Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 12-10-2008, 05:45 AM

well well.

these gun threads make me impatient.
they are always more or less the same thread.
sometimes that impatience gets the better of me.

i stand by the claim about the "data" that's being tossed about here, as almost inevitably happens when the topic of guns comes up, sooner or later.

all i'll add is that multiple possibilities exist for arguing against gun control: that they in themselves (and this is the important part--in themselves) guarantee the possibility of revolt against the state is goofy---even in the arguments from the militia types, guns function as signifiers that are given a political content by the *other* claims that enframe them. the arguments make an analogy between the activities of contemporary rightwing paramilitary sporting clubs and the 18th century militia. from there, a second analogy follows--between the federal government in the 21st century us and the mid-18th century british colonial government. from there unfolds a discourse graft--the contemporary state taxes without representation, the contemporary state is tyranny---these are the political arguments--that you have guns is therefore not the center of your politics--you frame your gun ownership politically by acting as though you can invoke the american revolution, and as if by doing that you generate a coherent radical politics in 2008. i dont think most of the far right folk here even recognize the way their own arguments operate. i just point it out.

the strict construction position is about what i said is was about. what the far right wants to do by way of this position is not only to elevate gun ownership to a transcendent right by disabling the capacity of the constitutional system to modify itself, they want to change the nature of the entire american legal system. thing is that there are already more rigid constitutional systems around and have been for a very logn time. one thing these have in common is constitutional crises. why? because of the rigidity of the order spelled out in them in general.

morality has nothing to do with the above. it's a simple matter of fact that whatever you think of the american system, the capitalist system that the americans have developed, the legal system itself has proven to be remarkably stable BECAUSE it allows for coherent change. the right wants to eliminate that. i think that's goofy. an the rationale, in the end, really is that by reducing the margin for self-alteration, 18th centry gun rights, the conception of which is written into the 2nd amendement (which was written before there was a standing army, before there were standing police forces, etc.)...

all this follows from the fact that i simply oppose the politics of the militia movement, broadly understood.
=======

later: this brings me back around to the op, strangely enough.

what this panic--if that it is---driven by the nra appears to be about really is solidifying a sense of boundary separating its conservative constituency from everyone else. stoking the paranoid fires by linking hyberbolic claims about what obama's administration might do relative to gun control to the conservative canards from a month or so ago about obama as "socialist" has most to do with maintaining this sense of separateness and little at all to do with the world. by that i mean that there is no particular description of what obama might do--there is a voting record, which is interpreted in a tendentious manner (look it up)...there are the Panic Button nouns from the campaign (redbaiting naturally)....so the alienated members of the far right nra are now arming themselves even more.

but if you look at the composition of obama's administration as it has been announced so far, it's pretty obvious that the governing will happen from the center. policy may be more left-oriented or not--the neoliberal legacy is that neoliberalism has to be set on fire and everyone, right left center, knows it---but the centrist governance will place a brake on this--assuming it happens---which we don't yet know.

and the nra doesn't know either.

i could understand maybe this kind of nonsense happening in response to an active policy--but absent ANYTHING from the administration WHICH ISNT IN POWER YET, the nra's fear-mongering is strange.

unless you see it in the terms outlined above. then it makes some sense--it can be a good or a bad tactic, but it definitely is one.

12-10-2008, 05:45 AM	#118 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well well. these gun threads make me impatient. they are always more or less the same thread. sometimes that impatience gets the better of me. i stand by the claim about the "data" that's being tossed about here, as almost inevitably happens when the topic of guns comes up, sooner or later. all i'll add is that multiple possibilities exist for arguing against gun control: that they in themselves (and this is the important part--in themselves) guarantee the possibility of revolt against the state is goofy---even in the arguments from the militia types, guns function as signifiers that are given a political content by the other claims that enframe them. the arguments make an analogy between the activities of contemporary rightwing paramilitary sporting clubs and the 18th century militia. from there, a second analogy follows--between the federal government in the 21st century us and the mid-18th century british colonial government. from there unfolds a discourse graft--the contemporary state taxes without representation, the contemporary state is tyranny---these are the political arguments--that you have guns is therefore not the center of your politics--you frame your gun ownership politically by acting as though you can invoke the american revolution, and as if by doing that you generate a coherent radical politics in 2008. i dont think most of the far right folk here even recognize the way their own arguments operate. i just point it out. the strict construction position is about what i said is was about. what the far right wants to do by way of this position is not only to elevate gun ownership to a transcendent right by disabling the capacity of the constitutional system to modify itself, they want to change the nature of the entire american legal system. thing is that there are already more rigid constitutional systems around and have been for a very logn time. one thing these have in common is constitutional crises. why? because of the rigidity of the order spelled out in them in general. morality has nothing to do with the above. it's a simple matter of fact that whatever you think of the american system, the capitalist system that the americans have developed, the legal system itself has proven to be remarkably stable BECAUSE it allows for coherent change. the right wants to eliminate that. i think that's goofy. an the rationale, in the end, really is that by reducing the margin for self-alteration, 18th centry gun rights, the conception of which is written into the 2nd amendement (which was written before there was a standing army, before there were standing police forces, etc.)... all this follows from the fact that i simply oppose the politics of the militia movement, broadly understood. ======= later: this brings me back around to the op, strangely enough. what this panic--if that it is---driven by the nra appears to be about really is solidifying a sense of boundary separating its conservative constituency from everyone else. stoking the paranoid fires by linking hyberbolic claims about what obama's administration might do relative to gun control to the conservative canards from a month or so ago about obama as "socialist" has most to do with maintaining this sense of separateness and little at all to do with the world. by that i mean that there is no particular description of what obama might do--there is a voting record, which is interpreted in a tendentious manner (look it up)...there are the Panic Button nouns from the campaign (redbaiting naturally)....so the alienated members of the far right nra are now arming themselves even more. but if you look at the composition of obama's administration as it has been announced so far, it's pretty obvious that the governing will happen from the center. policy may be more left-oriented or not--the neoliberal legacy is that neoliberalism has to be set on fire and everyone, right left center, knows it---but the centrist governance will place a brake on this--assuming it happens---which we don't yet know. and the nra doesn't know either. i could understand maybe this kind of nonsense happening in response to an active policy--but absent ANYTHING from the administration WHICH ISNT IN POWER YET, the nra's fear-mongering is strange. unless you see it in the terms outlined above. then it makes some sense--it can be a good or a bad tactic, but it definitely is one. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-10-2008 at 07:03 AM..