« chavez / municipal socialism | Main | serious, serious problem »
Open Letter
(The following by guest author Jane Dark:)
While I appreciate the refined level of discourse here at Long Sunday, I'd like to bring it down a little. What follows is my open letter to the National Rifle Association.
Dear NRA,
You pussies.
That's right, National Rifle Association, I'm talking to you. You are cowards, lightweights, hypocrites, hand-wringing do-nothings.
My recollection is that it has been claimed you're just gun-toting bullet-freaks interested only in your right to extreme animal-killing convenience and click-click-boom phallic stroke fantasies, maybe popping off at the occasional illegal immigrant.
And my further recollection is that you have defended yourself against such scurrilous accusations through the patient insistence on your constitutional right to bear arms. You, the NRA, would be part of a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."
Which is to say, your entire position and organization rests on the proposed belief that when bad government abrogates your rights and freedoms, and leads the nation along a course which the citizens have not mandated -- using force of arms to do so -- you are prepared and willing to resist that course, and refuse that government, using every means at your disposal, including the means guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
And yet we find ourselves with a government that is currently in the midst of an escalating military action seemingly not mandated by the population -- an action which is either explanation for or parallel with increasing depredation of your civil rights, most ominously in the case of the Fourth Amendment but as well the Sixth and Eight at a bare minimum. Were there to be a doomsday clock of civil rights, sometime in these last months we would surely have heard its chimes at midnight.
That the electoral legitimacy of the President whose administration has in main authored these violations is shrouded in doubt would seem to argue even further for a principled refusal of this abrogation of the rights and interests of the American people. This should be your finest hour. This is what you have been waiting for; on moments such as this is the very justification for both your rights and your existence premised. If you will not in the gravest and most evident circumstances exercise the freedom invested in you by your beloved Second Amendment, your authority to claim it must be found to have withered. And surely these are dark days. If not now, when?
What are you waiting for, you pussies?
Respectfully submitted,
By Long Sunday Admin | January 20, 2007 in Democracy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/7570746
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Open Letter:
Comments
Oh this is just wonderful. The post, and the fact that Jane's here. More, please.
Posted by: CR | Jan 20, 2007 11:42:38 PM
I will sign this letter.
Posted by: David McDougall | Jan 22, 2007 12:48:28 AM
yes, what a wonderful piece of writing. I too will or would sign.
Posted by: old | Jan 22, 2007 6:22:21 PM
Jane, rather than egging-on a small faction of armed men to do your warring for you (this tactic sound familiar?), why don't you buy a gun and some explosives and fight (imagine, literally) for what you believe in, you pussy?
Posted by: Cornchops | Jan 24, 2007 4:56:37 PM
Wouldn't that be just clichéd hating on (the power of) the Internets, Cornchops?
Posted by: Matt | Jan 24, 2007 7:06:01 PM
Cornchops, it's true: I am a total pussy. Indeed, I am just like those total pussies at the NRA! Well, okay, maybe there's one small difference, which is that I am not an organization that raises and spends many millions of dollars to make sure that my own access to personal machine guns et al. remains untramelled, and helps assure that the non-revolutionary murder rate in the US remains unassailably awesome...and does all this via the insistence that they are a militia prepared to resist governmental abrogration of their rights while studiously failing to actually do so.
Aside from that, you are really on to something.
Jane
Posted by: jane | Jan 25, 2007 2:01:41 PM
I like Jane :) Can she stay?
Posted by: Kenneth Rufo | Jan 27, 2007 1:38:43 PM
I hope so.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 27, 2007 5:01:53 PM
I enjoy a fair argument against the sophist NRA, so thanks for that.
But I wonder, how would jane would handle my RKBA argument:
What guns?
Posted by: $ | Jan 28, 2007 3:11:26 AM
The NRA, yeah, sort of scary, but jus' cracker punks next to the Crips or Eme....Maybe Miss Jane might apply some penetrating marxist analysis to the mexican Mafia....(a summer say in a Monterey Park or SC barrio and ah wager most of the LS "marxists" would be exchanging their Capital for Heidegger Dasein chants, if not Mussolini and der fuhrer.....)
Posted by: Sean McCallahan | Jan 28, 2007 9:37:16 AM
Pussies?
I don't condiser myself a 'tough-guy'. so, ok, you win, anyone with a weapon is a pussy.
Now, jane
"make sure that my own access to personal machine guns et al. remains untramelled"
That is incorrect. (Do you have even a shallow understanding of the gun laws?)
The machine-gun stamp act of 1934 and the later gun control act of 1968, etc. have, indeed, "tramelled" my access to armor-piercing ammunition and 'machineguns et al'.
Not to mention, if you'd actually bothered to do some research, you'd have found that that fast firing 9mm and .380 handguns are the problem in terms of crime in the states. 'machineguns et al'..pfft.
Posted by: muhahaha | Jan 28, 2007 4:56:37 PM
muhahaha has convinced me that we should ban handguns.
Posted by: Kenneth Rufo | Jan 29, 2007 10:06:03 PM
Well Ken, that makes me very happy.
I'm glad you noticed that handguns are the problem in the states b/c they are concealable and uber-cheap.
Or, in the words of easy-e: " I'll throw it in the gutter and go buy another"
(btw, we can't stop dicks like $ from simply denying ownership. )
Posted by: muhahaha | Jan 30, 2007 2:36:34 PM
Jane Dark, allow me to drop the snark, b/c we *are* in the same trench.
you say:
"okay, maybe there's one small difference, which is that I am not an organization that raises and spends many millions of dollars to make sure that my own access to personal machine guns et al. remains untramelled, and helps assure that the non-revolutionary murder rate in the US remains unassailably awesome...and does all this via the insistence that they are a militia prepared to resist governmental abrogration of their rights while studiously failing to actually do so."
