Tag Archives: NRA

The National Rifle Association: Comments

11 Tuesday Jun 2013

Posted by in Music, Sharing, United States

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Executions of the Third of May, by Francisco Goya, 1814

Executions of the Third of May, by Francisco Goya, 1814

Il sueño de la razón produce monstruos, by Francisco Goya

El Sueño de la razón produce monstruos, by Francisco Goya

 
 

Self-entitlement

Allow me a few more comments on “entitlement” or “self-entitlement,” a state of mind that currently numbs reason among members of the National Rifle Association.  As I have written before, the spirit of the Second Amendment is to protect the American people, which it no longer does despite the presence of a “well regulated [sic] militia.”  Consequently, by virtue of the Second Amendment itself, one cannot allow the bearing of firearms by civilians as it now endangers “the security of a free state.”  Matters have turned around and the law should reflect current needs.

El Tres de mayo 1808 
Francisco Goya (30 March 1746 – 16 April 1828)
Museo del Prado (Madrid)
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters (second image)
Photo credit for both images: Wikipedia
 

Entitlement or Self-Entitlement

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  (The Second Amendment)

Citizens all over the world are entitled to safety.  In other words, they have “rights.”  However, entitlement, when carried too far, may and does stand in the way of reason.  In fact, at a certain point, self-entitlement constitutes a mental disorder.  Let me quote Wikipedia again:

“In clinical psychology and psychiatry, an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder, seen in those who ‘because of early frustrations…  arrogate to themselves the right to demand lifelong reimbursement from fate.'” (Entitlement)

The initial purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure “the security of a free state,” the “free state” lacking a “well regulated militia.”  If members of the National Rifle Association cannot see that the United States now possesses “a well regulated militia,” i.e. the necessary law-enforcement agencies, and that the bearing of arms currently threatens “the security of a free state,” they and their supporters have lost the ability to use “reason” and imperil “the security of a free state.”  Thousands of Americans die from gun violence every year, including children, thereby making it obvious that people who bear arms threaten the safety of a “free state.”  If Americans did not bear arms, no American could shoot another American and potential killers could not purchase the powerful firearms that enable them to shoot innocent schoolchildren.

The Social Contract

Interestingly, by threatening “the security of a free state,” the NRA also threatens the Social contract and, therefore, the very concept of nationhood.  The purpose of nationhood is safety.  In its entirety, the United States Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) and adopted by the Second Continental Congress, reads as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

There may be flaws in the United States Declaration of Independence, but it would be my conviction that “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” are “unalienable Rights.”  Consequently, members of the National Rifle Association are at odds with the United States Declaration of Independence.  Because of guns, lives are lost.  If I were a parent living in the United States, I would fear letting my children attend school.  Moreover, those parents who have lost children to a gunman, the parents of Newtown, grieve profoundly and will probably do so until they reach the end of their own journey on earth.

In short, given that they live in defiance of the Social contract, members of the National Rifle Association cannot be considered fully fledged citizens, no more than the rich people who deposit their money in offshore accounts.  Such people also threaten the concept of nationhood.  In fact, it could well be that Americans who once owned slaves and now refuse to pay their fair share of taxes feel they are entitled to a measure of compensation for a “right” they have lost.  Yet, slavery is not consistent with the declaration of independence which holds as “truths” that “Life, Liberty [my bold letters] and the pursuit of Happiness” are “unalienable Rights.”  Slavery was an aberration.

A Quotation from the Boston Globe

May I quote the first paragraph of an article by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby entitled: ‘All men are created equal’ is not hypocrisy but vision and published on 4 July 2010 (please click on the title to read the entire article).

‘HOW IS it,’’ the great English man of letters Samuel Johnson [my link] taunted Americans 235 years ago, “that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?’’ His fellow Englishman Thomas Day [my link] remarked in 1776 with equal scorn: “If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature it is an American patriot signing resolutions of independency with the one hand and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.’’

