Michael Ejercito
2017-10-04 12:55:19 UTC
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/10/04/assorted-observations-on-the-sandy-hook-ethics-train-wreck-las-vegas-strip-edition/
Assorted Observations On The Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck, Las Vegas Strip
Edition
I was serious about directing anyone seeking ethics commentary in reference
to the Las Vegas massacre to all of the posts tagged with the Sandy Hook
Ethics Train Wreck tag. So far, there is nothing new being said or proposed,
just an unleashing of the same tactics, same fake “facts,” and same rending
of garments and tearing of hair, whatever that is. I suppose this is healthy
as a cultural release, though not in nay other respect. That tag wasn’t on
this basic Ethics Alarms post, however, and it is the starting point for any
of my commentary on gun control-related matters. The intentionally stark
title: The Inconvenient Truth About The Second Amendment and Freedom: The
Deaths Are Worth It.
Oh, hell. I’m just going to re-post it. Be back in a second.
There. It’s up.
So much of the blather everywhere is naked virtue signaling. One commenter
here who should know better wrote on one of the other posts that I was
criticizing those who were decrying gun violence. Who doesn’t decry gun
violence? Why is it necessary to proclaim the obvious? Oh, you really are
horrified that 59 innocent people were killed and 500 were wounded? What a
sensitive person you are! You are so good, I must take your insistence that
we have to do something as a substantive contribution to the discussion.
Decrying senseless violence and wanting gut the Bill of Rights in response
are not the same thing, not even close. The first is gratuitous and obvious,
and the second is emotional and irresponsible.
I would not be surprised at all if President Trump further muddled this
already incoherent debate by endorsing some new (or old) gun control
measures. He would do this, presumably, as he seems to make most decisions,
from the gut, or the seat of his pants, or because it seemed like a good
idea at the time. The chances that he has thought deeply about the issues
involved are nil; the chances that he is familiar with the jurisprudence on
the matter is less than nil. It would almost be worth it to watch the
reshuffling of loyalties and support among the pundits and commentariat.
Real Nazis, after all, want to confiscate guns.
Once again, the NRA is being vilified, with the disgusting “blood on their
hands” cry. The NRA isn’t sort of like the ACLU; it’s exactly like the ACLU,
but with more integrity. If only the ACLU fought to defend the First
Amendment as vigorously as the NRA defends the Second. Organizations that
take the extreme position on any of the sections of the Bill of Rights
create a necessary counterweight to fanatics who would tear them out of our
Constitution and culture.
The NRA is extreme. It has to be extreme. The ACLU isn’t extreme enough, and
because it will not take an absolutist stance (Like late SCOTUS justice
William O.Douglas, who repeatedly wrote that no restriction on speech was
justifiable or Constitutional), it has made itself vulnerable to bias, and
harmed its credibility.
It is astounding to me—I guess I foolishly expect people to learn—that the
eruption on the latest anti-gun fervor is again being led by ignorance,
hyperbole and finger-pointing. The argument of the Federalist essay I
posted the link to this morning should be clear as glass: making this a
partisan issue guarantees that nothing will get done. Democrats sounding
like they are seeking a slippery slope leading to the banning of all
firearms guarantees no action whatsoever, dooming even reasonable measures.
Forever. Do they really not understand this? Do they really want to try to
fix the problem, to the extent it can be fixed? I wonder.
Progressives mostly refuse to read conservative publications like The
Federalist. They would rather be pure and stupid than informed and
effective. And this, my friends, is why Donald Trump is on his way to a
second term.
The tenor of much of the blather from elected officials and pundits
reaffirms my belief that adulthood is a myth. I keep hearing various
versions of the lament, “We can’t let this go on! How can we stop it from
happening?”
This is the public policy discourse equivalent of running in circles
screaming. We Can’t Stop It. Oh, we can perhaps take measures to make it
harder to modify semi-automatic weapons, so this exact same scenario is
somewhat more unlikely. That’s not what the activists are asking for,
however. By “it” they mean a random massacre by an apparent lone maniac
using firearms. The only way to prevent that is to confiscate firearms,
profile citizens, and install oppressive police state measures.
Paddock was a wealthy individual without any of the markers of a killer, who
carefully planned a mass execution and had the resources to do it whatever
the laws were. He seems most similar to Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower
sniper, whose rampage may have been brought on by a brain tumor.
Individuals can do terrible things. This is a country based on the principle
that citizens deserve autonomy, and when autonomy is given to irresponsible,
crazy, angry, sick people, they can create havoc and mayhem, and eventually
some of them will.
The inability to be able to process that inevitability is wilful
childishness.
