Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 11, 2013
Guns Gun Nuts and Drone Fears
Posted by Chicago Fan on Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Neil Steinberg at the Chicago Sun-Times once again connects the dots. He notes how Paul Rand's filibuster against something or other because of drones doesn't jibe with his position on gun control, or the lack thereof.
money quote:
“He was elected by a majority,” Paul said. “But the majority doesn’t get to decide who we execute.”This is the same Paul who is a fierce opponent of all gun-control laws, who wanted to push a bill to nullify the executive actions Obama took after Newtown, who has revealed that he and his staff go about armed, and who urges everyone else to do so, too.
Let’s see if we can connect these two political beliefs in the Randian universe.
On the one hand: The government cannot be trusted to identify a person as being so much of a threat he should be killed.
On the other: Any random citizen can.
The government should never be allowed to sidestep the system of laws we have in place to ensure that an American suspected of wrongdoing receives justice. That’s bad.
But individuals — Paul would like to see every teacher carry a gun — can and should. That’s good. Indeed, we should pass “stand your ground” laws to ease this process.
The intellectual incoherence of right-wing nutjobs is something that should be more often highlighted.
1
It's time for another episode of EVERYONE'S favorite game show
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!
Today's winning picks are:
Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
I don't want to ban all guns but ... !
The NRA!
Beat a straw man for big bonus points!
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!
Today's winning picks are:
Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
I don't want to ban all guns but ... !
The NRA!
Beat a straw man for big bonus points!
2
These are very different situations. Nobody is arguing for citizens' ability to devise and implement Obama- or Christopher-Dorner-style kill lists, and even without the kill lists, a soldier or federal agent would be able to use a gun in self-defense.
I don't see anyone besides the gun nuts in our federal government arguing for summary executions.
I don't see anyone besides the gun nuts in our federal government arguing for summary executions.
5
@3: are you suggesting that being opposed to extra-judicial kill lists that absolutely do exist is a symptom of paranoia?
6
It is not surprising or even nonsensical from a Randian/libertarian viewpoint. The very basis of his political ideas is that government power is bad, and individual power is good; the individual knows what is right for him, and the government does not
So while the government can not be trusted to do things, an individual can be.
If you subscribe to libertarian or Randian ideals, it is not only perfectly reasonable, but the only logical conclusion.
So while the government can not be trusted to do things, an individual can be.
If you subscribe to libertarian or Randian ideals, it is not only perfectly reasonable, but the only logical conclusion.
7
I'm not much of a fan of Rand Paul, but the intellectual incoherence on display here is coming from the faux-progressives such as the author of this post. We have a president who has actually claimed and exercised the power to execute people without a trial, and the Stranger's only beef is with those few who oppose the policy and stand up for civil liberty. If Bush/Cheney wanted to execute people without a trial, would you have issued the same kind of denunciations of those who challenged him? It's really pathetic that your entire sense of right and wrong is determined by whether someone has a 'D' or an 'R' after their name.
8
I can't believe I have to explain this, but a person with a concealed carry permit is not the same thing as a President unilaterally executing people with his army of flying robots. The U.S. Government is arguing that they have the right to kill anyone, U.S. citizen or not, on or off U.S. soil, by dropping bombs on them. No trial, no evidence, just blow 'em up. This is big deal, but you (and Steinberg) are pissed because somebody wants to own a Glock.
9
@6 Yeah, Rand Paul has many faults but intellectual incoherence is not one of them. Many Republicans are passionately opposed to gun control, because they don't trust the government. Yet, they have no problem with enhanced interrogation techniques, military tribunals, extra-judicial kill lists, etc. Those people are the one who are inconsistent.
10
@8
"The U.S. Government is arguing that they have the right to kill anyone, U.S. citizen or not, on or off U.S. soil, by dropping bombs on them."
And it is possible to oppose that even if it means that you are opposing something that people you disagree with on other issues are also opposing.
But most people are not able to place issues above partisan politics.
The people here attacking Rand Paul would be the same people attacking Bush if he had proposed it. But they defend Obama when he does it.
"The U.S. Government is arguing that they have the right to kill anyone, U.S. citizen or not, on or off U.S. soil, by dropping bombs on them."
And it is possible to oppose that even if it means that you are opposing something that people you disagree with on other issues are also opposing.
But most people are not able to place issues above partisan politics.
The people here attacking Rand Paul would be the same people attacking Bush if he had proposed it. But they defend Obama when he does it.
11
I mentioned this the other day, but I find it interesting that people fixate on the drones, as if the government hasn't killed people overseas for decades. Drones are technological change in how the government conducts war, not a moral one, just as the atomic bombs in WW2 were.
I suppose if that gets the attention of people, then that's fine. But I worry that the concerns are misplaced because of the science-fiction images people get when they think of drones.
Rand Paul's demagoguery about never-gonna-happen drone strikes against Americans distracts from a much more realistic use of drones on American soil - as surveillance tools. Drones come in very small sizes, too, and with the ability to hover. They can look right in your window. It's much easier to see the government use them for that purpose.
