You can take my neighbor's liberty if you let me keep my guns..

[lysander]

The link will take you to a political/philosophical essay, so I figured L&P was the best place for it. Mods, please feel free to move it if needed.

The author is addressing an issue that I once previously attempted to broach on THR. This essay is a critique of the pro-gun crowd who, according to the author, selectively support some civil liberties while demanding that others be circumscribed.

Any comments or discussion?

The Hypocrisy of Phallic Libertarians (I didn't want to post the full text of the column out of respect for Strike-The-Root's publishing rights. Additionally, viewing the article through the link will give you access to a number of imbedded links)

 

[pax]

From your subject line, I thought this could be an interesting and good thread.

After reading the article, I no longer agree. As a full-on libertarian (borderline anarchist on my more cynical days) I have to say to the guy who wrote that article, "Hippy, stay off my side."

I think he's the one who's got some phallic inadequacies going on.

pax

 

[Fly320s]

I agree with Pax. The article does not match the title of this thread.

As for the article... it's drivel.

 

[lysander]

The article does not match the title of this thread.

No? Isn't the title of the thread exactly what the author of the article is accusing pro-gun folks of doing; settling for being allowed to keep "liberty's teeth" while encouraging the restriction of other civil rights?

 

[EZ CZ75]

It is interesting to see the correlation, though. I just don't think there is any substance to the point of the essay besides it just being his opinion about facts. The scientific method has been drilled into me like DNA and facts are facts.

There is still me friend, though, that would rather shoot his very nice 1911 than (cough) "spend time" (cough) with his wife.

 

[Derby FALs]

No? Isn't the title of the thread exactly what the author of the article is accusing pro-gun folks of doing; settling for being allowed to keep "liberty's teeth" while encouraging the restriction of other civil rights?

No libertarian I know of would approve of that.

 

[WildeKurt]

A tired point

The parallel between guns and sexual inadequacies is an old one. I've heard the same about big trucks, sports cars and any number of things. Nothing new there.

The hypocracy of Libertarians? I've often thought the same of some of the people he mentions. Of course the same applies to the hipocracy of Concervatives (much of the Rebublican party and certainly it's leadership) and Liberals (much of the Democratic party). Come to think of it, politicians tend to be hypocrites regardless of flavor.

I'd really like anarchy except I've met the anarchists.

 

[Ian]

"Hippy, stay off my side."

Yes indeed.

The guy's point is valid, to an extent. There are certainly some nominal libertarians out there who are not really libertarian in their actions. But getting into things like GOA ratings is a red herring. The GOA is specifically concerned with gun rights. It makes no claim to be Libertarian. If you want to know about a politician's record on gun issues, the GOA ratings are a good resource. If you want to know about a politician's overall libertarian-ness, looks somewhere else.

And, of course, the authors inability to get over the word phallic just makes him look dumb.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I finally settled on the website of the Gun Owners of America, which claims to be the second largest gun lobby organization. Unlike the NRA, the GOA advocates repeal of laws restricting gun ownership. The first thing I noticed was their emblem. This was a colonial minuteman holding his rifle in a phallic position with the gun barrel extending upwards at a 60 degree angle from the groin (I'm sorry, but I can't resist the psychosexual interpretation).

Deep. Real deep. At least a 32nd of an inch deep.

 

[Ian]

Double tap.

 

[HiroProX]

Phallic allusions were old when Beavis & Butthead episodes had them.

Libertarians are only a subset of the RKBA movement as a whole. It goes something like...

Liberetarians support the RKBA, but not everyone who supports the RKBA is a Libertarian.

On that issue we're allies with most real conservatives and goldwaterites. Just like we sometimes have the Democrats as allies in 1st amendment issues.

 

[lysander]

The parallel between guns and sexual inadequacies is an old one. I've heard the same about big trucks, sports cars and any number of things. Nothing new there.

Given..

Phallic allusions were old when Beavis & Butthead episodes had them.

Given..

Deep. Real deep. At least a 32nd of an inch deep.

On average more like 5.35 inches depending on whose study you believe...but given nonetheless.

Without succumbing to labels, (libertarian vs. conservative vs. hippy vs. whatever) I find the real meat of the author's critique to be: There are members of the "gun culture" claiming to be pro-liberty who are, in both thought and action, not pro-liberty. They are in fact...selective supporters of civil rights and in many cases supporters of state encroachment upon individual liberties.

Meaning you can take my neighbor's liberty, provided you don't take mine.

If we understand the 2A to be a civil right (RKBA expressed as a means to secure freedom and to act as a check on state power in relation to the state's people), derived from an identifiable natural right (the human right of self defense) are we not accepting the true purpose of the 2A to be the defense of individual life and liberty?

Applying the Jeffersonian notion of liberty ("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.") or in lieu of that, a broader dictionary definition (freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.), are we not undermining the purpose of the 2A by not supporting other less appealing civil rights?

