A debate between two great minds

Robert,

I found myself defending a citizen's right to own a handgun the other
day. It wasn't a well thought out argument, but I did remember our
disagreements on that subjects years ago. The Virginia Tech slaughter
has brought out the worst in some people. Even my brother, someone I thought would be in favor of individual rights, said the gunman should not have had the opportunity to own a gun. That part is hard to contradict. The gunman had a history of anti-social behavior, had no training and was ordering items from different sources."

I hope the NRA is happy!" he said. My argument was that if guns had been allowed on campus then at least one person would have been able to
defend himself. It goes back to the argument that a well armed country is a safer country, something I feel is technically accurate, though morally disappointing. If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. Outlaws and law enforcement officers who are too far away from the crime to do anything about it. Of course the rebuttal is that the gunman would have just picked a music or fine arts building to attack. Somewhere with people who aren't likely to carry handguns. Just wondering about your reaction to this issue.
I noticed there haven't been any posts on bachelor beat since January.
I hope all is well. I flaked on my humor column assignments. Sorry. It was easy to talk about and harder to execute. What are you and the family up to?
peace,
Web

hey web.

Your comment that an "armed society is a polite society" is "morally
disappointing" is interesting. Actually, I find the constant desire by
governments and certain peoples to legislate morality and restrict rights to create a "safer society" to be morally disappointing.
We can't formulate laws as a society from the bottom up. The resumption
by governments should be (and is, as evidenced by our Constitution) that Man is a decent, honorable creature who needs the freedoms he was born with to survive and prosper. What I mean is that when we pass laws restricting the possession or use of products or items or thingys that, in and of themselves, create no harm to society (i.e. guns, drugs, booze), simply because a small minority of the population will use those thingies for nefarious purposes, we are legislating from the "bottom up," assuming all people are bad. The phrase "an armed society is a polite society" really means that if people are permitted to protect themselves, there is less of a chance they will fall victim to crime. Rephrasing it, one could also say "a well-defended society is a well-protected society." I see nothing morally disappointing in that.

Also ... keep in mind that, Constitutionally, there's not much of a
debate on what the Founding Fathers intended. I could provide quote after quote from them about what they meant in the Second Amendment, but the simple fact that the phrase "the right of the people" is in there means it applies to everyone, not some militia (since "the people" is used in other Amendments and it DOES mean "the people.")

Having said all that, this fellow at VT was crAAAAzy. And there are
federal laws to keep crazy people from owning guns. State laws too. Problem was that VA's state law wasn't as strict as the federal law. THAT, my friend, needs to change. Crazy people should be playing with their navel lint in a rubber room and not buying pistols.
We're ok ... We never update that goddamn website ... doing a major
revamp of the paper ... hired three writers and maybe we won't be a piece of shit.Kid and wife doing good
You?

further utopian rantings
The idealist in me still wishes for a society where protecting myself does not mean carrying weapons. I don't think dozens of handguns will make people more prone to violence or edgy, but it's just an extension of the international arms race. How soon will it be when we feel a handgun won't be enough to protect ourselves against a high powered rifle? This is where the contradiction peeks out at me. We can enable folks to carry weapons, based on their innate goodness, but the big picture as demonstrated by most governments in the last 60 years is that man is not to be trusted to proceed rationally. The arms race will escalate. Outlaws will carry larger caliber guns and force citizens to carry even larger guns. Instead of a peaceful culture where everyone protects themselves there will be a culture obsessed with weaponry. More likely would be an expanded police force of private citizens who then overstep their responsibilities and wreck havoc on everyone else.
I see it as a double-edged sword. Man should not be bound by liberty
depriving guidelines. Yet, man without liberty depriving guidelines would run amok. Indeed, we have already run amok! Now, an argument could be that we have not made responsibility a priority. That we have acquiesced to these guidelines our short-sighted leaders have announced and become a less worthy culture. Or it could be argued that humans are flawed, un evolved and bent on self-destruction. So, it is a dam that these limitations are holding back. Either they hold back a dramatic change in priorities that will lead to a more mature culture, or they hold back man's ultimate destiny of constant warfare.
It could be argued that we are like a stone-age tribe that in the short span of one or two generations has been introduced through industry and mass-production to tools and techniques far beyond our abilities to fully understand. Even the inventors don't know what they have unleashed. Now, a sociologist would condemn a corporation for going to the rain forest and building a McDonalds for the Kombai tribe and encouraging them all to work there. In a few months their culture would be destroyed and they would all die or adapt. But what is the difference between that and what has occurred since the dust bowl? Farmers and subsistence families were turned into plow mules for multi-national corporations! All in the course of fifty years. Is my comparison off? A former culture was destroyed and those who adapted simply became consumers or irreplaceable resources and taught their kids to consume as much as possible. It wasn't evolution, it was exploitation. Basically, I maintain that man is still a bow and arrow animal. our mentality has not evolved beyond simple weapons. But these weapons exist and are used. we are not collectively ready for them. Give one Kombai tribesman a gun and you have created a king. Give them all a gun and you have created a war. Personally, I would like the opportunity to make these mistakes, but sociologically I don't think man has earned that freedom just because someone managed to invent a gun. You associate creation/invention with unalienable rights. I see it as an event as haphazard as leaving an orange peel out overnight and accidentally creating penicillin. Man should not be forced into a position of defense. We need to care for our ecosystems, something that will become a necessity soon. more later.
web

