It's odd to me to see the Republicans on the side of restricting the access in this way, because in the 2nd Amendment debate this is the position they reject: 'only agents of the state may be trusted to deploy this liberty responsibly.' The idea that only agents of the state can be trusted to keep and bear arms is in obvious and outright defiance of our tradition of self-governance and human dignity.
Somehow when it's the 1st Amendment, though.... 'you can't allow the community to rent the space from the county because then those weirdos will do something we don't like in a government building, which might give the impression that the community as a whole approves of it' turns out to be the logic, and locking it down to government agents only the accepted response.
Admittedly the Democrats have the inverse contradiction going on, so it's not like they're better -- it may be that they're worse, because 2A liberties are even more fundamental than 1A ones since they get at your ability to enforce your dignity rather than merely express it. However, it remains a striking contradiction.
2 comments:
One of the consequences of having any government at all is that people intuitively project themselves onto it and believe at some level it is supposed to speak for them. They become angry when the feel it does not. "Not in our name." "The dwarves are for the dwarves." "My taxes pay for this." I am sure I am overlooking much that I like about long-inherited government and take for granted, but there are times when I wistfully wonder if anarchy is really as bad as they say.
Tolkien was an anarcho-monarchist, and I doubt that would work better. But it might Not Work in some helpful ways.
Yes, I've come around to the idea that 'Not Working' in healthy ways may be the thing we really want.
Post a Comment