Couple more things on Oregon / UCC as we ease back into a writing routine here.
Nerburn is the husband of a journalism prof I had at Beaver State, used to see him frequently there 25 years ago. Professorial himself as I recall, though I gather he’s more of an independent pedagogist and writer.
What Nerburn offers here isn’t so much an argument. It’s rather the urbane person’s bewilderment at the hoi polloi’s ‘fetishization’ of guns.
I can acknowledge the fetishizastion…. Because yes, this is a thing, it exists. But ‘arms and the man’ predates the gun. A plurality of common men probably had swords or daggers way back, and they probably spent what seemed an inordinate amount of time attending or stroking them.
It’s to say, it’s always been thus, and being not unique to the gauche sexual aura of the firearm… the fetishization of weaponry has got to be about something else. And the proper explanation I’d provide is to say the fetishization is an externality of the emotional / intellectual investment you make for this notion that you’ve got in an investment in your own personal defense and well being.
How wrong is a fetishization like that? I’d argue, somewhat natural and not that wrong. And, I actually don’t see that the true festishists…. And I’m one of them I guess … can be observed to be part of ‘the problem’, whatever the true problem really is….that being either urban gunplay or maniacal spree shootings. Those offenders aren’t part of the ‘fetishist’ population.
By extension, you can see where I’d argue against the logic of curtailing the festishists activities with guns such that you can address the malevolencies of criminal or the insane. The statistics argue against the efficacy there and…. Yeah, 2nd amendment.
Kilgore there, he’s infatuated with a projection that the fetishists have Walter Mitty fantasies of insurrection. Well, I dunno…. I suppose that fantasy exists out there and is lamentable at various points. But if not guaranteeing an ability to insurrect or form militias, thing is an additional utility of the 2nd Amendment is it obviates a need for a national police force with precincts in every county.
That’s a good and sensible thing. Such that it comes with some ambient violence that exists at higher levels than Europe, let’s call that… I dunno…. a ‘trade off’. Those are OK right, these ‘trade offs’. And as an aside, I submit that with liberals steadfast for a woman’s right to abort up to the minute prior to natural or caesarian third trimester childbirth, I’m dubious of the logic or sincerity for which they can abhor other societal violence that is statistically just a little noise.
As I say, that’s an aside.
Another aside… in Kilgore’s piece there he’s pretty sure the fetishists attitude would be different if there was a stridently Muslim or BLM movement in this country to bear arms. I’ve seen commentary like this in multiple places over the past few days. Ya know, we’re all racists… This kind of nugget is basically the highest expression of a certain type of pro-gun control liberals dip shitted ness, just profound ignorance of who they are talking about. I can grant there is a certain kind of bigotry present among the festishists. But it’s galaxies away from ever compromising principle / principal held re the 2A.