You need to learn the value of short paragraphs, web.
Your argument is (for lack of a better term) left-leaning. But it is the
exact same argument that right-leaning people use when advocating for drug
and sex laws.
Both arguments come down to: People are 1) bad 2) stupid 3) violent 4)
immoral 5) unevolved and need some government control over their lives.

Simply put: You do not have the right, nor do I, or any man, to classify
mankind in that fashion. Where you see violence and mayhem and chaos, I
see
the most advanced society on earth, 200 million guns and only scant few
massacres, millions of law-abiding people, a relatively low crime rate and
the freest nation on the planet.
Your thinking, along with the thinking of righties, is what leads us to
absolute government control.

What a piece of work is man!
How noble in reason.
How infinite in faculties.
In form and movement how express and admirable.
In action how like an angel.
In apprehension, how like a god.
The beauty of the world.
The paragon of animals!


Subject: Man delights not me


And I thought I was an idealist!

"The beauty of the world"??

Which concrete hell is that referring to? Or does it refer to the one
planned for central Brazil? How convenient that Americans alone earned the
right to be deemed rational. Seems to me it is another variable term for
"Democratic, Christian, Patriotic, etc." All self serving gibberish that
enabled noble causes like the Crusades, the Inquisition, Manifest Destiny,
The Persian Gulf War and the next extinction, coming to a theater near
you! I guess I don't have to feel bad about the arctic polar bear, since
it doesn't qualify as rational. But then, they didn't know about the
arctic polar bear in 1580. They still thought the earth was flat and the
French were devil worshippers.

A people obsessed with consumption and brain-washed by
Starbucks/Walmart-corp are not what I would call "noble in reason." Defend
the free market system all you want, but it is merely another variation of
the caste system. Instead of "Untouchables" we have "Unemployed". These
are not noble paths handed down by Moses; they are carefully constructed
and marketed social paradigms with only one function: Control. Even Hamlet
would agree to that assertion.

I don't need to indict America, it has condemned itself freely and
willfully, accompanied by thunderous applause from pundits and
industrialists. See, the trick has always been to throw a parade of the
tortured and then condemn those who don't show up with flags and balloons.
Pardon me for skipping the fireworks.

Hell is empty and all the devils are here.

W

That's a cute diatribe, web. But I hope you understand my initial point.
Your railing against the sins of Man is the same railings as those you rail
against.
You both think man is a dumb animal.
And you're bound and determined to prove it one way or another. At all
costs.



Subject: Re: Man delights not me


If I just wanted to denigrate mankind then my work would be easy. It's not
dumb to destroy your habitat; it's selfish and suicidal.

But I look at both sides of the argument and believe that man can not be
governed. It doesn't matter if we SHOULD be governed. We CAN'T be
governed. I'm not even sure we can be controlled any more than an
oncologist can control the spread of colon cancer, let alone govern it. We
are easily distracted...but controlled? Maybe.

I'm equally skeptical of man's ABILITY to govern. It's as futile to
legislate proper disposal of chemical waste as it is to legislate the
ownership of guns or the use of drugs. The act of legislation becomes more
controversial than the act that is being legislated. In fact, the act of
legislation is so laden with ulterior motives that I don't think chemical
waste or gun control are the core argument to begin with. I suggest the
apex of democracy took place 2500 years ago in Greece and North America.
Those were a noble people and what Hamlet might have been referring to.
Please don't compare the abortion that is our culture to Athens circa 400
B.C.