The Spirit and the Letter of the Second Amendment

We owe Montesquieu (18 January 1689 – 10 February 1755), a political thinker, as were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the useful distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law.  Within bounds, the letter of the law does not always reflect faithfully the spirit of the law.  Yet, the letter of the law cannot contradict the spirit of the law in its totality.  That would be a mockery of justice.

In my opinion, worded in full, the Second Amendment should state that “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [in the absence of a well regulated militia] the [current] right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That would be its spirit.  Statements need not always be worded in full because parts are inferred (see inference) and, therefore, understood.

There is currently in the United States a well-regulated militia.

Conclusion

I will conclude by writing that certain goals remain, such goals as “the security of a free state.”  However, the means can change.  Before the invention of airplanes, a New Yorker’s goal may have been to go to Paris, but his means of getting there was to board a trans-Atlantic or Ocean liner.

Similarly, a former means of ensuring the safety of citizens, the use of firearms by civilians, has changed.  Given that the United States now has “a well regulated militia” and because the former right to bear arms currently threatens the “security of a free state,” bearing arms should be controlled to the fullest extent.  At the moment, the goal, i.e. the “security of a free state,” or its safety, has rendered null and void the former “right” to “bear arms,” firearms threatening the “security of a free state.”  The means, bearing arms, must therefore be changed, and, as I wrote above, it must be changed by virtue of the Second Amendment itself: “the security of a free state.”

* * *

Luigi Boccherini (February 19, 1743 – May 28, 1805)
“Quintetto In Do Maggiore La Musica notturna delle strade di Madrid Op. 30, No. 6 (G. 324): Il Rosario – Largo Assai – Allegro – Largo Come Prima”
Rolf Lislevand, Le Concert des Nations, Jordi Savall 

(My dear colleague Stefania has used this piece of music.  Allow me to praise her excellent taste.)

The painting is by Francisco Goya and is entitled: “Dance of the Majos at the Banks of Manzanares.”  (Photo credit: Goya, The Complete Works).  
 
 
 
Prado_-_Los_Desastres_de_la_Guerra_-_No._15_-_Y_no_hai_remedioLos Desastres de la guerra. Y no hai remedio
(The Disasters of War. And there is no remedy),
by Francisco Goya, Museo del Prado
Photo credit: Wikipedia
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Micheline Walker©
June 11, 2013
WordPress
 
Related articles

The National Rifle Association: Unrestrained Individualism

29 Saturday Dec 2012

Posted by in United States

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

A fictional pistol duel between Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky
A fictional pistol duel between Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky*

*Vladimir Lensky is a fictional character in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky‘s opera Eugene Onegin.  The story is based on a verse novel by Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

—ooo—

They have done it again.  This time it was in Rochester, NY.  Two volunteer firemen were killed and two seriously injured.

I gathered the following information from CBCNews: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/24/firefighters-shot-rochester.html (24 December 2012 and 25 December 2012).

The dead are:

  • Lt. Michael Chiapperini, of Webster police and West Webster Fire Department.
  • Tomasz Kaczowka, a volunteer with the fire department.

The injured firefighters in intensive care were named as:

  • Joseph Hofsetter.
  • Theodore Scardino.

As for the shooter, he has been identified as William Spengler.  He had spent seventeen (17) years in prison for manslaughter.  On 18 July 1980, William Spengler beat his grandmother to death with a hammer and was convicted of murder in 1981.  Released in 1998, William Spengler did not have the right to own a firearm, as is the case with all convicted murderers.  However, Mr Spengler had a gun and, after killing and injuring his victims, he committed suicide, as did Mr Lanza.

Reason vs Self-Interest

This may sound simplistic, but William Spengler killed not only because he had a propensity to violence, if such was the case, but because he had access to a firearm.  As I wrote in my blog, dated 18 December, no one can shoot someone else without a firearm.  Had Mr Spengler not been in possession of a firearm he could not have ambushed firefighters, killed two of them, injured two more and committed suicide.  This must end and it can end.

