Moxon's fascism is on blatant display here. First, of course, he makes up some absurd "analogy" with the writing style of a fifth grader to obscure the issue. He is deliberately lying. We are not talking about dinosaurs, we are talking about guns. The reason that lie matters is because he can use this "analogy" to make gun rights seem absurd, but of course the underlying assumption is wrong.
The point of gun rights is to ensure the weak can protect themselves against the strong, and to ensure the ability of the citizen to resist the state (e.g. the ability to refuse a search of one's property).
If you support gun control, you are an antisocial authoritarian. You are a fascist. Moxon lets it slip here:
"Additionally, the city leaders joined the dinosaur crowd’s insistence that the right to own dinosaurs represented a fundamental and protected right inscribed within the city’s founding charter, a vital (if not the most vital) component of freedom and liberty, and was in fact the only thing standing between a country’s citizenry and outright tyranny. “Tyranny” was a very important concept for dinosaur owners, and it meant “any imposition of any kind upon dinosaur owners,” and dinosaur owners let the city leaders know, that if the city’s leaders ever decided to ignore the demands of these liberty-loving people, then liberty-loving people would have no other option than to release their dinosaurs upon the unsuspecting city, in order to safeguard their property, their safety, and their liberty. And the city leaders agreed with the dinosaur owners, that, yes indeed, if they, as city leaders, ever stopped doing the bidding of the dinosaur owners, then it would only be reasonable, just, and righteous for them, as good dinosaur owners, to release their dinosaurs upon an unsuspecting city."
What he is describing in this paragraph is Democracy. Not fake Hank Green Marvel McDonalds democracy, I mean actual Democracy as described by bourgeois philosophy. Sieyes discusses this in "What is the Third Estate", that Democracy is more than simply just voting (i.e. that the French Revolution was necessary). Luxemburg would essentially say the same thing, much later, when describing the necessity for a socialist revolution (writing against the Reformists). Of course Marx, Debs, Lenin, etc. all understood the necessity of gun ownership, the ability for society to subject the state to itself. That is what socialism, i.e. Democracy (Luxemburg: socialism is necessary for democracy) is. Fascism is when society is subsumed to the state, this is what Moxon wants.
A final little trick he plays, the shadowy "leaders" oppose gun control in this absurd fiction, but that is not the case. There is no organization, no politician in this country that opposes gun control (and supports the right of society against the state). Both the NRA and the Democrat party are fascist insofar as they support gun control. The Democrat Party is obviously more fascist than the NRA, and for more reasons (the security state, anti-free speech, etc.) but both parties are fascist, because we live in a fascist society in the absence of socialism.
My only quibble with this is that the data on dinosaurs becoming the leading cause of death in children is that these particular data define “children” as 1 through 19.
The problem with outrage over dinosaur ownership is that dinosaur owners themselves believe their own children will never be killed by dinosaurs. Because they own dinosaurs. So the same people who were outraged 12 years ago when school children first became mass victims of dinosaur killing are outraged today, but those who weren’t outraged then still are t outraged. Because there is no greater tyranny than tyranny against dinosaur breeding, and we all k ow the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood and entrails of little children.
So you oppose the Enlightenment? You oppose the French Revolution? You oppose the Haitian Revolution? Do you think there weren't innocent children who died because of those things? You are a neo-reactionary, go read Curtis Yarvin.
A good summary of how we got to where we are today. Sadly, the author has left out of his rather biased narrative the possibility that packs of tiny teacup murder dinosaurs - let's call them microkilloraptors - might easily defend civilians and children against the occasional loose masskilloraptor without excessively endangering anyone. These can be carried in pockets, purses, handbags, cars, homes, jackets, leg holsters, and so on. This would mean finally lifting all the archaic and unconstitutional restrictions on self-defense against accidental deployment of masskilloraptors. If every citizen had one of these at all times, they would outnumber the masskilloraptors, and at least some of the deaths that we all agree are horrifying and sad would be avoided. Isn't that what the people who are so unreasonably afraid of masskilloraptors say they want? Don't they care about women and children?
