Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Can't see my way there, either...

The problem:


The NRA opposes a move that would certainly protect innocent people:




The Libertarian candidate is honored to serve on the NRA review board, wants the 2nd amendment to become the 1st:

1 comment:

Marie said...

What I wonder about, regardless of the question of constitutionality, and after one wades through the emotions and exasperation over senseless violence, is -- what has really happened? How has the gun crime rate changed in DC since the Supreme Court ruling? Has it changed at all? And did the bans, where they have been in effect, prevent shootings? Isn't it a bit like the drug trade? Drugs are dangerous, and illegal. But they are everywhere. Laws against them allow for prosecution of offenses, but they don't seem to stop the actual use or traffic (or death or danger).

I don't have the answers -- but it IS very worth thinking about (thanks for the provocation).

And by the way, here are all the Presidential candidates, besides the obvious:
Charles Jay (Boston Tea Party/Personal Choice)
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
Cynthia McKinney (Green)
Alan Keyes (Independent/America's Independent)
Ralph Nader (Peace & Freedom, Independent-Ecology/Natural Law)
Bob Barr (Libertarian)
Gloria LaRiva (Party of Socialism and Liberation)
Gene Admonson (Prohibition)
Ted Weill (Reform)
Brian Moore (Socialist)
Roger Colero (Socialist Workers)

See! Lots of choices. I guess.

Dumbstruck by the Mystery

...our temptation is always to impose our prejudices or our measure on reality -- except when we are faced with a fact that leaves us dumbstruck, and instead of dominating the fact ourselves, we are dominated, overcome by it. If there were no moments of this kind, the Mystery could do anything, but in the end, we would reduce everything to the usual explanation. But not even a Nobel Prize winner can stop himself from being dumbstruck before an absolutely gratuitous gesture. If there were not these moments, we would find answers, explanations, and interpretations to avoid being struck by anything. It is good that some things happen that we cannot dominate, then we have to take them seriously, and this is the great question of philosophy. If the conditions for the possibility of knowledge (see Kant) impose themselves on reality or if there is something that is so powerfully disproportionate that it does not let itself be "grasped" by the conditions of possibility, then the horizon opens. If this were not the case, then we could dominate everything and be in peace, or at least without drama. Instead, not even the intelligence of a Nobel Prize winner could prevent him from coming face-to-face with a fact that made him dumbstruck -- instead of dominating, it was he who was dominated. Here begins the drama, because I am called to answer. It is the drama that unfolds between us and the Mystery, through certain facts, certain moments, in which the Mystery imposes itself with this evidence. These are facts that we cannot put in our pocket, which we cannot reduce to antecedent factors.
-- Julian Carron in "Friends, that is, Witnesses."