At Mediaite, Colby Hall has a fatuous essay called “Scariest Part of Las
Vegas Massacre? The Pro-Gun Message That Nothing Can Be Done.”
It reminds me of the old Werner Erhard scam, the Hunger Project, which
preached that the way to end world hunger was to be convinced that world
hunger could end. The conclusion that there is no way to stop someone like
Paddock from using guns to slaughter people isn’t “pro gun.” It’s
pro-Constitution, pro-equal protection, pro-recognize the facts staring you
in the face and anti-totalitarian. Hall himself doesn’t actually have any
ideas, mind you. He just says that we have to “try.” “Try,” in this case,
coming from someone like Hall, means, “Let’s we if we can get away with
laying the groundwork for mass gun confiscations, pre-crime measures, and
limiting the classes of people who have a right to arm themselves.”
Sure, by all means, close the adaptation kit loophole. That doesn’t mean
that anyone determined to convert a semi–automatic into an automatic weapon
won’t learn to do it himself, or hire someone to do it for him.
I hate to write this, by I will anyway: the kinds of statements about guns I
am reading and hearing, and always read and hear after one of these periodic
tragedies, can only come from those who refuse to acknowledge the history,
culture and culture of the United States. No nation on earth owes so much to
guns. Guns gave America its independence; guns rid the nation of slavery;
guns won the West; guns allowed ordinary people to turn a wilderness into a
civilization. Guns symbolize individuality and independence, as well as
self-sufficiency and the ability to fight against abusive authority. This is
part of the United States of America, and those who want to excise it just
don’t like the America we have very much, nor the national character. It isn’t
just guns.
We will not give up the right to bear arms until the American character
itself is indoctrinated out of existence. At that point, it won’t be the
United States., and I increasingly get the impression that many
progressives, perhaps most of them think that would be wonderful. Are they
opposing American culture because they were incompetently educated about
core American values and history, or are they fully educated, but hostile to
the values and character of their own country?
It’s ironic that I posted about the duty to confront uninformed opinions
before the Vegas Strip shooting. It has generated astoundingly incompetent
rants on Facebook and social media, all spreading ignorance, anger and
hysteria, all making genuine dialogue impossible.
And then there’s my wife’s favorite:
The disconnect between the same end of the ideological spectrum demonizing
the police while simultaneously seeking to make the public entirely
dependent on the police would be the stuff of satire, if it wasn’t so
tragic.
Assorted Observations On The Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck, Las Vegas Strip
Edition
I was serious about directing anyone seeking ethics commentary in reference
to the Las Vegas massacre to all of the posts tagged with the Sandy Hook
Ethics Train Wreck tag. So far, there is nothing new being said or proposed,
just an unleashing of the same tactics, same fake “facts,” and same rending
of garments and tearing of hair, whatever that is. I suppose this is healthy
as a cultural release, though not in nay other respect. That tag wasn’t on
this basic Ethics Alarms post, however, and it is the starting point for any
of my commentary on gun control-related matters. The intentionally stark
title: The Inconvenient Truth About The Second Amendment and Freedom: The
Deaths Are Worth It.
Oh, hell. I’m just going to re-post it. Be back in a second.
There. It’s up.
So much of the blather everywhere is naked virtue signaling. One commenter
here who should know better wrote on one of the other posts that I was
criticizing those who were decrying gun violence. Who doesn’t decry gun
violence? Why is it necessary to proclaim the obvious? Oh, you really are
horrified that 59 innocent people were killed and 500 were wounded? What a
sensitive person you are! You are so good, I must take your insistence that
we have to do something as a substantive contribution to the discussion.
Decrying senseless violence and wanting gut the Bill of Rights in response
are not the same thing, not even close. The first is gratuitous and obvious,
and the second is emotional and irresponsible.
I would not be surprised at all if President Trump further muddled this
already incoherent debate by endorsing some new (or old) gun control
measures. He would do this, presumably, as he seems to make most decisions,
from the gut, or the seat of his pants, or because it seemed like a good
idea at the time. The chances that he has thought deeply about the issues
involved are nil; the chances that he is familiar with the jurisprudence on
the matter is less than nil. It would almost be worth it to watch the
reshuffling of loyalties and support among the pundits and commentariat.
Real Nazis, after all, want to confiscate guns.
Once again, the NRA is being vilified, with the disgusting “blood on their
hands” cry. The NRA isn’t sort of like the ACLU; it’s exactly like the ACLU,
but with more integrity. If only the ACLU fought to defend the First
Amendment as vigorously as the NRA defends the Second. Organizations that
take the extreme position on any of the sections of the Bill of Rights
create a necessary counterweight to fanatics who would tear them out of our
Constitution and culture.