I suppose if that gets the attention of people, then that's fine. But I worry that the concerns are misplaced because of the science-fiction images people get when they think of drones.
Rand Paul's demagoguery about never-gonna-happen drone strikes against Americans distracts from a much more realistic use of drones on American soil - as surveillance tools. Drones come in very small sizes, too, and with the ability to hover. They can look right in your window. It's much easier to see the government use them for that purpose.
12
@6 is all you need to read.
This isn't incoherence as far as libertarians are concerned.
For them:
Government = Bad
Individual = Good
For anything and everything, no matter what.
This isn't incoherence as far as libertarians are concerned.
For them:
Government = Bad
Individual = Good
For anything and everything, no matter what.
13
@ 12, don't forget that the armed forces somehow do not count as the "government" in this equation.
14
Ok, I'm going to make the argument:
The Constitution clearly states I'm allowed to have my own armed drone, following me around to protect me.
The Constitution clearly states I'm allowed to have my own armed drone, following me around to protect me.
16
The state shouldn't be murdering people. Not the death penalty, not assassinations. People should be able to protect themselves. These are separate issues.
17
i trust obama to murder the correct islamists (and their wives & children) over any republican you could name: mccain, romney, and especially fucking rand paul.
no matter who's president, america's going to murder extrajudiciously. it's what a powerful empire does. has rand paul ever seen a james bond movie?
and it's very impolite to point it out on the senate floor, surrounded as you are by oligarchs who's entire purpose in life is to protect the status quo.
no matter who's president, america's going to murder extrajudiciously. it's what a powerful empire does. has rand paul ever seen a james bond movie?
and it's very impolite to point it out on the senate floor, surrounded as you are by oligarchs who's entire purpose in life is to protect the status quo.
18
there is nothing inconsistent in this--he isn't arguing that the government be disarmed. Nor is he arguing that citizens should be able to execute people without a trial.
I suggest everyone read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
I suggest everyone read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
19
@17 Yeah, remember the last season of Angel in which the title character, a cool dude and nice guy if ever there was on, agrees to become CEO of Evil Inc? That kind of reminds me of the Obama administration.
20
@11 people I think are mostly fixated on due process free executions. As far as we can tell, drones are the main (exclusive?) tool for that so that is why they are mentioned.
21
@11 read the article I posted above, since I believe you have peddled at least 2 of the 3 myths he addresses in the article.
22
@ 20/21, when people such as @8 repeatedly fixate on "flying robots" when discussing it, it sticks out to me.
I'll note that your link is to an editorial, not an article, which means it isn't subject to the same standards of supporting what it purports as an article.
That isn't to say that it isn't factual, just that it means it needs to be read with a greater degree of skepticism. Anyone familiar with the claims on the WSJ's editorial page, versus the quality of their reporting, will understand that.
That said, can you give me either a TL;DR summary, or else address my points directly? (That editorial is rather long, but I'll be more inclined to read it if you can show me how it will be worth my while.)
I'll note that your link is to an editorial, not an article, which means it isn't subject to the same standards of supporting what it purports as an article.
That isn't to say that it isn't factual, just that it means it needs to be read with a greater degree of skepticism. Anyone familiar with the claims on the WSJ's editorial page, versus the quality of their reporting, will understand that.
That said, can you give me either a TL;DR summary, or else address my points directly? (That editorial is rather long, but I'll be more inclined to read it if you can show me how it will be worth my while.)
23
Hmmmm the US Government killing US Citizens on US soil by dropping bombs on them, where have I heard that before?
Oh yeah happened during the Reagan years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
But you know they were black and had guns so blowing up an entire city block was the right thing to do.
Oh yeah happened during the Reagan years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
But you know they were black and had guns so blowing up an entire city block was the right thing to do.
25
It'd be cool during wars and "police actions." Every soldier could have a scope on their rifle and pulling the trigger to the first stop would cause the image to go to a court room at the UN. There a representative of the enemy's country could argue that the individual being targeted was not a legitimate target. If it was a poor country a representative would be appointed for them. If a US citizen was acting on behalf of a foreign power that could be like a get out of jail free card- since they are American the soldier would never be able to complete pulling the trigger. Then foreign potentates would pay US citizens billions to attack the USA, and the soldiers would be powerless! But what if there was a AlQueda drone following you! A manual drone (a guy with a gun.) Then what? Fortunately we have Senators like Paul to handle this likely chain of events.
26
@24
calm down. that's pretty much common knowledge at this point. he didn't give away how the series ends when David Boreanaz achieves a Shatnerian-level of puffiness that makes his escape from the Wolfram & Hart building impossible as it's sucked into Hell.
kidding. what season are you on?
calm down. that's pretty much common knowledge at this point. he didn't give away how the series ends when David Boreanaz achieves a Shatnerian-level of puffiness that makes his escape from the Wolfram & Hart building impossible as it's sucked into Hell.
kidding. what season are you on?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS