Billy_T wrote:

Armed teachers. That’s totally insane.

Yeah, and I am not sure it’s actually a serious suggestion. I think it’s a talking point. I think the NRA sent out its talking point on arming teachers in the hopes of stealing the focus of conversation in the early, crucial days of reaction after the event. It’s better for them to suffer ridicule in social media for a few days than it is to have the conversation seriously discuss actual limitations on guns.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

What interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans.

I think that’s unquestionably true for some. Guns are part of a sense of identity. They also are part of a fantasy of control—empowerment. Either way they don’t really have an argument that stands up (IMO). I like the line from the comedian Jeff Jeffires, who says there’s really only one argument against gun control–“fuck you, I like guns.”

But for another, more numerous group, guns are subject to rational discussion. For them, it’s not an identity thing, unless more generally you take “rational discussion” as part of an identity structure. Discussing guns is just no different from discussing traffic laws and policies regarding who is eligible to drive and what external controls they must submit to for the good of the community as a whole.

So for me gun control is simple. Just outvote the minority. When they clamor and complain…let them. Shrug.

…

I agree with all of that. I’m hearing figures of 70% – 80% want more restrictions on guns. SO that’s the majority. I see debating the Dana Loesch as a waste of time and energy.

Outvote them. That’s it.

Yeah, it’s my post from an argument elsewhere. I didn’t say so because I wanted to hear responses to the ideas themselves without consideration of me.

For several years, I allowed students to write on those papers, and the result was exactly as zn described…the kids just accused me of being partisan, and giving their papers grades because I don’t agree, rather than on the paper’s merits. I think it’s better to teach them critical thinking/argument/rhetorical skills first with issues they don’t have their identities tied up in. Sometimes kids will start in pursuit of an argument, and then while doing the research for the paper, come back and ask if they can change their position and argue a contrary position to what they set out to do originally. Once they learn how to do that, they could be ready for abortion, guns, and so on. (The problem with abortion is that one side argues from a “rights” and self-determination point of view, and the other argues from a position of perceived morality, frequently backed up with sketchy Biblical references. They are just having completely separate conversations. And try telling a student his Bible text has no connection to abortion whatsoever, and furthermore expresses a sentiment that is completely contradicted somewhere else in the Bible).

But that isn’t the part of the post I was interested in getting feedback on because years of experience with emerging writers has already convinced me of that part of it.

What interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans. Yet that isn’t true of most of the world. Now…why is that? That’s what interests me. Why the love affair with guns that transcends the rational, and moves the conversation into a different realm from…say…seat belt laws, or even smoking restrictions.

And my posit is – and billy disagrees – that the frontier mentality from American history never updated itself.

I read an essay by a guy named Webb on the frontier mentality of Americans a long, long time ago. I could probably find it somewhere. As I recall, he was more focused on the idea that our Frontier experience had contributed to our assumption of limitless resources and opportunities in our culture than on the gun identity aspect, but the piece has always made me think of ways that our Frontier experience shaped our cultural identity as Americans.

wv wrote:

My own answer is real leftists just dont exist in big numbers in America. They ‘do’ organize and they do march and stuff — there…just…arent…very…many.
Not NEARLY enough to elect real-leftists.

My own view is that ‘the system’ has colonized the VAST majority of voters minds, and the vast majority of American voters are indeed Dems and Reps (meaning corporate capitalists) and thats how they are gonna see things.

Meanwhile, the Green Party gets the usual 2 percent of the vote. Themz are the “leftists” more or less, generally speaking.

I think Bernie was an aberration. Hope I’m wrong. We’ll see.

PS — …and just think how wonderful all this is for the one percent. They have the Republicans. And the Dems have a bit of a split. There’s the majority who are Corporate-dems. Essentially Reps. And there is indeed some progressives (who knows how many but it aint a majority or even close to a majority)
So, if the progressives get all active and ornery they divide the Dems or maybe the progressives get disgusted and stay home or vote third party, etc — and that leaves the Reps as winners. Or the Corporate Dems if they are able to silence the Progs.

See any light there?

My greatest hope is that dont know what I’m talking about.

w
v

Yeah, something like this boils to the surface every 3 or 4 months on this board, and we just all shake our heads and agree. We iz dead.

At this point, I don’t think it would make much difference if actual Leftists did take over. Climate change is going to disrupt food and water supplies enough that humans are going to start killing each other for resources, I reckon. That might be an over-the-top doomsday prediction, but I don’t think it would take much to, say, wipe out the heart of almond trees because of an extreme heat wave, drought, flood, or freeze. Just an entire year’s harvest of wheat, or something.

I dunno.