The NRA is extreme. It has to be extreme. The ACLU isn’t extreme enough, and
because it will not take an absolutist stance (Like late SCOTUS justice
William O.Douglas, who repeatedly wrote that no restriction on speech was
justifiable or Constitutional), it has made itself vulnerable to bias, and
harmed its credibility.
It is astounding to me—I guess I foolishly expect people to learn—that the
eruption on the latest anti-gun fervor is again being led by ignorance,
hyperbole and finger-pointing. The argument of the Federalist essay I
posted the link to this morning should be clear as glass: making this a
partisan issue guarantees that nothing will get done. Democrats sounding
like they are seeking a slippery slope leading to the banning of all
firearms guarantees no action whatsoever, dooming even reasonable measures.
Forever. Do they really not understand this? Do they really want to try to
fix the problem, to the extent it can be fixed? I wonder.
Progressives mostly refuse to read conservative publications like The
Federalist. They would rather be pure and stupid than informed and
effective. And this, my friends, is why Donald Trump is on his way to a
second term.
The tenor of much of the blather from elected officials and pundits
reaffirms my belief that adulthood is a myth. I keep hearing various
versions of the lament, “We can’t let this go on! How can we stop it from
happening?”
This is the public policy discourse equivalent of running in circles
screaming. We Can’t Stop It. Oh, we can perhaps take measures to make it
harder to modify semi-automatic weapons, so this exact same scenario is
somewhat more unlikely. That’s not what the activists are asking for,
however. By “it” they mean a random massacre by an apparent lone maniac
using firearms. The only way to prevent that is to confiscate firearms,
profile citizens, and install oppressive police state measures.
Paddock was a wealthy individual without any of the markers of a killer, who
carefully planned a mass execution and had the resources to do it whatever
the laws were. He seems most similar to Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower
sniper, whose rampage may have been brought on by a brain tumor.
Individuals can do terrible things. This is a country based on the principle
that citizens deserve autonomy, and when autonomy is given to irresponsible,
crazy, angry, sick people, they can create havoc and mayhem, and eventually
some of them will.
The inability to be able to process that inevitability is wilful
childishness.
At Mediaite, Colby Hall has a fatuous essay called “Scariest Part of Las
Vegas Massacre? The Pro-Gun Message That Nothing Can Be Done.”
It reminds me of the old Werner Erhard scam, the Hunger Project, which
preached that the way to end world hunger was to be convinced that world
hunger could end. The conclusion that there is no way to stop someone like
Paddock from using guns to slaughter people isn’t “pro gun.” It’s
pro-Constitution, pro-equal protection, pro-recognize the facts staring you
in the face and anti-totalitarian. Hall himself doesn’t actually have any
ideas, mind you. He just says that we have to “try.” “Try,” in this case,
coming from someone like Hall, means, “Let’s we if we can get away with
laying the groundwork for mass gun confiscations, pre-crime measures, and
limiting the classes of people who have a right to arm themselves.”
Sure, by all means, close the adaptation kit loophole. That doesn’t mean
that anyone determined to convert a semi–automatic into an automatic weapon
won’t learn to do it himself, or hire someone to do it for him.
I hate to write this, by I will anyway: the kinds of statements about guns I
am reading and hearing, and always read and hear after one of these periodic
tragedies, can only come from those who refuse to acknowledge the history,
culture and culture of the United States. No nation on earth owes so much to
guns. Guns gave America its independence; guns rid the nation of slavery;
guns won the West; guns allowed ordinary people to turn a wilderness into a
civilization. Guns symbolize individuality and independence, as well as
self-sufficiency and the ability to fight against abusive authority. This is
part of the United States of America, and those who want to excise it just
don’t like the America we have very much, nor the national character. It isn’t
just guns.
We will not give up the right to bear arms until the American character
itself is indoctrinated out of existence. At that point, it won’t be the
United States., and I increasingly get the impression that many
progressives, perhaps most of them think that would be wonderful. Are they
opposing American culture because they were incompetently educated about
core American values and history, or are they fully educated, but hostile to
the values and character of their own country?
It’s ironic that I posted about the duty to confront uninformed opinions
before the Vegas Strip shooting. It has generated astoundingly incompetent
rants on Facebook and social media, all spreading ignorance, anger and
hysteria, all making genuine dialogue impossible.
And then there’s my wife’s favorite:
The disconnect between the same end of the ideological spectrum demonizing
the police while simultaneously seeking to make the public entirely
dependent on the police would be the stuff of satire, if it wasn’t so
tragic.