The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Eric Zuesse V. Peter Simpson on 2nd Amendment, Heller Decision, Anti-Federalists
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


This debate was recorded on June 26, 2020, the 12th anniversary of the Supreme Court Heller Decision affirming that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual firearms ownership. Eric Zuesse attacked it last year, and has updated his argument, in part to answer my objections. Eric joins the show to make his case against Heller and the Anti-Federalists, while philosophy professor Peter Simpson responds with a Pro-Anti-Federalist position (if that isn’t an oxymoron).

After considering his arguments, I think Eric may have a reasonably good case against the Heller Decision’s citation of Anti-Federalists and British Common Law. But I think his argument that the 2nd Amendment is the only one of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights that does not protect individual rights against the government—but instead merely asserts the right of the government to have an army—is self-evidently preposterous.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Gun Control, Supreme Court 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anaccount says:

    We are still debating this? We know the cucks are coming for our guns no matter what the (irrelevant) constitution says. We know that’s when the killing starts.

    We are ready.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    , @Reg Cæsar
  2. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    Second Amendment is an absolute.

    What Zuesse opine’s about is irrelevant except to his parrot and dog.
    Now, the Yid Museum being anywherew in America is a topic worthy of discussing.

  3. The most shocking statement in this radio show, in my opinion, is that Kevin Barrett is an anarchist. This is extremely surprising to me.

    Anarchy has never existed and it never will. Even in tribal or primative societies either the elders or the communities have imposed punishments on individuals that deviate from societal norms.

    Anarchy does not exist is families. I have never met anyone who was simply allowed to do whatever they chose to as a child without some form or another of punishment for violating parental orders, which is probably why most people are willing to accept some form of government.

    Anarchy does not really even exist in the animal kingdom either. Some species dominate other species, and some species dominate others in their own species.

    If Dr. Barrett could please reply, I would be interested in hearing how Dr. Barrett believes that it could be possible, given that Dr. Barrett has witnessed human nature, and what it has always led to, since the dawn of recorded history.

    I also happen to recall Dr. Barrett calling for a theocratic governing body to oversee religious instutions in the past on one of the broadcasts, which is not anarchy either.

  4. @No Friend Of The Devil

    Your concept of anarchy is erroneous. Anarchy doesn’t mean anything goes. It means no hierarchy; no persons or class of people wielding power over others using authority to tell them what to do or not do. Social customs are not inconsistent with anarchy.

  5. Alfa158 says:
    @anaccount

    Exactly. The P word, preposterous, means nothing to people like Zuesse. The only P word they care about is Power. Gaining it and then clubbing us like baby seals. Well, most of us behave like baby seals, so it’s no wonder. Most, but not quite all yet.

  6. @Trevor Blanc

    Trevor Blanc,

    That is incorrect. What you just described is equality. Anarchy is an absence of governance and lawlessness.

  7. @No Friend Of The Devil

    Anarchism, more than most other -isms, has been (mis)defined by its enemies. It doesn’t mean “no rules, anything goes.” Still less does it mean “throw bombs and blow up innocent people.”

    A simple, clean definition of an anarchist is “someone who rejects the state’s claim to have a monopoly on legitimate force and violence.” Read Wolff’s book explaining this: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-paul-wolff-in-defense-of-anarchism

    I agree with Peter Simpson about the advantages of theocracy (a society with a religious establishment limiting, challenging, and providing an alternative to the all-powerful state).

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-simpson-on-31998232

  8. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    I agree with Peter Simpson about the advantages of theocracy (a society with a religious establishment limiting, challenging, and providing an alternative to the all-powerful state).

    Observing Iran and Hezbullah, I could go for this.

    I also like your comment (my version) somewhere that cultures should keep their cultural identities, eg clothing.

  9. @Kevin Barrett,

    Dr. Barrett, 

    Thank you for taking the time to respond in addition to providing a source of information explaining your belief system.

