The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 8, 2010, 08:12 AM   #51
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Alright, Zukiphile, explain to me why lines drawn concerning State power vs. Federal power has anything to do with gun control, abortion, environmental laws and welfare? That's what I mean.
Certainly.

A limited federal power with remaining power reserved to the states is the federalism embodied in the COTUS.

The 2d Am. is a limitation on the power of the federal government set forth in the COTUS.

The role of the Supreme Court should be to determine whether a matter represents a justiciable issue under the COTUS, and then resolve the matter according to the COTUS. Where, the Court moves to resolving social and criminal issues playiong out in individual states, but that are not addressed in the COTUS at all, they move beyond their constitutional role.

Where an environmental law effectively takes some of my ownership or control of my property without compensation, that law represents an uncompensation taking, which the COTUS doesn't permit the federal government to do.

Where property rights are generally matters of state law, even in bankruptcy courts, it is not obvious that the COTUS grants the federal government the authority to redistribute property for the sake of an egalitarian ideology.

I see a common thread underlying these positions. That doesn't mean that one can't have a more creative view of the issues, or bring extra-constitutional standards to constitutional law, or that the positions are categorically correct. However, that does explain what they have to do with one another.

Quote:
It's fine if you adhere to the "Republican mindset," but the issues aren't all based in what Republican v. Democrat means, that's what I'm saying. That we shouldn't split the community that way, when (on this forum) we're obviously all for gun-owners rights.
I appreciate the efforts of pro-2d Am dems, and as always local influences matter very much. (I have an acqaintance who is a far left congressman who felt he had to change his abortion position when he grew national ambitions.) John Dingle has done great work. I live in a heavily unionised area in which the rank and file are very pro-2d Am.

However, to assert that the national parties over the last several decades have not been easily distinguishable on 2d Am issues involves a denial of the obvious. When people observe how these divisions generally sort out, they are often observing the obvious and general, to which there can always be exceptions.

Last edited by zukiphile; April 8, 2010 at 08:27 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 8, 2010, 08:10 PM   #52
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT TL:
"You are attacking the arguer and not the argument. I think we have made that pretty apparent."
Where?

For what I wrote to be an "ad hominem" fallacy, I would have had to attack her on issues and in language unconnected with what her "argument" is. My point is that she used oversimplified generalizations and distortions of liberal ideology which are common among those members of the right that have made similar assumptions. That is the flaw in her argument, not who she is as a person.

She wrote "But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west " and "As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey." If there is a Robin who had the experiences written of and who as a result finds it accurate to write these descriptions of herself, it's clear she's in a mid-point in sorting out how to relate to what happened to her and as a consequence how to relate to the world around her. If she progresses no further than to hold those oversimplified stereotypes, generalities and suppositions of the right as her perspective on the world, she won't be very effective as a psychotherapist, especially in Berkeley, and she will remain a victim of the crime against her.

As I wrote, her essay has the aura of a journal entry. "Journaling" is a technique used to help people who have conflicts and confusion to deal with as the result of a very significant event in their lives which destroyed their confidence in themselves and their understanding of the world around them.

They thought they had it figured out, they thought they understood the world and their place in it, most of all they thought they could trust what they knew and their understanding of the people around them. Then something comes along that seems to knock all of that down to zero, leaving them without a core, a center they can have confidence in and trust, and a credible link that they understand between that center and the world outside themselves.

There's anger that all they believed seems to have been wrong, there's fear that they don't know what the truths are since the ones they held seem to have been wrong, there's insecurity that they are lost and don't understand how to not be lost.

The first step is to quell the anger because it clouds reason and objectivity. I think that's where Robin is, if she's real, and that's why I think her attack on the left comes from a strong sense of betrayal and the anger that produces. If she manages to progress in her quest not to "be in a tizzy 24/7" and that state subsides, she'll eschew some or all of the gross oversimplifications and accusing suppositions of leftist ideology she spewed forth in her essay. If she stays with the ideology her essay attributes to her, she's pretty much done with being an effective, objective psychotherapist since they can't operate when they're capable of using such angry, accusatory generalities and name-calling oversimplified suppositions.

