Saturday, April 17, 2010


From My Cold Dead Hand
Part I




I've been thinking about this post for awhile now. Normally I do that and a post might gestate as a draft for quite awhile until I finish it off and clean it up, hence multiple postings in a cluster. Though normally as I go I clean it up a little (emphasis on a little) and clarify things as best I can. But the more I think and the longer I wait for this post to come to fruition it becomes more elusive and more muddled in my head. But I've got a cold union made beer by my side and my Jeannie C. Riley collection freshly updated from original vinyl to iTunes so there'll never be a better time than now to start this thing.

As usual amongst the liberal clientele I found myself vocally supporting the right to bear arms. Indeed I went further than the normal sportsmen line and acknowledged the fact that I own politically incorrect firearms that have no legitimate use in normal hunting. But shortly after this debate (relatively speaking) I read a story from politico that made me reflect and still leaves me searching for an answer. Even as I sit down to write this there's another story in which a man murdered his whole family before taking his own life. This in and of itself is lamentable but a few things have stuck with me from the previous debates which then fell into line and made me reflect more than I might otherwise have. First was the ending of the politico column in which Roger Simons asks,

"How can you have a crisis when hardly anybody seems to care?"


Secondly, was the emphasis which I placed in commenting on another post by Malcolm, which didn't become apparent to me until well after I posted it. I shall return to that emphasis in due time.


Finally, I was the recipient of a forwarded email with the usual pro second amendment email filled with what I would normally write off as the normal cliches, but this time it rubbed me the wrong way. The same way in which all of those usual emails which encourage homespun faith in Jesus or country mean well and usually just end up being deleted but just occasionally pique us enough to actually respond and never in the way intended by the sender.

__________________________________________________________


So let me cite Matthew 20:16 and begin from the end. The forwarded email consisted of a number of points such as, "an armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject". Or nuggets of wisdom such as "gun control is not about guns, it's about control" and one of my personal favorites, "The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved". And that last one was what really set me off, because I wondered about how much of the constitution was important to these people, because most people who will go off about constitutional rights couldn't name five of the 27 amendments to our constitution and that does piss me off. In the politico column Simons notes about Richard Poplawski who shot and killed three police officers that according to his mother, “[Richard] only liked police when they were not curtailing his constitutional rights (my emphasis), which he was determined to protect”. These are the same people who cite Stalin and Hitler in gun control debates and really believe that Obama represents some socialist conspiracy. They must be in overdrive after he shook Hugo's hand.

My wife once got me an Olivia O'Leary book called Politicians and Other Animals. Not a bad book, but nothing really memorable from other than two paragraphs at the end of one of her pieces on the Labour Party, but the words were far more universally applicable than she intended,

"it is perhaps worth asking what the people themselves are concerned about. One of the things they are concerned about is the loss of solidarity in communities. ...I know this notion of voluntarism or commutarianism has been picked up by right-wingers. But it can easily be a revival of vigorous voluntary commitment to local communities...It means asking people of all backgrounds to contribute to their society, not to act as merely individuals. The French Revolution had a word for such people and no, it was not 'comrades' if you remember. It was 'citizens'".


That always stuck with me and if anything Obama is injecting much needed energy into the idea of government as a two way street and engaging everyday citizens in a way that we haven't seen for quote awhile (if ever). That's not socialism, that's a republicanism. Remember, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" entails a far more thorough commitment to our articles of governance than a an obsession with 1/27th of the Constitution.

I am still a firm believer in the armed citizenry as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government, but they must actually be acquainted civil and civic engagement, not just a gun safe. I can't tell you how disheartening it is when handling firearms with others and hearing them say, "for when the revolution comes". It is a dystopic, schizophrenic Bakuninesque vision of society. Perhaps I should take a moment to clarify that one. It is commonly held belief that modern society is built upon the social contract. We all individually give up some rights for a greater social good which would not exist within a state of nature. Bakunin disagreed (as he should've) as he felt that at no point within our history has there ever been lone individuals who knowing full well their rights and liberties decided to come together voluntary and free of outside coercion to form a social contract. Or as Gerald Brenan explain Bakunin's views,


"It was not individual men who by coming together voluntarily together created society: on the contrary, since men are by nature social animals, it has always been society that created them. The concept of liberty is therefor unthinkable outside a community. Man cannot be free when he is alone. He can only be free when he lives in community with other free humans...thus the chief cause of evil of bourgeois society is that man has need of other men materially, but does not need them morally"

Unfortunately today those who preach revolution the loudest use the community as a lowest common denominator in terms of civil liberties and rights. Take Gay marriage for example. Many courts have found it to be legal and just only to have the citizenry of that state make it illegal. What we are seeing is the "community" being used to strips rights away and stifle debate. It is quickly becoming obvious that in this sense the community is essentially little more than the mob with little or no interest in actually debating and exploring ideas. My concern is not that a revolution will come, but what kind of revolution will it be. This failure is doubly damning when coupled with the belief in American individualism as it feeds into the myth that everyman is an island which obviously feeds back into the failure of needing one another in a moral sense.


As I noted in my commentson Malcolm's first post (yes from over a year ago!) the problems that accompany gun violence are far more complicated and nuanced than either side would give credit for. Before pronouncing predetermined verdicts we must actually ask honest questions with and actually listen to the answers we get back. This is also an opportunity which will probably the only time ever that I quote Bill Clinton and cite him for something reasonable when he stated the obvious, "words matter".


up next, From My Cold Hand (Part II) A Family Matter

____________________________________________________________


16 comments:

Garibaldy said...

Red Dawn. Perfect illustration for this piece. Still not mad keen on the proposed remake.

I think your point about people not knowing their rights and lacking a sense of active citizenship through involvement with the community is well made. They are not the heirs of 1776 whatever they like to think.

yourcousin said...

The remake looks like shit, end of story. I think the point on heirs to '76 are particularly apt now with all of this tea party bullshit.

Garibaldy said...

The Tea Party thing is mad. It does raise an issue though about the way that the left deals with the foundational revolutions of the modern era in America and France. I had a discussion once with a member of the youth movement of the French CP who said that they felt a reticence about using the slogan liberty, equality and fraternity because they felt it had been taken by the right. I was quite surprised that someone could feel that way about the French Revolution.

I think the Tea party thing has become part of an opposition to the state and taxation in general. Which of course it wasn't. It was about placing the powers of the state in the hands of the people. Not the same thing, and not something the left should shy away from - although of course I realise your feelings about the state may be somewhat different :)

yourcousin said...

For starters, and something I neglected in my first response is congrats on the recognition of the pic. Even if you do root for the wrong side in the movie ;p

I do not relate strongly to the American revolution as my family came much later as fodder for the factories and farms of America. But on purely philosophical levels I relate to Thomas Paine and view his works as my compass in terms of how I engage within the existing political structure in America as my economic beliefs put me far out in left field for most folks (even and especially the "left" in America).

The Tea baggers, well I will leave well enough alone for as they hit a hot button for me. Which is odd as I never have voted for a Democratic candidate for president and do not intend to do so so at any given point.

As for the role of the state...we shall continue to disagree on such but that is a great deal of the fun of our discussions.

Garibaldy said...

YC,

I think you'll find that any side with Jennifere Grey on it is pretty much automatically the wrong one, and definitely any one with Powers Boothe. Just look at Sin City. :)

I'm happy to leave the Tea baggers (haven't heard that one before; like it) well enough alone. As for the role of the state. At least I can console myself with the thought that with public spending so high a proportion of the economy in NI, socialism should come easy ;)

yourcousin said...

G,
Let us not disparage Jennifer Gray. Because Charlie Sheen converted her in Ferris Bueller's Day Off so it's all good.

As for Boothe, well I have a hard time defending members of the Air Force. But Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze along with the fact that they portray Coloradens make it impossible to root for anyone else.

I know we're just bullshitting here but it is an interesting question as to whether one can have a limited/small state and still have egalitarian politics involved with economic relationships. I say that the the impetus for an egalitarian relationship in the work place must inherently come from the workers and not the government, but then again history does not make a great case for me.

Garibaldy said...

I prefer my Colorodeans South Park style to those in Red Dawn.

As for the state and egalitarian relationships within the workplace, I'd agree. However, in current society, the state is needed to enforce things due to the power of employers. And without taking the state, we can never take away the powers of the employers permanently. That requires though the drive and organisation to come from workers themselves I'd absolutely agree.

WorldbyStorm said...

Interestingly enough, or maybe not, my father had a rifle at home which he used to hunt rabbits on occasion. It was disassembled in the normal course of things, which I think is a wise precaution. But it's always made me a lot more ambivalent about gun ownership than most on the liberal/left end of the spectrum.