"organization that raises and spends many millions of dollars to make sure that my own access to personal machine guns et al. remains untramelled"
The key to overcoming the lies of the NRA is to understand that their great success lies in exploiting the opposition's (lack of) knowledge of what features of a weapon are actually disirable to criminals and terrorists.
so, by that thinking, Machine guns et al are a *decoy* in so far as they act as a buffer to a ban on weapons actually used in crime (semiautomatic handguns) and to a certian extent, those valuable in *successfully* combating Law enforcement (scoped semiautomatic rifles
ex):
http://www.gunblast.com/images/AR15_HBARs/Mvc-021f.jpg
Here's why. The extent to which ghetto engineering can overcome bans on high capacity magazines, sawed-off shotguns and machineguns et al is really unfathomable in it's vastness, to someone unfamiliar with firearms.
THe NRA not only cons you into banning features that can be easily tinkered back (high capacity feeding devices, pistol grips, flash supressors) or that are useless in the first place from a military/criminal standpoint (bayonet mounts), they also mislead you into thinking they actually oppose such measures, considering that they *jack up* the price of the 'grandfathered' ordinance already sitting on the shelves of their gun industry overlords, and panic the dumbass grassroots nra supporters into buying it all.
so,
are they pussies?...eh..perhaps, there might be a few non-pussy outliers.
Are they evil geniuses who are winning?....hell yes.
Posted by: muhahaha | Jan 30, 2007 10:29:53 PM
Sorry muhahaha, if that is your real name...I'm still with Ken.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 31, 2007 12:20:16 AM
Jane,
I find your view on the role of the militia in the United States to be very "interesting". But I'll still be forming my opinions on these matter based on Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitiution which does a much better job describing the militias role.
As great as Google is, I couldn't find any information on where the population is given authority to form and execute the foreign policy of our nation.
And by the way, your Reader's Digest version of the Bill of Right left off the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" portion of the Second Amendment.
Posted by: Lee Metford | Jan 31, 2007 12:10:32 PM
Matt,
I haven't the slightest clue as to what you are trying to say...
(a lie, but it works for me)
Lee, um, perhaps she isn't the only one with an ammended version of things.
Take this excerpt from article one, section eight as an example:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
look:
"To provide for...arming the militia"
hmm.
Posted by: muhahaha | Jan 31, 2007 6:31:03 PM
"the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Public arms certainly could help achieve the Second Amendment's goal of a well-regulated militia; depending on the wealth of the people of any given region, the number of public arms donated in order to supply the militia fully might exceed the number of private arms brought to militia service. The donation of public arms, however, hardly negated the right to keep and bear "private arms." - Tench Coxe, 1789, Explaining the Second Amendment
Posted by: Lee Metford | Jan 31, 2007 7:16:08 PM
ok lee,
But regardless of that guy's fancy sounding last name, you admit that the 'militia' in article one section eight is the same 'militia' as in the 2nd Ammendment, right?
What do you suggest? that congress issue the people with small arms and light weapons, stinger missles, a few SAM batteries, abrhams Tanks and a eh, a bunch of few tactical nukes just to spice things up? (why not? tactical nukes are 'arms', right?)
Posted by: muhahaha | Jan 31, 2007 7:30:26 PM
This reminds me of the Robin Williams routine/performance at Carnegie Hall, circa early-80s.
At one point he pantomimes an elderly Republican, she points her hood-mounted stinger missile at "a foreign driver."
Posted by: Matt | Jan 31, 2007 8:28:01 PM
That's funny Matt, but what does Robin Williams have to do with the range of ordinance covered under the term 'arms'?
See, I am offended by any pinko communist liberal faggot who denies my God-given right to tactical nuclear warheads.
People get miffed when they find out I have 79 of them, but it's a *collection* for god's sake and it wouldn't be one without at least 50 (what would they say at the country club?). Surly you understand.
Posted by: muhahaha | Jan 31, 2007 8:43:17 PM
but what does Robin Williams have to do with the range of ordinance covered under the term 'arms'?
Nothing. So sorry to interrupt; please continue.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 31, 2007 9:26:56 PM
Nothing!?!
shit, *Robin Williams*. Do you think he's playin?!?! -shit- that niggers' *walkin dead* i mean..the nigger ain't got no heart, it's all about survivial, and, there's hustling, you know, involved in this man, and...
wait, it's lost on you, matt, isn't it.
Posted by: muhahaha | Jan 31, 2007 9:59:56 PM
man, even the trolls are picking on me now.
personally I blame Mark Kaplan
Posted by: Matt | Jan 31, 2007 11:32:48 PM
muhahaha,
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution enpowers Congress to call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress inserections and repel invasions. It is believed that Congress would arm the Militia with whatever tools necessary to sucessfully address the indentified threat.
The composition of the Militia isn't defined within the Constitution by is defined by statute. These include the Militia Act of 1792, the Militia Act of 1862 and the Militia Act of 1903.
The framers of the Constitution had written extensively on why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, the relationship between the Second Amendment and individual citizens, and it's importance in a representive democracy. Collectivist interpretations of the Second Amendment are a purely modern invention.
Posted by: Lee Metford | Jan 31, 2007 11:47:24 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.