On May 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
> ...My argument that circumstances have changed - that the demand for
> arms is now coming from the right rather than from the
> constituencies we support, who now favour gun control - doesn't mean
> that I'm obliged, by extension, to support restrictions on our
> rights to assemble, to speak and publish freely, to organize trade
> unions and political parties, and to exercise other democratic
> rights. I don't have the slightest problem reconciling my
> unconditional support for these hard-won rights with my endorsement
> of efforts by liberal and radical Americans to place curbs on access
> to weapons...
If I recall correctly, we were recently talking about the "99%" vs. the "one%," and about the effective, coordinated, repression carried out by the armed agents of the "one%." The "liberal Americans" (there are, alas, very few radical Americans) who provide the constituency for the Bloombergs and Obamas are very much of the "one%," while the defenders of gun rights are almost entirely of the "99%" (the one- percenters don't need to own guns because they have the whole repressive apparatus of the State, which they own, at their disposal). So which constituency do "we support?" Do you think you have a clearer perception of the class interests at issue than Bloomberg does?
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64