Blocked at Quora.com

Well, I’ve been temporarily blocked at Quora.com for violating their “Be Nice, Be Polite” policy.  Can’t post there until October 30.  In the mean time, I guess I can still post here!

If you’re unfamiliar, Quora is a site where anybody can ask anything, and anybody who joins up can respond.

Ran across this jewel over there and thought I’d share it.  The question asked was, “What will it take to radically change America’s gun culture?”  Like there’s only one.

Seems this guy thinks he’s struck upon something original.

Avoiding getting dragged into the gun control debate and attempting to answer your original question, I would say there are at least two options, both of which would be lengthy and difficult in application. First, like cigarettes, the government could embark on a long term effort of making gun ownership and gun use difficult and expensive, while propagandizing against equating guns with generally positive terms such as “liberty” and “freedom”, instead instilling in future generations the association of guns with negatives such as “murder” and “anti-social”. Realizing that a goodly number of people holding social and political power in the US are themselves gun nuts, you can imagine this is a remote possibility. Equally problematic is the idea of revolutionary change in the US which removes all notions of American exceptionalism, militarism and conservative ideology from popular thought.

Summing up, the two paths I see involve public “shaming” of gun people in the same manner as smokers are publically(sic) shamed today, or the active suppression of what I think are really defining characteristics of America: conservative ideology, religious ideology, fierce individualism, a tendency towards conspiracy theory, a preference for violence as a solution to social and individual problems, and mistrust of government. As you might guess, I’m not optimistic.

As Instapundit once said, “It’s pretty irritating, being shamed by people who have none themselves.”

He apparently doesn’t realize that his prescription is precisely how it was done in the UK.  I have to wonder, though, at what form his “active suppression” would take.  What’s most interesting to me however, is what he himself describes as the “really defining characteristics of America,”

  • Conservative ideology
  • Religious ideology
  • Fierce individualism
  • Mistrust of government 

You begin to understand Barack Obama’s appeal to people like him when Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

They’re ashamed of it.  They hate it. 

So yeah, I do think they’re un-American.  They admit it themselves.

Got Law?

Sorry for the hiatus.  Busy, and I’ve been engaging over at Quora.com.  Got a couple of essays rattling around in the back of my head, but in the meantime, here’s Bill Whittle’s latest:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvEhSkRG9f8?rel=0]

The Martian

I saw The Martian this morning with my dad, a former steely-eyed missile man himself.

Matt Damon or not, FREAKING OUTSTANDING film. Howard Tayler (of Schlock Mercenary fame) said of it

I’m now declaring that The Martian, (movie) is the best hard science fiction movie I have ever seen. It is not a perfect film, but it is an outstanding film that speaks the way only a film can, and uses the medium in ways that the very best films do.

I concur.

I will be seeing it on the big screen again.

Quote of the Day – Legal Edition

By way of preface, in 2004 I wrote the post “Game Over, Man. Game Over” which I concluded thus:

Mike Spenis said “the future of our freedom ultimately rests with the court’s willingness to periodically reexamine the law,” but the evidence is plain that the courts will not do that. They will use obviously flawed precedent so long as it “comports especially well with our notions of good social policy.” And even if it doesn’t, the courts will often bow, as Kozinski does here, to precedent they abhor. We depend upon the honor and intellectual honesty of the judges who make up the Justice system, yet it seems that those who are truly honest and honorable are outnumbered by those who are “willing to bury language that is incontrovertibly there.” The honest and honorable ones abide, under the rule of law, by precedent that is otherwise insupportable. The middling honest ones, the ones Justice Brandeis labled as “men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding” “build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases – or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text.” And those decisions stand, without review, periodic or otherwise, to serve as the next step down the road to Hell.

Tonight during a short discussion I had with Alan Gura he said something that boiled that paragraph down to a couple of sentences (from memory, so I may be paraphrasing):

Stare decisis is like gun control. It only affects those who respect the law.