There is a problem with a sort of macho approach, which also entwines with what you're saying about 'come the revolution' like talk.

Got to say I like the word citizen an awful lot.

yourcousin said...

WBS,
It's funny because I had all four of my guns over at my parent's house while my house was being worked on (mainline broke and flooded the basement with solid waste). I was going through the basement and all of the rifles down there had their bolts removed(the gun safe in the garage is full). As a rule I keep either my AK or handgun with a clip in it, but never have a round chambered and always on safe, just the way I was raised. I cannot say how much my father's rural upbringing in Western Kansas influences how I view firearms. Totally utilitarian.

WorldbyStorm said...

Sounds like the right way to do it. There's an argument you should really have the components in two quite separate locations but...

When my father died back in the early 2000s I hoped to get the rifle. Thing was it has to be kept in a specific cabinet, license etc, all doable, but my mother had more or less pronto as soon as he was gone handed it over to a gun dealer for 'safe-keeping' and never got it back. I was really sorry because I knew how much the rifle meant to him, and consequently it meant something to me.

It's a terrible pity, a little bit of personal history now gone.

Do you jest about the AK?

yourcousin said...

WBS,
It is funny because a good deal of my father's guns were passed on to him by members of my family now passed on. Hence we've got a lot of guns. It is a pity about your father's rifle. I am truly sorry to hear that as I can directly relate on a number of levels. I have four guns, a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. All but one (the hunting rifle which I bought this spring) were gifts from my father. And the only reason I bought the hunting rifle is that the two rifles my dad meant for my brother and I to inherit (which he had for over thirty years)and we used were stolen out of the back of my truck two years ago when we were going up hunting.

The case for keeping components seperate is reasonable for firearms used solely for hunting. In cases of personal and home defense it doesn't wash. Though that does open a whole other can of worms about firearm accidents in the home.

I was shooting by the time I was four and was taught from the very beginning to respect guns and leave them alone in the house. I concede to statistics about access to firearms being linked to gun violence and accidents involving firearms etc etc. But training, discipline and common sense are extremely undervalued elements in our society today.

Dead serious about the AK.

WorldbyStorm said...

Well, what's the trope, an armed society is a polite society. To an extent. I was surprised once to see a stat of gun ownership in the Soviets. Higher than I'd have expected.

What on earth do you use the AK for? Or is it like me having say a fairly complete run of the United Irishman/Irish People from the 1970s/early 80s?

:)

yourcousin said...

WBS,
It was a gift from my dad for whn I finished high school. Not that he owns any assault rifles, he's purely a sportsman and thinks as assault weapons as an insult to "true" firearms. It started as a joke between the two of us, but eventually he bought it for me when I finished high school. As for its uses, right now putting holes in inanimate objects on the firing range. Realistic uses, putting holes in other people who break into my house or threaten my family. Not PC, but a reassurance none the less. And remember, this is Colorado where a Tea Party backed candidate has a serious shot at a Senate seat in November. So I'm not exactly a kook in this neck of the woods for having one assault rifle.

Anonymous said...

Ah, not really like the UI/IP then!

:)


Is that a realistic threat, I'm genuinely curious, about people breaking in and threatening. And btw, is your partner trained to use them as well?

I guess I see guns as more for hunting than protection, which doesn't negate their being stored in the house, but I'm a pessimistic person who tends to think if someone's already on the property you'd want to have the gun very close at hand.

WorldbyStorm said...

Ah, not really like the UI/IP then!

:)


Is that a realistic threat, I'm genuinely curious, about people breaking in and threatening. And btw, is your partner trained to use them as well?

I guess I see guns as more for hunting than protection, which doesn't negate their being stored in the house, but I'm a pessimistic person who tends to think if someone's already on the property you'd want to have the gun very close at hand.

yourcousin said...

WBS,
Realistic threats come in a variety of forms, but yes while I feel my neighborhood is very safe I put the last line of defence with myself, rather than the police (the police being a prior line of defence of course).

My wife (I didn't attend Catholic marriage classes for my wife to be called "partner") spent four years in the US military and as such is fully trained in the use of firearms, but does not like them per se. But she is a black belt in hand to hand combat and she could kick a lot more ass than me if it came to it.

I see my shotgun and Mauser for huning game. The other two while possibly used for hunting are either for entirely recreational uses or for home/personal protection.