From: "Jeff Wood", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In his interesting comments, Matthew refers several times to the
"liberal-left" as being somehow naturally anti-gun.
This may be generally true at present, but the equation of the two
viewpoints is unhelpful.
This after all was the same posting in which Kate Hoey, who I imagine would
count herself as part of the liberal-left movement, became the first
well-known member of the governing party to rubbish the claims made about
the post-Dunblane handgun ban.
Going back a bit, one might remember George Orwell and his wife travelling
to Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War (on behalf of the elected
government and the people), being wounded there, and having to escape
pursued by KGB/Communist Party agents. Orwell fought with an outfit called
POUM, a trade-union based outfit of liberal/left/anarchist types who were
working for liberty, and who didn't seek to put a bullet in the backs of the
heads of their allies sooner than fight tyranny. In 1939, Orwell joined the
Home Guard - with some difficulty, as lefties were at first discouraged from
joining up. Apparently, to some elements of the (right-wing) establishment,
a history of fighting Fascism, was a disqualification from the struggle
against Hitler.
If I may creep into this sort of company, I would define myself as
liberal-left, perhaps harder than most, and pretty cynical about those who
seek power (as opposed to those who wish to represent, and perhaps lead).
This is precisely why I want to see firearms in the hands of the general
population, so that power starts there, not at the top. Besides, as Matthew
points out, that is the best way to encourage personal and collective
responsibility, starting with the young. Where the people have no power, and
are constantly done to with little redress, that is the start of tyranny
even if there are no firing squads, yet.
There are of course those who define themselves as being on the left, who
are mostly interested in people control. There are those on the right who
share their interest, reserving liberty only to the rich.
A cohesive society can accommodate right left and centre, as long as the
common concern is liberty. In these days when the mechanisms of people
control available are such as would delight Stalin and Hitler both - but
increasingly embraced by "democratic" governments - that is important,
indeed essential.
Jeff Wood
Guardian reader, Observer reader, CND sympathiser
Footnote for the political:
You will probably be familiar, from press reports and even personal
experience, with fantasists who claim to have been SAS/Para/Marines, who
maybe were never even in uniform: there's a lot of it about.
Twenty years ago I found the equivalent claim on the other side. Some
earnestly left friends had met a fellow, no longer young, who claimed to
have been in Spain, with the International Brigade, and who as a political
officer had personally executed many a "left-deviationist" or some such,
mostly Troskyists anyway and a few democrats.
I was introduced at dinner to this unrepentant Stalinist, who was telling
his stories to a rapt, if horrified audience. When he paused to fill his
glass, I asked him his age. Seeing the mental arithmetic going on behind his
eyes, I then asked his date of birth, which he gave automatically, revealing
him to have been in short trousers during the Civil War.
I was a trainee tax inspector at the time, and had just been taught to ask
the same question two different ways. A handy trick.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
