|
sure we do, dk. it's about an absolutist interpretation on gun rights. that's it. in order to situate that in some less-than-obviously parochial framework, there's this whole hallucination of "judicial activism" which basically refers to patterns of rulings that you don't like. but rather than say you don't like em, you proceed with the pseudo-constitutionalist position that what you don't like violates the spirit of the original document.
you don't like the state on principle out of some wholesale misunderstanding of what the modern state is and does, and repeatedly have argued that what we need is a return to the good old days of the late 18th century, which you also conflate with some golden age of capitalism in a way that demonstrates you can't define capitalism, so dont, fundamentally, know what it is. but whatever.
and now that this piece happens to have turned up that complicates the historical image of "local control" in the fantasy glory-days of the 18th century by demonstrating what anyone who's worked on the actual history of the period knows, which is that the founders were culturally quite reactionary by contemporary standards and that the glory days of the 18th century would not sit well with contemporary sensibilities, likely including your own.
but beyond that, i thought the piece kinda interesting.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|