Man is capable of cleverness or even genius in our inventions and art, but
in leadership and behavior we make the most rabid and disorganized wolf
pack appear dignified and reserved. This is NOT in our nature. That's my
point. This is the result of thousands of years of propaganda all of which
sing the same lusty chorus "You are noble, you are perfect, drink, eat,
create as only you can. You are entitled to that which you can imagine...
simply because you are man!"

I say no. I say restrain yourself, man, consider the impact of your
actions. Don't listen to the cheerleaders who exalt your every action as
pre-ordained. Don't even trust your instincts as they may have been
corrupted already. Trust physics. Trust that life is fragile, thus we
declare it is sacred. Trust that humans have a tendency to celebrate life
with actions that endanger life. Ignore those who pass decrees on your
behavior. There is a path that leads to salvation but it has no neon signs
or cloaked figures pointing it out.

I think man is an animal. True. In many ways inferior to a monkey. In a
few ways superior to a river rat. But we have one difference. We have a
greater responsibility because our actions impact more lives than those of
the monkey or river rat. That's the only difference. I only wish we could
be described as simply dumb. No, we are intentionally destructive and
corruptive. We can't be concerned with the gross manifestations of our
talents.

If you want to subscribe to the "Finders Keepers" camp of resource
allotment then good for you. I think we are capable of a more enlightened
approach. If that means I must question our faculties then I'm guilty as
charged. Maybe one day we'll learn something from the caribou or wild
duck. Maybe one day I'll be able to say that a cow is almost as noble as a
human. But today a human is not nearly as noble as a pig.
W

Web, web web ...
You sound just like SO many of my liberal elite friends who spit this crap
out ...
Man is an obscene, vulgar animal, but by the AMAZING stroke of luck, you're
enlightened enough to realize this. People are stupid but you, WEB ...
magical WEB is so enlightened as to know what is best for me and the other
mouth-breathers in society. Dangerous thinking, my old friend.
If the founding fathers (or anyone so desirous to establish any kind of
rational society) had one-tenth of the pessimism in mankind that you all do,
we'd still be ruled either by a Hitler-esque figure or some anarchical,
proto-communist system where everybody suffers.

Let me ask you a question:
Who are your heroes in this world?
Who are the people who have accomplished something you admire?

Somebody to love


Ah, please don't lump me in with the pessimists of southern Utah. That I'm
alive at all is evidence of my supreme optimism. I'm here in Los Angeles, in
contradiction of nearly all my values, to produce films. But let's be
serious, Michelangelo's DAVID is still just a rock. Monkeys play with their
shit. It doesn't make them architects. We're not stupid. Don't put words in
my mouth. I WISH we were just stupid. We are deviously destructive and
malevolent. A plague. If we were stupid I wouldn't be so concerned.

As for the founding fathers, I would rank them as the best and brightest of
used car salesman who hawked a rickety old gas hog with sawdust filled tires
to a bemused and innocent baby with his finger in his nose. You bow before
them. Fine. You see value in their motives, you trust them. I know a scam
when I see it and I know who got the shaft in that transaction. If you don't
consider network programming "Hitler-esque" then you aren't paying
attention. My point is that we ARE ruled by a dictator and we ARE in a
proto-communist society where everyone suffers. It's exactly what the
white/male/landowner/tax evaders of a few centuries ago wanted. If you want
to enslave the people then you write "liberty" on a piece of paper and
pretend to champion its cause. It's just good salesmanship. Don't tell the
guy if the car is a piece of shit. Triple the price and tell him it's "more
perfect." Surely, you will fool most people because only a monster would
deceive the innocent. Especially when those innocent will soon be drafted
into the first continental army. Was it about liberty, or was it just a good
pep talk before a football game? Tell a lie, repeat it often, and the people
will follow you. Our big lie is called the constitution and it will keep us
at war with each other until it is abandoned like those Christian comic
books that promise salvation for drug addicts and whores.

Ask yourself if you could live a day without the Constitution. What kind of
a crutch has it become to you, this fragment of hemp written to secure the
wealth of an elite class? What good has it actually done for you, that you
couldn't have achieved for yourself? Or has it become a chronic topic of
debate, a distraction, a bone to fight over? Has it united us or divided us?
It's easy to attack my position, but can you defend yours?