    Still, I do not see how those ideologies would improve society at all, if the goal is to end tyranny, abuse, war, predation, and corruption, and to increase liberty and prosperity for society, I do not believe that those objectives would be achieved, based on history, as well as an understanding of human nature and sociology. 

    Perhaps you may have better luck by clearly defining your objectives and visions, rather than resorting to a vague ideology with such unknown objectives and parameters, if it is your goal to convince people to adpot your system of beliefs.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  10. @No Friend Of The Devil

    Wolff exposes the notion of state legitimacy as a lie and a fraud. Dispelling lies, and exposing truths, improves society.

    Simpson explains in detail why ending the state monopoly on force would tend to “end tyranny, abuse, war, predation, and corruption, and to increase liberty and prosperity.”

    So just follow the links I provided! Here they are again:

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-paul-wolff-in-defense-of-anarchism

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-simpson-on-31998232

    And for good measure:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327802060_Theocracy%27s_Challenge

  11. I disagree that the state has a monopoly on force. The corporations and other public and private institutions also employ force, in full collusion with the state.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  12. anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    Dear Doctor –

    I cannot objectively judge anti-weapon arguments because I have been raised to regard weapons ownership as fundamental. Even though I can’t claim to be objective, anti-weapons-ownership arguments seem silly to me.

    I had seen some of Zuesse’s columns years ago. I had several friends who disliked Zuesse. I cannot currently articulate an anti-Zuesse argument, but I am happy that others are arguing against him. I have long had interest in both anarchist and anti-Federalist thinking, but I confess I cannot judge the quality of the arguments. Nevertheless, I thank you for linking to Wolff and Simpson; I can do a little remedial reading to bring myself up to speed. So thank you very much for educating me!

  13. @anaccount

    We are still debating this? We know the cucks are coming for our guns no matter what the (irrelevant) constitution says. We know that’s when the killing starts.

    Whatever the Second Amendment was intended for, it certainly did not apply to blacks. So the gun-controllers do have a case based on equality.

    But it’s not the kind of equality they’ve been promising us!

  14. Adam Winkler’s 2013 book covered the Heller decision.

    In the aftermath of the decision, Winkler quotes a few originalist legal scholars who were disgusted by the decision. Not to the nullification of laws, which they thought there was an originalist case for, but for what they thought was a quick and lazy argument by Antonin Scalia who should have known better, and might in time even backfire. One called it “faux originalism”.

    It’s been a while since I read Winkler, as I momentarily confused him with Robert Spitzer of SUNY Cortland– who, along with the great Judith Best, keep the place from being a total backwater. Like Winkler, he leans toward the control side, but is generally moderate, and, more important, respectful, balanced, and informative. What academics are supposed to be, and once many were.

    And he applied for and got a gun license, and a gun– which he built himself–, but Cortland County is certainly not comparable to New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond, and Bronx Counties in that regard.

    It’s easy to confuse the two men, because it’s so rare to see balanced coverage in or near the center on this issue. I have numerous books on both sides, and know the territory well, in literary terms. These two are similar to David Kopel in that respect, even if they disagree with him.

  15. Under the Constitution, Congress can only make laws over territories, not laws over the states.

    The federal government has usurped power over the states principally by Jewish subversion.

  16. @No Friend Of The Devil

    On the state’s claim to a monopoly on legitimate force/violence as its defining characteristic, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

    Obviously that doesn’t mean that non-state actors won’t ever use force, or that if they do it will always be deemed illegitimate. Rather, the state claims the right to determine which uses of force are legitimate. So if a corporation or individual behaves violently, state institutions will decide whether or not that behavior was legitimate.

    Under this system, there is almost always a presumption that violence by a state actor is somehow more legitimate than the same or equivalent behavior by a non-state actor. Soldiers or state-blessed mercenaries commit the most horrendous murders and are deified as heroes. Police “legitimately” initiate and escalate force, often culminating in killings, whereas if you and I did exactly the same thing, we would be facing long prison terms.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS