representative republic doesn't mean we forefit our rights... any of them. We speak for ourselves, because if the government is the only one with the power to speak, that power will be abused. We'll handle the press, thanks very much - we're capable of making a mockery of it on our own, aparently, and we don't need any help. If only the government runs the press, they abuse that power (or did you believe the things the Soviet-run press was saying?)
And we'll keep the guns. That's a power we don't need the government to abuse any more than it already has.
That's what the Second Amendment is about, Supreme Court. That's what it's about, Mr. Spurlock.
Flame off.
Hey, it was the gun episode ... what was I gonna do, turn the channel?
Like so many contrived arguments over guns in American society, the pseudo-discourses the characters ... er, I mean, participants in the show had concerning guns barely scratched the surface of the argument. It was the whole "guns are bad" versus "it's my riiiiiiight" (insert stereotypical "redneck" accent here) argument, recycled ad nauseum. In the episode I just watched, the girl who hates guns was like, "guns cause people to die, so we shouldn't have guns." He makes a nice, simplistic case for your average nice, simplistic TV viewer.
Don't question what you're being spoon-fed, Mr. and Mrs. TV Viewer ... what Mr. Spurlock is presenting is all you need to know about the gun argument...
I have the same misgivings about the recent DC vs. Heller decision. Sure, SCOTUS affirmed my riiiiiiiiight (insert redneck accent) to have a gun. I'd be thrilled, except the court and the entire argument around the case missed the point, as did Mr. Spurlock in his show.
It's generally acknowledged that our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they feared what would happen if the Federal Government had the power that came with a standing army. Relying on state militias for the nation's defense kept power nice and decentralized, which is a common theme in our government. The problem is, people seem to jump from that acknowlegement straight into, "well, they couldn't have forseen that we'd have .50 calibers or assault rifles, and if they did, they would have worded the amendment differently..." Oh, and they go to town on the word "regulated". "The Second Amendment clearly states that guns should be regulated!"
Like hell.
Let me get to the whole "regulated" part first. "A well regulated militia..." What, you think that means the militia was supposed to be limited in the kinds of weapons they could have? "No cannon for you, militia ... those things are dangerous!" "You don't need a handgun, minuteman! That serves no military purpose!" See how stupid that argument is? The militia was supposed to be "regulated" in the sense that they were supposed to maintain a state of readiness. They were supposed to be "regulated" in the sense of, "Is your rifle clean, Minuteman?" "When was the last time you sighted that rifle in, Minuteman?" "Do you have enough powder for your guns, Minuteman?"
"Regulation" didn't mean "restrict", you morons, it meant to make sure things were ship-shape so that the citizen/soldier would be ready to fight and kill his enemy - the one who threatened the security of his free state - at a moment's notice. It didn't mean, "your gun is dangerous and should be locked up." Rather, it meant, "your gun needs to be ready for the time when you'll use it for the common defense."
To get to the rest of the argument, sure ... our forefathers couldn't have forseen lots of the problems we have today. They probably couldn't conceive of an AK-47 or a Glock. So what? They could never have conceived of 9/11, either. Nor the modern suicide bomber. They probably never could have conceived of the evil on the scale of Hitler or the slaughter in Rwanda.
The specifics of what they could or couldn't have predicted is irrelevant ... what they understood was Machiavelli, and that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They had suffered under an all-powerful British king. That same understanding applies to the power the Nazis had over the German people when they took power of the German government. It applies to the power the Catholic Church had when religion controlled government and they went hog-wild with the Inquisition. It applies to the horrors the Soviet government heaped on its own people. It applies to how the all-powerful, two-term Bush administration uses our standing army, with the consent of our government ...
See what happens when the government has the guns, instead of "the people?"
It's not about self-defense in the home (though I wouldn't argue that it's a convenient by-product of the inherent right...) The argument specifically for self-defense misses the point. The argument that "guns = crime" misses the point.
The point is that the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms because if we totally cede that power to the government - if they're the only ones with the guns - that power will be abused to a degree that no homicide rate or suicide rate will ever touch. Look at how the Bush administration uses our standing army. You want to give him all the guns? Really? Why? Because the government is doing such good things with the guns? Because the government is doing such a good job at protecting its citizens (ask anyone who rode out Katrina in New Orleans ... "looter" is just a word to most of us...) Right ... the cops will protect us. Just like the N.O.P.D. did... Dick Cheney should have a gun ... because he can handle it?
Only cops and soldiers and Dick Cheney should have guns ... right?
I don't want or need the government to speak for me. I don't want or need the government to control the press. I don't want or need the government to be the sole provider for my needs. And I don't want or need the government to be my sole means of protection.
A government of, for and by the people isn't about government ... it's about the people. Just because we have a representative republic doesn't mean we forefit our rights... any of them. We speak for ourselves, because if the government is the only one with the power to speak, that power will be abused. We'll handle the press, thanks very much - we're capable of making a mockery of it on our own, aparently, and we don't need any help. If only the government runs the press, they abuse that power (or did you believe the things the Soviet-run press was saying?)
And we'll keep the guns. That's a power we don't need the government to abuse any more than it already has.
That's what the Second Amendment is about, Supreme Court. That's what it's about, Mr. Spurlock.
Flame off.
posted by Alpineman, RN at 12:09 AM
1 Comments:
rock on!
Post a Comment
<< Home