Sunday, July 04, 2010

More Terror

Today is Saturday, 3 July 2010.

I quote below a fine comment by “weinerdogzrule” on my column, “ACTIVIST JUDGES DUMP TERROR BAN!”

“Isn't any Supreme Court decision, whether you agree with it or not, Big Centralized Government, in the form of unelected justices? To what can you point to support your conclusion that these Justices in particular are "terror-loving"? Although they are undoubtedly "conservative" (in the sense of "conservative" vs. "liberal" politics - not in the judicial sense), I can find no evidence that they personally, each of them individually or collectively, are "terror-loving".

Your main thesis is absolutely spot on, that the plain language of the 2nd Amendment requires a "well-regulated Militia" as a pre-condition of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It appears that a majority of the Court has rendered yet another decision which can well be described as "activist" and not in keeping with the original intent of the framers - a characterization with which I am certain they would vehemently disagree.

It is precisely because of opinions and decisions such as this that I believe a serious change in the composition of the Court is called for. Hopefully, Obama's nominees will be able to successfully neutralize the likes of Scalia, Alito and Thomas, in particular. In the meantime, it seems that name-calling and hyperbole do little to advance a reasoned argument respecting the real issues.”

Yes, every SCOTUS (that’s wirespeak for Supreme Court of the United States) decision is by unelected officials. My point, obviously not clearly made, is that right-wingers, such as the virulent Teabaggers, hate the unelected and bureaucratic, but conveniently forget that hate when unelected justices confirm their right to be gunslingers.

I called the Fatality Five justices “terror-loving” because their decision prolongs the terror that promiscuous handgun ownership brings to neighborhoods (particularly of lower economic status and of colour) all over this nation. Ask young people on the South Side of Chicago, or in South Central in LA, or in Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn, or on the North Side in Tulsa, where I reside. Gunfire is their lullaby. Objectively, these justices love terror, because they facilitate it.

For this reason, I don’t believe myself guilty of name-calling and hyperbole, but of pointing to objective reality.

(Incidentally: I’ve always been charmed by weinerdogz. In the several years that charming Sophie Tucker Dachshund has been a member of our household, I’ve come to understand that they do indeed rule. Their hearts are in reverse proportion to their size.)

On this date in 987, Hugh Capet was crowned King of France; his dynasty would rule until 1792.

Franz Kafka was born on this date in 1883.

On this date in 1962, President DeGaulle of France announces the independence of Algeria.

On this date in 1988, a USA/USE warship shoots down a civilian Iranian airliner, murdering all 290 aboard. While the shooting may not strictly have been intentional, the criminal rules of engagement under which it was conducted render the Reagan regime guilty of a criminal act.


Blogger weinerdogzrule said...

Glad to see that a dachshund allows you to live in her house. They are little tyrants, eh?! But always fun, comical, loving, inventive, stubborn, and loyal.

I appreciate your quoting my previous comment in toto. And, although I obviously agree with your outrage at the Supreme Court decision which is the subject of our discussion, I must still disagree with your characterization of the Justices as "terror-loving." It seems to me that "terror" or "terrorism" is the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) to inculcate fear in order to achieve goals that are political or religious, or ideological. (Much like "robbery" - obtaining money or other property by use of force, threat of force, or fear.) Terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion and intimidation.

Further, it seems to me that one must "intend" the terror or terrorism - that is, one must be determined to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason. One must have a particular aim or design; in the case of terror, that aim is to inculcate fear in order to coerce. Using these definitions, then, one cannot say that the Justices rendering the decision are "terror-loving" or "terrorists." Although their decision certainly renders nearly impossible reducing the number of handguns available to criminals and others of their ilk, or eliminating them altogether, it seems clear that the Justices have not "intended" terror. Nor can it be fairly said that they savor, enjoy or "love" the unintended results of having made handguns accessible to criminals and jugheads. Thus, they should not be labeled "terror-loving." (Similarly, when a person having had too much to drink undertakes the drive home, and his driving results in an accident killing and/or maiming others, or resulting in mayhem and property damage, the impaired driver did not "intend" to kill and/or maim - he merely intended to drive while impaired. Although one oftentimes logically flows from the other, there is no specific intent present.) Because reasonable minds can apparently differ respecting the accessibility, registration and proper ownership/use of handguns (and ALL guns, for that matter), it is abundantly clear to me that there needs to be a significant shift in the Court.

I notice that your writing reflects opinions that are certainly sincere and heart-felt. I believe that it would be far more persuasive to others (who else?) were your style a bit less inflammatory and emotion-laden. Just my opinion...

1:43 PM  
Blogger weinerdogzrule said...

We are alone on this chance planet; and, amid all the forms of life that surround us, not one, excepting the dog, has made an alliance with us. Maurice Maeterlinck


"Some day, if I ever get a chance, I shall write a book, or warning, on the character and temperament of the dachshund and why he can't be trained and shouldn't be. I would rather train a striped zebra to balance an Indian club than induce a dachshund to heed my slightest command." E.B. White

If you've never owned dachshunds, no explanation is possible. If you have owned dachshunds, no explanation is necessary.

4:36 PM  
Anonymous Reader said...

Above, weinerdozrule said:

"I notice that your writing reflects opinions that are certainly sincere and heart-felt. I believe that it would be far more persuasive to others (who else?) were your style a bit less inflammatory and emotion-laden. Just my opinion..."

I am a regular reader of this blog and completely agree with weinerdogzrule. Opinion, written in a calm tone, is more often received well by the reader. Opinion written in an inflammatory and emotion-laden tone clouds the reader's ability to fully appreciate and grasp the writer's meaning and intent.

8:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home