It sounds like you want to transition civilized society into a standing army. I am very close to be sold on this idea. Is there anyway I can request my own personal nuclear device instead? I have been hurt by many people in the past. I would feel much much safer with a nuclear device. Praise God. Thoughts and prayers.
Civilized society SHOULD be a standing army, you should be willing to fight for bourgeois society and the bourgeois revolution, as well as society overcoming itself through a socialist revolution (just a continuation of the bourgeois revolution; socialism is bourgeois!). Just read Luxemburg, this was THE point of trade unions, to train a society to resist the capitalist state.
Thank you for the reading recommendation. I like your comment but I am not sure I fully follow. Does this in any way relate to the gun lobby flooding the country with military weapons?
Yes, directly: we should want the average civilian to have military weapons. We should certainly want the average civilian to have them more than the military, which has caused far more harm across the entire Earth than every mass shooting combined, 100 times over.
The reason the 2nd Amendment was written the way it was is because, in bourgeois philosophy, the ideal state is society (that is, society is the state, not the other way around). It is as Lenin says, that ideally under socialism (the fulfilment of the bourgeois Right, so, the bourgeois state) a robber would simply be spontaneously stopped by society itself (i.e. there would be no police).
In a true democracy the state is entirely subsumed to society, it is absorbed into society, so we should want the country "flooded" with the same weapons the current state has, whatever those might be, both for the purposes of revolutionary struggle (most leftists understand this) and also so that afterwards the functions of the state can be taken up by society ("leftists" do not understand this, because they are actually socdems!).
I'm not familiar with nuclear arms policy (my area of expertise is charismatic archosaurian tetrapods, a very narrow field), but I too would feel safer if everyone had a micronuclear device, preferably one that beeps loudly when it is about to go off. I'm just not sure the National Raptor Association would allow nuclear devices to take the place of killoraptors in our hearts.
It IS (bourgeois) civilization, which is why you should be willing to defend it. Have you read Luxemburg? THE point of trade unions was to essentially train a standing army of workers to, in Lenin's words, fulfill the Bourgeois Right.
"Without excessively dangering anyone" - when the mere presence of a 'murder dinosaur' in the home drastically increases one's risk of death by homicide or suicide.
Also seems disingenuous to frame the public majority as "unreasonably" afraid of murder machines specifically designed to kill large numbers of people as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Sadly, what you left out of your rather biased comment is that the author already addressed this notion in his essay. How, in your proposal, is someone with a small caliber weapon supposed to approach and neutralize someone with an AR-15? The police hesitate to do it and you expect average citizens to succeed where they fail? If we could fix the problem of guns with more guns, we would have already solved the problem.
What is this talk of calibers? Murder dinosaurs are measured by the size of their jaws and the force they can exert. You sound like someone who has never experienced the joys of microkilloraptor ownership.
I live in Europe where our dinosaurs 🦕 are only in strictly segregated areas. We have vanishingly few dinosaur killings 🤷♂️
Moxon's fascism is on blatant display here. First, of course, he makes up some absurd "analogy" with the writing style of a fifth grader to obscure the issue. He is deliberately lying. We are not talking about dinosaurs, we are talking about guns. The reason that lie matters is because he can use this "analogy" to make gun rights seem absurd, but of course the underlying assumption is wrong.
The point of gun rights is to ensure the weak can protect themselves against the strong, and to ensure the ability of the citizen to resist the state (e.g. the ability to refuse a search of one's property).
If you support gun control, you are an antisocial authoritarian. You are a fascist. Moxon lets it slip here:
"Additionally, the city leaders joined the dinosaur crowd’s insistence that the right to own dinosaurs represented a fundamental and protected right inscribed within the city’s founding charter, a vital (if not the most vital) component of freedom and liberty, and was in fact the only thing standing between a country’s citizenry and outright tyranny. “Tyranny” was a very important concept for dinosaur owners, and it meant “any imposition of any kind upon dinosaur owners,” and dinosaur owners let the city leaders know, that if the city’s leaders ever decided to ignore the demands of these liberty-loving people, then liberty-loving people would have no other option than to release their dinosaurs upon the unsuspecting city, in order to safeguard their property, their safety, and their liberty. And the city leaders agreed with the dinosaur owners, that, yes indeed, if they, as city leaders, ever stopped doing the bidding of the dinosaur owners, then it would only be reasonable, just, and righteous for them, as good dinosaur owners, to release their dinosaurs upon an unsuspecting city."
What he is describing in this paragraph is Democracy. Not fake Hank Green Marvel McDonalds democracy, I mean actual Democracy as described by bourgeois philosophy. Sieyes discusses this in "What is the Third Estate", that Democracy is more than simply just voting (i.e. that the French Revolution was necessary). Luxemburg would essentially say the same thing, much later, when describing the necessity for a socialist revolution (writing against the Reformists). Of course Marx, Debs, Lenin, etc. all understood the necessity of gun ownership, the ability for society to subject the state to itself. That is what socialism, i.e. Democracy (Luxemburg: socialism is necessary for democracy) is. Fascism is when society is subsumed to the state, this is what Moxon wants.
A final little trick he plays, the shadowy "leaders" oppose gun control in this absurd fiction, but that is not the case. There is no organization, no politician in this country that opposes gun control (and supports the right of society against the state). Both the NRA and the Democrat party are fascist insofar as they support gun control. The Democrat Party is obviously more fascist than the NRA, and for more reasons (the security state, anti-free speech, etc.) but both parties are fascist, because we live in a fascist society in the absence of socialism.
Please consider a paid subscription to The Reframe.
https://armoxon.substack.com/about
My only quibble with this is that the data on dinosaurs becoming the leading cause of death in children is that these particular data define “children” as 1 through 19.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/03/29/guns-leading-deaths-children-us/
But it’s genuinely a quibble. I wholeheartedly agree that the dinosaur situation in this country is untenable.
The problem with outrage over dinosaur ownership is that dinosaur owners themselves believe their own children will never be killed by dinosaurs. Because they own dinosaurs. So the same people who were outraged 12 years ago when school children first became mass victims of dinosaur killing are outraged today, but those who weren’t outraged then still are t outraged. Because there is no greater tyranny than tyranny against dinosaur breeding, and we all k ow the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood and entrails of little children.
So you oppose the Enlightenment? You oppose the French Revolution? You oppose the Haitian Revolution? Do you think there weren't innocent children who died because of those things? You are a neo-reactionary, go read Curtis Yarvin.
Please consider a paid subscription to The Reframe.
https://armoxon.substack.com/about
Absolutely phenomenal read
Yeah, if you're a fascist.
Please consider a paid subscription to The Reframe.
https://armoxon.substack.com/about
A good summary of how we got to where we are today. Sadly, the author has left out of his rather biased narrative the possibility that packs of tiny teacup murder dinosaurs - let's call them microkilloraptors - might easily defend civilians and children against the occasional loose masskilloraptor without excessively endangering anyone. These can be carried in pockets, purses, handbags, cars, homes, jackets, leg holsters, and so on. This would mean finally lifting all the archaic and unconstitutional restrictions on self-defense against accidental deployment of masskilloraptors. If every citizen had one of these at all times, they would outnumber the masskilloraptors, and at least some of the deaths that we all agree are horrifying and sad would be avoided. Isn't that what the people who are so unreasonably afraid of masskilloraptors say they want? Don't they care about women and children?
It sounds like you want to transition civilized society into a standing army. I am very close to be sold on this idea. Is there anyway I can request my own personal nuclear device instead? I have been hurt by many people in the past. I would feel much much safer with a nuclear device. Praise God. Thoughts and prayers.
