Quote of the Day

From an acquaintance of Ms. Japete, after a lengthy tirade about “white privilege” and “white men over forty,” we get this,

The Declaration of Independence seems to be a favorite of the pro-gun people.

I would hope it’s a favorite of all Americans, since it’s one of the foundational documents of our republic. Do you really find language like this controversial and radical:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But of course not. You just think we’re crazy and radical. Your side doesn’t have nasty folks and people with odd ideas in it. No. You’re all enlightened, right? Congratulations Alan. I don’t agree very often with how pro-gun advocates throw the word bigot around, but you really do a fine job of fitting the definition there.

UPDATE: I should probably also point out that the average age of gun bloggers seems to be decidedly under 40. Though, it probably won’t stay that way for as long as some of us would like. :)

UPDATE: I note in the comment after, Japete agrees with Alan, which begs the question, “Why do Brady board members hate America?” :)

14 thoughts on “Quote of the Day”

  1. I don’t understand the point Alan was making if ” The point is people’s rights are being abrogated without them being guilty of anything, don’t you think that is outrageous? ” proves it.

    Is she saying we should judge people based on the groups they belong to rather than use the legal system?

  2. Just went to check it out in person (and leave a comment myself). Here’s the latest in reasoned discourse:

    “Juan said…

    We should require an IQ test for gun ownership, that way none of the current crop of gun owning whackos would qualify to even own a gun. Problem solved!”

    Why would she approve this comment when so many other “inflammatory” pro-gun comments have gone down the memory hole?

  3. I think that quote ignores a correlation between above average intelligence and some types of violence they would hope to prevent. But likely any real meaning is absent from the comment and it is just meant to call us “whackos” stupid.

  4. There’s been a dearth of Second Amendment news for a while now. Lots of endorsement announcements, but most of them not relevant to most people.

  5. Yeah, I know. It was a tongue-in-cheek joke, anyway.

    I commend you and others for engaging “japote” and other like-minded commentators. I think it’s a rarity when an anti-gun site allows for commentary. At some level, they need to be engaged, if for no other reason to communicate that we are out here. On the other hand, it can be a massive waste of time, because it usually involves so much “SSDP” (same stuff, different person). Occasionally some new eager-beaver will come along to convince folks that what they know is correct, and to their credit they are willing to engage in back-and-forth. The “professionals” meanwhile (Helmke, Sugarmann, Henigan, Horwitz, etc.) know better … and just put out their stuff refusing the engage afterward.

    At any rate, you’re doing a great job with this blog. It’s one of my favorites.

  6. Good job Sebastian! This is one of the reasons to engage anti’s, because they so often respond with things like you quoted here.

    Also, even if you post anonymously plenty of perfectly civil comments will go unpublished. I’m frankly amazed she lets anything through at all.

    Colin – I’m not surprised she lets nasty comments from anti-gunners through. That’s typical of anti-gun blogs.

  7. Yup, that subversive Declaration of Independence. It’s not just a favorite of us crazy gunowners. One of my wife’s English literature texts includes that crazy document as one of the fundamental pieces of English literature. Can you imagine?

    The first few paragraphs of the Declaration are so powerful that it has been repeatedly used as a template for revolutionaries around the world. I’ve even seen Canadians point to it as a stirring and powerful metaphor for the difference between our two countries: ours is built around “that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and theirs is built around the idea of “peace, order, and good government.” One of those will put you to sleep, every time.

    Next week, I’m teaching the Revolution in U.S. History class. And we’re going to go through those radical, crazy, dangerous ideas of the first couple of paragraphs, line by line. And no one better be asleep at the end!

  8. Clayton:

    I’d go so far as to say the Declaration of Independence is a timeless and fundamental contribution to western political philosophy as a whole. It’s clearly built on things that came before, but it was revolutionary in its synthesis of ideas. That the piece has been used around the world is evidence that western political philosophy is truly a global phenomenon.

    Great points, Sir!

  9. I encourage everyone here to read or review the Declaration. It truly is a classic piece of work.


    Just a few of the many things that strike me as profound …

    1) Note that they say “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary…” instead of “If in the course of human events it becomes necessary…”

    2) I have long been taken at their grasp of certain natural principles … namely of ecology and evolution. They seem to fundamentally understand (a) organismal individualism, (b) natural rights inherent to each individual (eg. the natural right to live, to grow, to be free and independent, to defend one’s self and ingroup, to pursue “happiness” in whatever form is pleasing and just), (c) and yet understand our need for group membership and political bonds crucial to pursuing life, liberty, and happiness, (d) that resources are limited and limiting, (e) and that there will always be a struggle for existence (including a struggle against tyranny).

    3) I have also long been amazed that, while belief in God and Creator was mostly universal at that time, they were able to draft a document that works equally well in the presence or absence of God or Creator. That is, one can interchangeably swap out “Creator” with “Laws of Nature” and arrive at the same basic conclusion. To me, this is something that makes the document’s philosophy timeless … because it doesn’t necessarily depend on any single supernatural interpretation of the Creator or Nature, but because it can rest upon a natural (agnostic) interpretation of the laws of nature (these being our developing understanding of ecology and evolution … how organisms interact with one another and with the environment, and how those organisms change over time).

  10. I think we have gotten to the end of this discussion. She’s not hearing what we are saying. It doesn’t get anywhere beyond Guns ‘r Baad m’Kay! I’d be embarrassed to have that little grasp of basic logic.

  11. Oh she’s hearing, Sean, but she’s now backed in a corner with no where to go but feigned stupidity, or surrender.

    What a sad lot would choose to look like a fool, rather than admit they are incorrect!

  12. “That is, one can interchangeably swap out “Creator” with “Laws of Nature” and arrive at the same basic conclusion.”

    And yet, societies that have done the God, “Laws of Nature” swap, such as Social Darwinist utopias like Nazi Germany and the various Communist governments, seem to have gone desperately wrong, for some reason.

Comments are closed.