How much easier it is to believe in the politics of gun control and to fight for others to be dis-armed, than to step in front of the gun and build social and civil institutions that sustain our society and promote economic and political justice? Gun control is ultimately a shortcut, a strategy to sidestep consent. Our will to engage in democracy is what is at stake. The question remains: Can we put aside the lethal politics of gun control and take up again the challenge of democracy?”You rarely see gun control advocates going out and standing in front of gangs while they face off or patrolling crime-ridden neighborhoods w/ "I'm unarmed and morally right" signs. Instead they're 'protesting' in nice, safe areas where they won't be attacked.
- What Joan Burbick should have said.
They want us to drop firearm rights because, when it comes to the 'challenge of democracy', they've lost. While they can point to all the polls they want, the reality is here.
In her attempts to label firearm rights advocates as anti-civil rights, misogynistic racists and pigeon hole them as 'conservative' white guy, she ignores that most 'gun control' has been focused on disarming minorities and women while 'Scott Vogel' (of Joyce funded 'GunGuys' fame) presents some skewed views of reality in that the NRA wants to arm wife beaters. You know, the usual cognitive dissonance needed to be a gun control advocate.
1 comment:
"And to me, that’s a form of mimicking political action."
I've addressed that annoying point before, but I'll do it again. First off, Joan isn't very bright. She is taking a contrarian view that buying a gun is not a political act, and then trying to use that ridiculous notion in a lame effort to discourage prospective gun buyers. Buying a gun is a political act. She's trying, with tortured logic and laughable ineffectiveness, to neuter gun buyers’ minds, so that they don't buy a gun, by convincing them that buying a gun is doing nothing, i.e. that it has no political meaning. That's nonsense. Buying a gun is the expression of one's Second Amendment right to do so, and as such, is a perfectly political act. It also arms one (so that one is armed) which is politically consequential in that armed people have real power that disarmed people do not.
Joan's effort is laughable. On the one hand she is trying to convince prospective gun buyers not to buy guns because she claims that it’s not politically effective against gun control, yet she obviously supports gun control. Clearly, with her ludicrously transparent effort, she's just trying, lamely, to convince gun owners not to not more guns. I infer from that, that the anti-gunners would prefer gun owners to waste their time writing letters to their congressholes than going to gun shows and buying guns. Her anti-gun effort will earn her pats on the back from her fellow leftistas in the halls of academe, but I can’t help thinking that in private they’re wincing at her intellectually flaccid effort.
Joan is a tag along, pop leftist, intellectual wannabe, following in the style of Michael Moore. However, her outlandish efforts in clumsily aping her cunning Marxist mentor are ridiculous.
The leftist establishment in the US is so large that it necessarily produces this kind of politically correct, fringe individual, who can function, albeit poorly, on the basis of the charity that is accorded to the politically correct, but her wacky efforts still add up to nothing more than a silly joke.
As for the loony leftist, wackos at Buzzflash, and their article titled, “Joan Burbick's 'Gun Show Nation' Explains How the "Gun Rights" Movement is a White Male Political Power Play”, I’m not even going there. Suffice to say, her wacko dovetails with their wacko, in a mutual, kookfest, confirmation of extremist wackoism. Just keep it on the left coast, kids, please.
Post a Comment