However, the four million and a half members of the National Rifle Association stand in the way of reason because Washington lets petty self-interest — what else — dictate its policies.  In other words, the government itself — and the government is the people — gives the nation the questionable “right” to bear arms, thereby allowing massacres.

Francisco de Goya, The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters (El sueño de la razón produce monstruos), c. 1797

Francisco de Goya, The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters (El sueño de la razón produce monstruos), c. 1797

The “Armed Brigade:” Cowboys and Indians

I believe the logic of members of the NRA is thwarted.  In their opinion, schools should be protected by what I am calling an “armed brigade.”  The remedy the National Rifle Association, the NRA, has proposed would make the situation worse.  In fact, it is not a remedy, but a symptom pointing to a deeply ingrained atavism.  Members of the NRA still live in a by-gone age when settlers in the Wild West were killing their way to the Pacific Ocean, doing so legally.  Imagine what would happen if the school’s “armed brigade” started to shoot at a potential killer.  It could be a shootout in perfect “cowboys and Indians” fashion.

We are not actors and actresses in a movie; this is real life.  In real life, we do our best not to have shootouts.  I have heard grieving or frightened citizens say that they now want a firearm.  I can understand their feelings.  Many rape victims also want a weapon.  Yet letting individuals carry a weapon keeps alive the classic confrontation of Western movies.  Remember the scenes where two men faced each other and the fastest “gun,” shooting from the hip, killed “the bad guy.”  These were duels à l’Américaine, but duels nevertheless, minus a Codex Duello.

Pushkin killed in a duel, dead at 37

When writer Alexander Pushkin (6 June 1799 – 10 February 1837; aged 37) was fatally wounded duelling with Georges-Charles de Heeckeren d’Anthès, duels were illegal in Russia.  Georges d’Anthès was therefore incarcerated in the Peter and Paul Fortress, but he was soon pardoned and returned to France.  The point I want to make is that, in 1837, duels were illegal in Russia.  In fact, they had been illegal in many countries beginning in the 17th century because of the staggering number of victims.  Similarly, if an American citizen now has a firearm and fights against an individual bearing arms, it is also a duel and one person dies, if not both.  There are victims.

Consequently, the bearing arms for self-protection solution and the “armed brigade” solution are both recipes for disaster.  When President Obama addressed the people of Newtown, he stated that during his Presidency, four massacres had occurred, the saddest of which was the Newtown tragedy — children died — and another killing occurred on Christmas Eve.  In these instances, firearms were not used for self-protection.  All were attacks by armed individuals.  I hope Washington will rally behind the President who wishes to put into place bolder gun-control legislation.

Individualism and Collectivism

Putting firearms in the hands of individuals is extremely dangerous.  It is as though a nation let citizens take the law into their own hands.  We cannot take the law into our own hands.  If citizens did take the law into their own hands, it would be a serious breach of the social contract, or a breach of a covenant.  In fact, it would be unbridled individualism and near complete denial of collectivism, i. e. collective rights and duties.

A few weeks ago, I posted a blog on Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke.  It addressed the social contract.  People get together, surrender some “freedom” — such as bearing arms — and live in safety.  This does not preclude the appropriate measure of individualism, but it creates a balance between individualism and collectivism.  In other words, people can still put a little picket fence around their house and lock their doors — I don’t — but the other side of the picket fence is someone else’s property.  Note that in my example, both homeowners, individuals, are respecting a law, a covenant, so that order is maintained.

We have red lights, stop signs, speed limits, construction codes, fire safety codes, etc.  It’s called the rule of law.

—ooo—

Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky  (7 May 1840 – 6 November 1893)
Eugene Onegin 
 
The Death of Tecumseh

The Death of Tecumseh

  
© Micheline Walker
19 December 2012
WordPress