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,

Jane

Comments

[muhahaha]

Matt, I'll stop the bullying *at once*. Sorry for hurting your feelings...I didn't know you were sensitive like that b/c of your devilish wit.

Metford,

The 'framers' of the constitution were ruling class folk acting in the furtherance of their best interests, no?

"Collectivist interpretations of the Second Amendment are a purely modern invention."

So are most 'arms', unless you plan on defending yourself with a brown bess. BUt the thing that is important is that the constitution doesn't advocate the ownership of arms outside those appropriated by congress, as you point out "It is believed that Congress would arm the Militia with whatever tools necessary to sucessfully address the indentified threat."

Is adventure outdoors(great selection, friendly staff and mouthwatering prices if you are ever in Georgia) or some other private seller associated with congress in any way shape or form?

But here, you seem to know about the framers, and i'm always open to a persuasive argument...so lets look directly at the constitution of the united states.

I think does not fit of our social or political reality. It's language, phrasing and whatnot are totally archaic. (example: the term 'arms' is not equal to the term 'small arms') On top of that, I fear that the rights held therein are rife with disclaimers, including the 2nd amme.

Why didn't the framers just say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

What's the deal with that militia crap to begin with?

I think it's a disclaimer.. an, oh yeah, you non-ruling class pricks get nada tehehe, we put in some tangled-ass sentence that nullifies the whole damn thing, again.

[Lee Metford]

muhahaha,

If the framers motives are suspect in regards to the Second Amendment, they are suspect for all the Bill of Rights and the entire US Constitution.

The problem with your argument is that the framers didn't include the Bill of Right in the original drafts of the US Constitution sent to out to be ratified by the states. The Bill of Rights was added or amended to the Constitution at the insistence of the citizens who would not ratify it without the inclusion of these rights.

I'm not an educator and have no desire to act as such. The writing of the framers and others of the period relating to the creation and ratification of the US Constitution is extensive and readily available. If ever grow tired of retrofitting your interpretation of the Constitution to fit the cause du jour and you'd like to base your opinions on fact, then jump right in, else don't bother wasting your time.

[muhahaha]

Lee; "The problem with your argument is that the framers didn't include the Bill of Right in the original drafts of the US Constitution sent to out to be ratified by the states. The Bill of Rights was added or amended to the Constitution at the insistence of the citizens who would not ratify it without the inclusion of these rights."

The bill of rights was not drafted by 'citizens'....It was drafted in 1789 by the framer James Madison. ratification has nil to do with my argument concerning the framers' aims.

Your argument concerning 'the problem with my argument' is unsound.

But even if it was sound... its still nitpicking as an evasive maneuver.

Lee: "The writing of the framers and others of the period relating to the creation and ratification of the US Constitution is extensive and readily available."

-ok that’s good to know, agreed.

Lee: "If (you) ever grow tired of retrofitting your interpretation of the Constitution to fit the cause du jour and you'd like to base your opinions on fact, then jump right in, else don't bother wasting your time."

on fact:

The use of evidence in argument can be a dirty game; A person can write an article on subject X and only include 'fact' that goes in line with his or her preconceived notions. (Mike Moore’s bowling for columbine is a good example of that technique)

On the retrofitting the interpretation of the Constitution: That is a strawman argument when applied to me. see,I'm not pulling any horsecrap about the national guard being the 'militia' (the NG was founded in ~1909) or that the militia clause in the 2nd amendment somehow expunges the rest entirely.

this is what I'm saying:

By the text of the constitution, Arms' can be anything from butter knives to ICMBs (they are a matter of interpretation) but regardless, congress is in charge of distributing those arms.

But anyways,

A reasonable interpretation of the constitution concerns today's citizens, not those of 1791. Perhaps that’s why a gun ban on ‘assault weapons’ can come and go over the span of about a decade.

( Orwellian language is another room, the proper term for ‘assault weapon’ is ‘autoloader with a reasonable ammunition supply’ but our immoral elements like to scare people and rally the foolish…. million mom march)

[Matt]

b/c of your devilish wit

no, afraid you're still confused.

[muhahaha]

Matt, you busted me (mission accomplished, I guess)

I have no clue as to exactly why you are so sensitive.

To rub in your triumph, you can call yourself

Matt muhahahaicanus (a la scipio Africanus)

[Lee Metford]

muhahaha,

I have no interest in arguing about the way I argue.

Based on the writing of the framers, the Second Amendment is about the ability of citizen to retain some balance of power against unchecked political ambition and against the consolidation of power within the confines of government. The framers believed that disarmed citizens would eventually become subjugated, and this belief permeates there writings. They based their beliefs on a long history of autocratic and despotic regimes disarming and subjugating populations. Between the time of the founding of our country until now, world history is far from bereft of examples reinforcing their beliefs. The timely relevance of the Brown Bess musket or AR-15 rifle doesn't change any of that.