You see our culture as a beacon of progress. Well, the ego may be the
wellspring of creation, but the superego is the captain of restrain.

You ask about my heroes? Simple. YOU are my hero, Robert Gehl. You represent
everything I believe man is capable of, the reflection needed to plan, the
sympathy for fellow men, the foresight to anticipate the result of one's
actions. The ambition to act and the restraint to pause. It's a delicate
balance of qualities and one Bill Gates and George Bush don't share with
you. Of course I also love Freddie Mercury but that is another story.

W

Sigh ... You know, Web. You're a hell of a writer. Better than I am. You
should write for the Village Voice or Utne Reader or some shit.
You are - and I mean this in the kindest of terms - a wonderful bullshit
artist.

Of course, you should be made to defend your positions. While I only
referenced the Founding Fathers as an example because of what they
accomplished, you need to explain the wonderfully written statement: "I
would rank them as the best and brightest of used car salesman who hawked a
rickety old gas hog with sawdust filled tires to a bemused and innocent baby
with his finger in his nose." It's cute, and it reads well, but it is a
position that requires a defense.

You and I both know what governments and societies were based on (theology,
rule by force, absolute monarchies) before 1776. What the US was based on is
reason, the rule of law and the absolute rights of man. It was a radical
shift that changed the course of the world.

So defend your position, kiddo.


You've quickly discovered that I am usually more concerned with how my copy
reads, than what it means. I think that's the movie reviewer in me. I've trained
myself not to necessarily express my opinion about movies, but to take the most
entertaining path to reviewing them, whatever I think I can pull off with
fireworks and a grand finale. It's based on my theory that no one actually cares
what my opinion is about the next Harry Potter movie, they only want to be
entertained when reading a review. If you ask for my opinion then I'll tell you.
But copy is a product, and it must entertain. So, what you are reading is a
mixture of my opinions and my primary goal to entertain. Your essays have
elements of entertainment and wit but I can tell it is tempered by your
journalist upbringing and the nature of your topic. That makes you more concise
and I admire your talent. Still, you can bullshit with the best of them. Don't
sell yourself short. And I don't bullshit like this for anyone but you. Count
yourself blessed.

As for 1776, the written motives are noble and the time for independence had
come. But the earlier Articles of Confederation were a better basis of a
country. Sadly, they didn't institutionalize slavery and were abandoned in favor
of the more advantageous Constitution. To whose advantage? Northern slave
owners. The Southern leaders weren't particularly excited about a war. They came
kicking and screaming. The last obstacle was the, for lack of a better word,
common man. Howard Zinn is to thank for a more even examination of the state of
the nation back then, something to contradict "The Patriot" school of thought.
The elite class of diplomats had a difficult task on their hands: Convince an
impoverished class of colonists that a war was to their best advantage even
though their lot in life would hardly improve, maybe even deteriorate. Indeed,
only the lot of the wealthy would improve. But who would do the bleeding?

Credit those men in white wigs with rallying a disconnected land of farmers into
an army who fought until many of them deserted and had to be forced back into
the line of fire. Only the assistance of the French turned the tide, and their
motives were hardly pure. It's not much different from the War in Iraq. The
people were told a lie(Iraq caused 9-11/The English were usurpers of liberty).
The people were conscripted (National Guard units sent to guard a different
nation/New Hampshire farmers invade Canada). The people died as martyrs but were
elevated to heroes. How else could we live with ourselves if they died for
nothing?

You remind me of the jellyfish, who when telling the story of creation came to
the end and said, "And finally, the jellyfish was born."
Suggesting America is the culmination of reason and culture is presumptuous and
ethnocentric.

As for my used car metaphor, I wrote it for the copy. I suppose I could justify
it with my bullshit skills, but I won't bore you. Suffice to say, the founding
fathers were not much different from myself. They had a product to sell, but
they knew it had to entertain. So they dressed it up and called it more perfect.
It reminds me of a recent movie I was charged with promoting. In a few minutes I
went from arguing with a producer that "This movie is garbage. It makes no
sense." to "An exemplary form of cinematic sizzle." Why? Because it's my job.
I'm not forcing anyone to see it. Mr. Washington and crew went from "They're
trading one ruling class for another." to "A land of milk and honey. Choose any
skin color you want as long as it's white."

See, that's my grand finale.
W