A view from the other side: NY Times opinion

[T.Lex]

Sorry for an additional thread on this, but I think this specific instance may deserve a separate thread.

Here is an essay that, rather eloquently, sets out the "best" arguments that we'll be seeing in the coming months.

Consider reading this a bit of opposition research, or intel gathering, depending on your perspective.

The Freedom of an Armed Society - NYTimes.com

Some excerpts:

That incident brought home to me what I have always suspected, but found difficult to articulate: an armed society — especially as we prosecute it at the moment in this country — is the opposite of a civil society.
...
Or if more citizens were armed — like principals and teachers in the classroom, for example — they could halt senseless shootings ahead of time, or at least early on, and save society a lot of heartache and bloodshed.

As ever more people are armed in public, however — even brandishing weapons on the street — this is no longer recognizable as a civil society. Freedom is vanished at that point.

Ironically, he goes on to reveal "fallacies" while engaging in many of his own.

The definition of "problem" will be critical. The problem is not private gun ownership. The problem is society's ability to provide immediate and decisive protection against those that use guns to harm innocent people.

IMHO

 

[spencer rifle]

Classic liberal professor tripe. Apparently advanced degrees do not confer clear thinking upon their recipients. This whole article was, to quote Nomad, "a mass of conflicting impulses."

 

[bulldog]

I hope his parents didn't pay a lot for his education.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.

Oh, really? Then let us disarm all levels of government at once as an armed government agent creates a chilling effect on free speech.

Private gun ownership invites retreat into extreme individualism

What all collectivists want to avoid.

The professor knows the distinction between subjects and citizens and wants us all subjects of his Skinner box. No thank you.

 

[T.Lex]

Indeed.

This one is less gun-oriented, and more... I don't know... just... strange. It is chock full of faux sympathy for white young men. It reminds me of feminist writing about "false enlightenment." Although this is really more dangerous, because it generalizes such that being a young male (mostly white, but it also refers to the dangers of racial minority young men) is the same as being a danger to society.

Guns and the Decline of the Young Man - NYTimes.com

We cannot neglect the young men. Can you imagine being in the shoes of the one who feels his power slipping away? Who can find nothing stable to believe in? Who feels himself becoming unnecessary? That powerlessness and fear ties a dark knot in his stomach. As this knot thickens, a centripetal hatred moves inward toward the self as a centrifugal hatred is cast outward at others: his parents, his girlfriend, his boss, his classmates, society, life. The non-empathic, resentful part of our character would delight in their suffering and say that they deserve it for repressing us for those centuries. This part of us would shout, “Ha! Finally! How does it feel?” But if they go down, they will take some of us with them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Can you imagine being in the shoes of the one who feels his power slipping away? Who can find nothing stable to believe in? Who feels himself becoming unnecessary?

So, he was writing about law school?

 

[jgreiner]

Oh, really? Then let us disarm all levels of government at once as an armed government agent creates a chilling effect on free speech.



What all collectivists want to avoid.

The professor knows the distinction between subjects and citizens and wants us all subjects of his Skinner box. No thank you.

as always Kirk, brilliant!!!!

 

[T.Lex]

So, he was writing about law school?

haha

Indeed (but she's s a "she").

Another quote I meant to post:

I would argue that maleness and whiteness are commodities in decline. And while those of us who are not male or white have enjoyed some benefits from their decline, the violence and murder that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary will continue to occur if we do not find a way to carry them along with us in our successes rather than leaving them behind.

This is extending the victim mentality to new boundaries! So. Incredibly. Patronizing.

 

[netsecurity]

Holy crap this is the stupidist anti gunner I've ever heard. I didn't think he could topple the idiotic "guns take away freedom by blocking free speech (as if having a gun is a threat to use it lol) reckless behavior, which is protected by the constitution" crapola, until I read this:

The very power and possibility of free speech and assembly rests on their non-violence. The power of the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the Arab Spring protests, stemmed precisely from their non-violent nature. This power was made evident by the ferocity of government response to the Occupy movement. Occupy protestors across the country were increasingly confronted by police in military style garb and affect.

Well I am glad those reckless Occupy protesters didn't have weapons too. But since they were mostly probably felons, they shouldn't be allowed. Look at what they did with rocks, bats and malatov's!

 

[CharlesGoodnight]

"As ever more people are armed in public, however — even brandishing weapons on the street — this is no longer recognizable as a civil society. Freedom is vanished at that point."

He lost me here.....

I also sneaked a peak at the conclusion and he references the "occupy movement". These people love the occupy movement, think we are uneducated rednecks, and HATE capitalism. Trust me, I know. My family is full of them.

 

[NYFelon]

The author's point about how the man who came armed to the townhall meeting "silened the debate" speaks more to the character of those whose character he seeks to uphold, then that of the armed citizen. In a day when X-ophobia is seen as the height of non-civility, hoplophobia is encouraged and expected. His implication is that were someone to disagree with the subject of his discourse, that man would just resort to violence to silence the opposition. What does it say about a man who's first inclination is to violence merely because a weapon is present?

 

[netsecurity]

The author doesn't like being intimidated by the existence of guns. I wonder how he feels about physical superiority. Does he also hate it when muscle bound men wear sleeveless shirts? Does this mean they will beat him up or strangle him? I think he'd only fit in with middle school girls.

 

[cobber]

Can I have my five minutes back, please?

I think he'd only fit in with middle school girls.

Some of them could probably knock him into next week as well...