[Sean McCallahan]

"Mike Moore’s bowling for columbine is a good example of that technique..."

That philistine slob simply does not know Ahht when he smells it.

There are reasons to detest most of the cracker libertarians who march with the NRA; more reasons there may be to detest (and be wary of) the non-cracker, non-libertarians now pulling the statist levers. DiFi and ChairGal Nancy had so problem signing off on the Patriot Act or "war effort" either.

[muhahahaha]

lee: "the Second Amendment is about the ability of citizen to retain some balance of power against unchecked political ambition and against the consolidation of power within the confines of government. The framers believed that disarmed citizens would eventually become subjugated, and this belief permeates there writings. They based their beliefs on a long history of autocratic and despotic regimes disarming and subjugating populations. Between the time of the founding of our country until now, world history is far from bereft of examples reinforcing their beliefs. The timely relevance of the Brown Bess musket or AR-15 rifle doesn't change any of that."

well, i am persuaded there, in so far as

"the Second Amendment is about the ability of citizen to retain some balance of power against unchecked political ambition and against the consolidation of power within the confines of government"

btw, I own an AK-74, glock 17, cz75b stainless, remington 870 wingmaster,remington 1100 trap model,and to top it off; an AR-15 varmiter w/ night vision scope and a beta 100 round mag.

So, Lee:

The union forever.

Fuck the authoriatrians, see how easy it is to copy their brackish filth?

[CR]

Jane certainly has brought a new and unanticipate demographic into our fold at LS.

[muhahaha]

"Jane certainly has brought a new and unanticipate demographic into our fold at LS."

CR:

Anything suffices for actually adressing the argument, eh?

[muhahaha]

also,

Only the most brute dumbass would consider Jane's article seriously.

She is trying to piss off those who think that the people have the right to resist illigitimate government via force.

Thus,

'Jane Dark' is simply a spineless whore acting to consolidate the agenda of the ruling class. Fuck her and her ilk.

[Sean McCallahan]

Viva El Mu!

Yes, ARi's are like soo hot and sexxay. Glocks, eh: fed-byatch gear. AK's a bit much. Remingtons: old hickory, man, Faulkneresque.

Maestro Mu, Miss Jane is most likely jus' one of the LS boys having some phunn: but then perhaps, et tu?

[Lee Metford]

CR: "Jane certainly has brought a new and unanticipate demographic into our fold at LS."

The title is "Open Letter". Isn't that the expected response?

[Sean McCallahan]

Mr. Mu,

You yourself, apparently Jeffersonian-libertarian to some extent, might grant that the gun control issue is not a simple matter. However much I appreciate your "We Want our Kalishnakovs!" approach, urban life demands certain regulatory principles. Were we all fortunate enough to reside in Grand Junction, or Grand Rapids, yes, owning a few pistols and rifles--even, ye gods, unregistered pistols and rifles--would not be such an issue. However, citizens (at least those not in a gang) residing in urban areas--say LA County, like 818 (--on Friday or Saturday nights one hears the occasional pops of .38s or 9's, sometimes a steady pocka pocka of a sten gun--) tend to support stricter gun control enforcement.

Personally, I don't mind that the maytag men go out to shoot some ducks in the fall; I do mind hicks or homies or the phucking Vineland boyz binging on meth or rock wheeling around the neighborhood with 9's or their cheap-azz chinese semis, etc. If gun control makes it harder for plebes and pissants to obtain their gear, cool.

I do, however, acknowledge a somewhat anarchistic, "state of nature" argument against any forms of firearms regulation (something like, everyone else--gangstas, hicks, booj-wah, the pigs-- is armed, so me and my ho should be too), but I don't think all of us are at that "red in tooth and claw" stage, hopefully: tho' the Katrina show offered a glimpse of the sort of joys inherent to an unregulated state of nature...

[jane]

Okay, good fellows, playtime is over when the clock hits 40. For those who might have lost track of the argument, or perhaps lacked the will to do so, a brief recap; you'll note, one trusts, that the duly and dully testosterone-scented sniping of most visitors seemed unable to grapple with a finally simple suggestion, which has exactly nothing to do with whether the law of the land guarantees arms to a civilian militia (much less what kind of arms might be contemplated). To wit:

If the NRA really wants those guns because they are committed to contesting the domestic depredations of their freedom by the government, well, the depredations have arrived — and the time has come to put your money, or your easily kit-modified semi-automatic weaponry, where your mouth is. If you are not pussies, that is. Whereas, if they don't do so, logic tells us that they didn't want the guns for some domestic defense but for other reasons not protected by the Constitution, in which case the whole claim evaporates and the guns have to go. The rubber has met the road, gents; use'em or lose'em. That's the argument; not some specious abstraction about "rights" which makes of every boy with a hard-on a philosopher.