Quote:
Of course they are oversimplified. Same as how the left paints the right. Check out the Doonesbury cartoons of the Starbucks open carriers. At least as a cartoon it is a "honest" lampoon.
Right, and Robin's disparagement, derision, demeaning name-calling and oversimplified suppositions she attributes to the "Left" as a whole, aren't honest (i.e. certainly representative of what she believes, she said everything she believes is "up for grabs" and she "doesn't know if up is down, etc"), they are a temper tantrum. Here you and I agree. I think she might have written in that manner as a catharsis, a purge of negativity and anger, a strike back at what she thinks to be her attacker- the ideology of the left. Further, if this is the case, she will eventually return to some more careful, thoughtful, reasoned attitudes and not be so virulently hateful of all of liberal ideology and be able to objectively assess the causes of such actions to find what might be done to remediate them instead of her unreasoned and emotional rejection of causation as a worthwhile thing to know- that's what a psychotherapist does.

Quote:
But the garbage spilled forth by the political hacks and media spokesmen are not [an honest lampoon].
Oh, you mean Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, about all of the Fox network? Again, we agree.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old April 9, 2010, 12:17 PM   #53
SigP6Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2009
Posts: 1,086
I see exactly what you mean, Zukiphile. I don't see it myself, but I can understand your argument. I'm gonna stick to my wish-washy politics and believe that many issues are not black and white Rep/Dem or even Left/Right. But the way I see it: we're on the same side of this issue, so I say: let's let the overarching issue of bipartisan politics down and worry about pro-gun rights.
__________________
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-
SigP6Carry is offline  
Old April 9, 2010, 01:41 PM   #54
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
"As I wrote, her essay has the aura of a journal entry. "Journaling" is a technique used to help people who have conflicts and confusion to deal with as the result of a very significant event in their lives which destroyed their confidence in themselves and their understanding of the world around them.

They thought they had it figured out, they thought they understood the world and their place in it, most of all they thought they could trust what they knew and their understanding of the people around them. Then something comes along that seems to knock all of that down to zero, leaving them without a core, a center they can have confidence in and trust, and a credible link that they understand between that center and the world outside themselves."
Well, we are essentially discussing the point of view of a blogger. Someone who writes frequent short articles in response to what goes on around them in their lives, rather than publishing in some peer-reviewed professional periodical. Perhaps they are basically journal entries.

I agree with the second part also - it certainly seems as if something came along and radically altered her world-view from whatever liberal paradigm she had formerly held. Mike Irwin captured that tramatic mental re-adjustment when he observed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Irwin
"Enlightenment often arrives on the heels of a crisis or traumatic event.

Why?

Because a crisis or traumatic event, by its very nature, destroys the status quo and forces an individual to face the new and unexpected and to think about personal beliefs in ways that probably were never broached before."
I think this goes in spades when the traumatic event has to do with personal power, and the recognition that an unarmed person really doesn't have much when facing an armed attacker. It's tough to lose one's illusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
"Further, if this is the case, she will eventually return to some more careful, thoughtful, reasoned attitudes and not be so virulently hateful of all of liberal ideology..."
Somehow I don't think that will happen:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._the_left.html
"The Weird Failure of the Left"

Its probably a little broad to speak of "all of liberal ideology" (however that is defined,) but I suspect that with specific regard to owning a firearm as a means to response against future attacks on her person, she may be unwilling to return to what she now recognizes as a decided 'one-down' or powerless (unarmed) position vis a vis attackers.


One thing about traumatic enlightenment is that it tends to be life-changing on more than one level.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 10, 2010, 10:02 AM   #55
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
I made a mistake of inattention when I took the link that Antipitas posted on page 1 of this thread that led to the "American Thinker"- I didn't catch that all of what was on the page that came up were essays by "Robin of Berkeley" only. Taking Doc Intrepid's link on this page which revisited Robin of Berkeley's essay collection again, and finally realizing she was the author of all of that, and reading most of it, requires that I correct what I wrote about the OP essay.

Boy, she's one angry, emotional basket case!

I wrote ""Further, if this is the case, she will eventually return to some more careful, thoughtful, reasoned attitudes and not be so virulently hateful of all of liberal ideology..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid responded:
Somehow I don't think that will happen:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._the_left.html
"The Weird Failure of the Left"
I don't think so either, now that I think I have a more complete understanding of Robin.

