Sunday, June 6, 2010

Sebastian on Josh Horwitz

Sebastian posted a criticism of Josh Horwitz' recent remarks.

Josh Horwitz:

While America began as a revolution against the king of England, revolution turned out to be a terrible form of governing, Horwitz says. “There was no ability to tax, so (Gen.) Washington’s army starved. State legislatures had an immense amount of power. There were mobbings in every city with no central authority to put any (revolt) down. Militias formed and closed down the courts.”

So the founders crafted a new document to replace perpetual revolution with a constitutional government, Horwitz explains. None of the framers of the Constitution “believed there was an individual right to insurrection. The Second Amendment was about who got control of the militia. The states did not want the federal government to draft their militias into federal service.”

America, he adds, was founded on “one person, one vote. Not one gun, one vote … Just because you have a gun does not give you a bigger say in government. That violates some of our most fundamental principals.”

Sebastian:

What I can’t figure out is whether Horwitz is legitimately goofy about believing that folks who would suggest the Declaration of Independence is a blueprint for just revolution are just as radical and extreme as, say, a Timothy McVeigh, or whether he’s trying to chain the real extremists to those who are not in hopes that it pulls the whole issue under the water. If it’s the latter, he might want to rethink much of his rhetoric.

Me:

What I’m disappointed about in Horwitz’ talk is his referring to the Revolutionary War period at all. I’d rather he leave that to you pro-gun guys because using “the founders,” who were slave-owners who denied women basic human rights, as the source justification for anything just doesn’t make much sense to me.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

8 comments:

  1. He is neither qualified nor trustworthy enough for his opinion on this matter to be worth anything.
    This is just Limbaugh-level punditry.

    Try getting your information from somebody who isn't a propagandist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What I’m disappointed about in Horwitz’ talk is his referring to the Revolutionary War period at all. I’d rather he leave that to you pro-gun guys because using “the founders,” who were slave-owners who denied women basic human rights, as the source justification for anything just doesn’t make much sense to me."

    The "founders" didn't invent slavery but rather inherited it from the Europeans. As soon as they removed British rule they abolished slavery in half the country and forbid the importation of new slaves. Isn't that the "compromise" you are always wanting?

    ReplyDelete
  3. By Sebby's 'logic,' NRA member McVeigh was within his rights to bomb a daycare center.

    Of course, Sebby makes the same old tired mistake all gunloons make when talking about revolution or overthrowing tyranny. Here's the mistake: the right to revolution is not given or endorsed by Govt. It occurs only when the Govt. no longer has authority (i.e., Govt is supplanted by foreign power, etc.)

    It's not hard to prove this; consider the following--the gunloons are claiming the 2A gives them the right to overthrow the Govt. OTOH, the Constitution is pretty clear (Art.III) about treason. Is Sebby actually claiming the Constitution is so screwed up that in one part it tells citizens it can revolt against the Govt. while in another part, it calls that very action the gravest offense against the Govt?

    Consider this as well: by Sebby's logic, members of the armed services cannot be part of the "well-regulated militia" because they've sworn an oath specifically to defend the Govt. against those who would overthrow it.

    Man, I'm good.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  4. Horwitz is a "propagandist," why because some of his income comes from anti-gun foundations? That's the old argument, isn't it?

    I suppose the pro-gun voices are free of bias and personal interest, is that the idea?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, Mike, they are just as crazy.

    How about getting some facts and interpretation from people who are not deeply involved with either movement?
    Don't you think you might learn something?

    You're offering a false choice: Stahlman or Hitler (look it up).

    ReplyDelete
  6. The only Stahlman I came up with was King Stahlman Bail Bonds. Is that the one?

    Anyway, where do you suggest I find those uninvolved, unbiased folks who are not involved in either movement?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not from the huffington post, fox news, the brady campaign, NRA headquarters, or anybody with an obvious agenda.

    "The Economist" is broadly pro gun-control. Try typing "gun violence" into google scholar.

    Best of all, just take a break for a few weeks. It'll give you time to read my post on making effective use of statistics, and you'll come back feeling refreshed.

    Oh, and Thälmann (German spelling is hard, and my memory is bad) was the communist who ran against Hitler in '32.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's the mistake: the right to revolution is not given or endorsed by Govt.

    That's because the government doesn't "give" rights. It is, like the 2nd Amendment, an inherent right.

    ReplyDelete