Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

The Lesson of Virginia Tech

It's the same lesson we should have learned long ago: in practical terms, you cannot really delegate your right of self-defense. Whoever your agent is, he, she, or it cannot guarantee to be with you every moment. If you are threatened by someone, there is only one other person who is sure to be there: you. So you ultimately are responsible for your own self-defense. Gun-free zones are free-crime zones.

See Alexander Cockburn's "Bring Back the Posse."

6 comments:

Presto said...

What most gun control advocates fail to understand is that most dangerous incidents are over in seconds. Unless you have a police officer or armed security guard right next to you, they more than likely won't be able to do you any good.

Matt said...

From the Wall Street Journal.

Bedlam Revisited
Why the Virginia Tech shooter was not committed.


Takes a shot at Thomas Szasz.

Sheldon Richman said...

I saw it. Typical. First, he doesn't even try to rebut Szasz's case. Second, he assumes Szasz and a few others had the power and influence to abolish commitment. Where does he get that idea? Szasz was never accepted into the mainstream.

Sheldon Richman said...

BTW, why must evil be reduced to disease? Can't we accept that there are bad people in the world?

Matt said...

I find it amazing that the author dismisses Szasz because he is on a commission backed by Scientologist. It's like, oh he must be a complete nut job because he is on this commission.

Even schizophrenics know the difference between right and wrong. Their may have damaged nerve endings, but they know that murder is wrong.

I agree, evil is evil. I read some place and I am having trouble finding it, maybe you wrote it. But no one is to blame, but Cho himself. It was not the gun, it was not those who he "believed" harmed him, it was the action of the individual. I wish I could find it because that individual said it much better than I have.

Sheldon Richman said...

See Szasz's take at the FEE website today: http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1257