Here's what I get from what she has written about herself in these essays:

She grew up in a family where her parents weren't much interested in her in favor of their friends and "partying, drinking and carousing" (her words), and her sadistic brother (also her words) hated and tormented her and nearly killed her; as a child she was rejected by her peers and had no close friends (often the experience of Jewish kids in upstate NY where she's from) and so created an alter ego of herself that she could love and understand, I think to gain aspects of her real life she lacked.

Probably while she was a student in a large university she found a community wherein she was, for the first time in her life accepted, liked, made welcome, valued, and respected: "Doing political work in young adulthood, I suddenly had a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning. Working with others in groups, marching with thousands of people, was not only an emotional high but a physical thrill, almost like an aphrodisiac. A legal high. And feeling like you're saving the world is positively orgasmic.", and which was incidentally politically very liberal. But the ideology probably didn't matter, membership in the group was probably what she valued most because the group of politically active and passionate students provided her with the emotional needs that didn't get met in her childhood- a lot of disaffected and emotionally hungry youth in those days found themselves what they needed in odd places of the "counter-culture", the worst, most pernicious one being Charlie Manson and his girls (not that Robin was anywhere near that insanity).

Later in her life she moved to Berkeley, which is a center of far-left rabid liberalism, where she probably found the same sort of nurture among the radical left. Again she took up with their ideology (severely leftist in this case), not because she gave it a lot of thought and objectively decided it was her ideology too, but because she got the nurture of the group that was always a basic need for her which she could earn by pandering to their ideology as before.

But it came to pass that she was mugged, beaten up and maybe raped (her essay "The Rape of America" has the ring of "biography" about it). The group- radical liberals in Berkeley, maybe including her husband- offered her no sympathy and instead was sympathetic to the creep who did it, and that was a sharp betrayal to Robin and was why she included liberals and their ideology, that she blamed as the source of the crime against her, in her raging anger and lashing accusations.

As she states, writing "memoirs" is popular among the left; psychotherapy recognizes "journaling" as a sometime useful tool in sorting out confusions, uncertainties and anger when one is "in a tizzy 24/7 and every belief is up for grabs". Her friend Virginia (who might also be a psychotherapist) urged her to write of her boiling anger... at the liberals who had abandoned her, and including a blanket accusation of all of liberal ideology which she blames for creating the crime. (Accuracy isn't the goal in this sort of catharsis, venting the bile and anger so that reason can return is). The editor of AT realized that posting such an essay would become hugely popular with conservatives so he put it online. The resulting comments offered support, agreement and sympathy which her former allegiances didn't and so the new group- conservatives- became the supplier of the group nurture that the betrayal of her by the liberals in Berkeley denied her. And once again she didn't care much what their ideology is, writing from the right got lots of warm fuzzy which got warmer and fuzzier the further right it came from and so encouraged a whole series of rants from a far right perspective. This also gave her a receptive audience to express her utter disgust and rejection of those who had rejected her and their ideology, sticking it to them in a blizzard of revengeful put-downs and humiliations.

In short, I think Robin, who was incidentally a member of the radical left for reasons other than their ideology, has become a member of the radical right for exactly the same reasons- she needs to belong to a group who accept her, who support her, who are sympathetic to her, and who are innocent of betraying her and denying her the emotional stuff she needs a lot of, since no capability of creating it internally ever evolved in her. The ideology is trumped by the need to be accepted, admired and supported now and before, in both iterations of Robin's politics.

She recognizes rejection though- not all the feedback she got from her contributions to AT were positive and some were outright evil. That rejection and condemnation, while legitimately creating fear of physical reprisal, also begets in Robin the need to "make nice" which shows up in her surprisingly gentle and deeply hypocritical essay called "A Letter to Liberals". It seems to me to be more than just a plea to reduce the direct threats to her, it has an echo of some remorse in her for having condemned liberal thought so completely and so vehemently and thereby alienating people who respond by rejecting her, the ultimate anathema.

Meanwhile, I think politics and ideology aren't what drive her, they are whatever brand feeds her emotional needs best. And as one who needs to find a center, who needs to understand what she is better than she admits she does, her capabilities as a psychotherapist are pretty compromised, in my opinion.

Last edited by Uncle Billy; April 10, 2010 at 10:10 AM.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old April 10, 2010, 10:56 AM   #56
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 835
Being a victim of a violent assault can take a lot out of you.

I've never been raped, but I've been carjacked with a 12 gauge held against my head, and the experience tends to focus your attention on fundamental issues wonderfully. I can only imagine that rape and personal violation would compound that effect dramatically.

Both sorts of experiences make a compelling case that you really aren't in control after all, and any sense that you are is mostly illusion.

Being a victim of a violent assault and then having all your radical liberal friends take up for the attacker - telling you he's a victim also, etc. - might be enough to leave some folks terminally annoyed...


Its at least possible that BillCA's adage has more than a bit of truth to it after all ("a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet"). One of the things that tends to be most irritating in the aftermath of such attacks is that people who haven't been shot, raped, or pistol-whipped speak in such glib, lofty, rhetorical tones about abstract and ideological subjects. Abstraction and ideology have a way of receding into the background when some kid with shaking hands is holding a 12 gauge to your head......but they of course would have no way of knowing that.

Either way, I think you're onto something Uncle Billy, and I think also that Irwin pegged it when he noted that (many folks, not just Robin) are just one tramatic event away from revising our personal beliefs in "new and unexpected" directions.

__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 10, 2010, 01:56 PM   #57
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Exactly, Doc, and that's why there's a growing number of otherwise liberal people who have a sincere interest in arming themselves and protecting the right to do so, which has resulted in gun rights arching over all sorts of politics. It's not just the conservatives who want to protect 2A individual rights, it's becoming everyone's issue. Not that they've all had some violence done to them, but because they can see what's going on around them and seek to protect themselves before the fact. They don't want the government to tell them what they may or may not not do when it's not the government's business to decide that, thanks to the Constitution.

There was a pretty long thread on this forum about the NRA's insistence on widening their politics past gun rights issues to include evangelical Christianity and the simple, vocal, thought-free stereotypes and generalities of the far right (which is how Robin's essays sound), and it was suggested by me and others that if the NRA focused on just gun rights, they'd have a lot larger membership, with all the benefits of that. I think Robin's hatred of "liberals" has emotional roots with her, not reasoned ones. Other than that, there's a growing number of people from all sides of the political spectrum who join her in exercising gun rights. Conservatives who are serious about the 2A ought to realize this.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old April 10, 2010, 10:27 PM   #58
areilly
Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 27
Speaking as a liberal, NRA member and gun owner, I can directly relate to some of the points here. Most liberals automatically assume that the NRA is an organization that is thoroughly republican and conservative, and they simply wouldnt be welcome. I still feel that way to some extent, and I don't get involved in political discussions at the range, especially when people start talking about "liberals" like I'm some kind of freedom-hating, terrorist-loving idiot.

Many liberals are however frankly scared of firearms, mostly from lack of information and exposure. For your typical urbanite liberal, the only time they hear about guns is from crime reports, or reading about kids with AKs in Africa. In their minds, guns kill people, and they don't want people to be killed, so less guns means less killing. I of course don't need to go into that fallacy here.

Every time someone is ranting about liberals, and painting them with a simplistic brush, they are working against their own cause, no different from when a liberal thinks of gun owners as yee-haw gun-crazy rednecks. I always find it interesting how Heston's now famous line on the stage of "from my cold, dead hands" is seen as a rallying cry from the right, and the cry of a zealot from the left. I see it as a bit of both. It's the duty of BOTH sides to be able to be objective and discuss their viewpoints in a constructive manner. Most liberal friends that I've taken to the range ended up interested, and that goes a long way to making them see firearms in a completely different light.

A country without different political viewpoints would descend into fundamentalism. It's an important part of the process. Listen to both sides, I believe the truth is usually somehwere in the middle.
areilly is offline  
Old April 11, 2010, 07:22 AM   #59
RWNielsen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 109
Bravo

That was one of the best threads I've read. Well done. Thank you.
RWNielsen is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10559 seconds with 9 queries