 

[geekWithA.45]

The article is a lengthy, ad hominem attack on gun rights advocates who do not pass L/libertarian purity tests.

The fun thing about L/libertarian purity tests is that they have no naturally discernable boundaries, especially if you accept Lysander Spooner's assertion that no constitution or body of law has validity absent individual consent. In their more extreme form, advocacy of any form of organization divergent from anarcho capitalism is deemed sufficient to flunk purity.

Yawn.

 

[Soybomb]

I guess I'm a little confused by the whole piece. Just because someone believes in unrestricted firearms rights doesn't make them a l/Libertarian, many are in fact more republican or conservative with their views on social policy. Ted Nugent is certainly not a libertarian. The hypocricy of the normal party lines is hardly anything new.

To quote Harry Browne - Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free.

 

[AStone]

I just accidently wandered in here while looking for my truck keys.

Having not found them, I'm leaving now.

<Still got my handgun, though,
& that 870 is just a few feet away ... >

 

[Chris Rhines]

Not up to STR's usual standards, that's for sure.

To expound (and thank you for the timely quote, GWA45):

...if you accept Lysander Spooner's assertion that no constitution or body of law has validity absent individual consent.

This is my core sociopolitical philosophy. Make no mistake, I believe this with every fiber of my being. But I don't expect every pro-gun type out there to identify with my values, particularly if they don't self-identify as libertarians in the first place.

The posted article mentioned Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent, neither of whom has (to my knowledge) ever been a libertarian. So what's the problem? It's certainly possible to be pro-liberty for me but not for thee; 200-odd years of representative politics should have demonstrated that to even the dimmest of pundits.

In short - give me something to be offended about, and I promise to be offended. Until then...

- Chris

 

[feedthehogs]

when I took a psychology course in college

And thus began the down fall of his thinking.

 

[illspirit]

Mmm, recursive hypocrisy

'Tis rather amusing that the author seems blissfully unaware that his epic, ad hominem attack on "phallic libertarians" is, in itself, a my-libertarian-wang-is-bigger-than-yours pissing contest. Now, if he really wants an exercise in pedantry, maybe he should explain why he's using the internet to post the article. After all, the internet was a product of DARPA, and ergo, the big mean State and war machine he's attacking others for not un-supporting as much as he claims to.

 

[Euclidean]

I see this whole mess another way.

Despite the fact that I may argue at length at philosophical points on things other than the RKBA with others, the fact that there are people who I would otherwise have nothing in common with besides a belief in that right inspires me to think that there is hope for humanity.

Despite other differences, support of the rights the second amendment recognizes is the ultimate statement of caring and respect for others, because armed people ultimately cannot be forced to do anything they don't believe in. It's also an admission that yes, I may disagree with you, but we can fix it where we have to be rational about this instead of resorting to force.

Reason is our only chance for survival. Once we can establish that, we can make progress.

 

[DRZinn]

I became familiar with the concept of a gun as phallic symbol when I took a psychology course in college.

And, lacking critical thinking ability, accepted it as the gospel truth.

At least the NRA does not claim to be libertarian.

I finally settled on the website of the Gun Owners of America, which claims to be the second largest gun lobby organization.

And also does not claim to be libertarian. This guy doesn't miss a trick, does he?

This was a colonial minuteman holding his rifle in a phallic position with the gun barrel extending upwards at a 60 degree angle from the groin

Or maybe he's just holding it. Nah.

What a moron.

 

[ojibweindian]

That guy's nothing but a liberal pretending to be something he's not; a LINO, if you will.

It also, to me, signals the beginnings of the entrenchment of liberals into the Libertarian party.

 

[AlaskaErik]

I think Freud stated it best..."A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I think Freud stated it best..."A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

As Freud has been thoroughly discredited both scientifically and academically, he probably isn't the best person to quote to support the cause. You might want to look into a few of his other quotes, they aren't quite as useful.

 

[evan price]

"Nematocyst-870, This is Deputy Van Halen. I'm new here, dud- uh, sir. Look, we've found your keys. They're here at the station. If you want 'em, better come and get 'em."

Sigmund Freud: Hello. I'm Dr. Freud, but you may call me Siggy.
Girl at Mall: Oh my god!
[laughs at Freud's introduction]
Sigmund Freud: You seem to be suffering from a mild case of hysteria.
Girl at Mall: You are such a geek!
[walks off with her friend]
Billy the Kid: Way to go, egghead!
Sigmund Freud: Wha...?
Socrates: GEEK!
[laughs]
Sigmund Freud: What is a geek?

 

[c_yeager]

There could have been lots of potential here as I think its a valid point that a lot of gun owners are against a whole lot of freedoms, particularly regarding things that are of a cultural nature. I have been on the losing end of that battle more than a few times around here, but sometimes the biggest favor a person can do for a cause is to refrain from standing publicly on it's side.