Civilized society SHOULD be a standing army, you should be willing to fight for bourgeois society and the bourgeois revolution, as well as society overcoming itself through a socialist revolution (just a continuation of the bourgeois revolution; socialism is bourgeois!). Just read Luxemburg, this was THE point of trade unions, to train a society to resist the capitalist state.
Thank you for the reading recommendation. I like your comment but I am not sure I fully follow. Does this in any way relate to the gun lobby flooding the country with military weapons?
Yes, directly: we should want the average civilian to have military weapons. We should certainly want the average civilian to have them more than the military, which has caused far more harm across the entire Earth than every mass shooting combined, 100 times over.
The reason the 2nd Amendment was written the way it was is because, in bourgeois philosophy, the ideal state is society (that is, society is the state, not the other way around). It is as Lenin says, that ideally under socialism (the fulfilment of the bourgeois Right, so, the bourgeois state) a robber would simply be spontaneously stopped by society itself (i.e. there would be no police).
In a true democracy the state is entirely subsumed to society, it is absorbed into society, so we should want the country "flooded" with the same weapons the current state has, whatever those might be, both for the purposes of revolutionary struggle (most leftists understand this) and also so that afterwards the functions of the state can be taken up by society ("leftists" do not understand this, because they are actually socdems!).
Please forgive, I do not have the college. I interpret as the following.
'
We need an armed population to overthrow the state. The US military does much harm. Killing children is not as bad.
The 2nd amendment means we need arms to police ourselves.
In true democracy there is only society which absorbs the state through military might and afterwords does everything a state does but is NOT a state.
'
Is that accurate my friend?
Please consider a paid subscription to The Reframe.
https://armoxon.substack.com/about
I'm not familiar with nuclear arms policy (my area of expertise is charismatic archosaurian tetrapods, a very narrow field), but I too would feel safer if everyone had a micronuclear device, preferably one that beeps loudly when it is about to go off. I'm just not sure the National Raptor Association would allow nuclear devices to take the place of killoraptors in our hearts.
So, back to the wild west? Lord of the Flies? What a load of garbage. This is civilization, remember?
It IS (bourgeois) civilization, which is why you should be willing to defend it. Have you read Luxemburg? THE point of trade unions was to essentially train a standing army of workers to, in Lenin's words, fulfill the Bourgeois Right.
Please consider a paid subscription to The Reframe.
https://armoxon.substack.com/about
No, it's dinosaurs. We need a better dinosaur policy in America.
"Without excessively dangering anyone" - when the mere presence of a 'murder dinosaur' in the home drastically increases one's risk of death by homicide or suicide.
Also seems disingenuous to frame the public majority as "unreasonably" afraid of murder machines specifically designed to kill large numbers of people as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Did you not read the OP? Like, at all?
Sadly, what you left out of your rather biased comment is that the author already addressed this notion in his essay. How, in your proposal, is someone with a small caliber weapon supposed to approach and neutralize someone with an AR-15? The police hesitate to do it and you expect average citizens to succeed where they fail? If we could fix the problem of guns with more guns, we would have already solved the problem.
Guns aren't a "problem" to be solved, anymore than the French Revolution was. Both are just objectively good things.
Please consider a paid subscription to The Reframe.
https://armoxon.substack.com/about
What is this talk of calibers? Murder dinosaurs are measured by the size of their jaws and the force they can exert. You sound like someone who has never experienced the joys of microkilloraptor ownership.
Having watched Jurassic Park, I know the big dinosaur always wins.
I wouldn't derive my public policy ideas from a movie.
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/t-rex-vs-spinosaurus-who-would-win-in-a-fight/
I wouldn’t derive my public policy ideas from the NRA.
The National Raptor Association has led the world on ethical dinosaur policy for 150 years.
Your Moxon-like attempt at humorous reply is trollish and obnoxious.
LOL. That was the point of it. I'm glad you were paying attention.