Self-Entitlement & the NRA

27 Sunday Jan 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in United States

Tags

London, National Guard, National Rifle Association, Otto Fenichel, Second Amendment, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Self-entitlement, United States

Duel with Cudgels, by Francisco Goya

Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes (30 March 1746–16 April 1828)

Many fables illustrate the danger of acting without first reflecting on the consequences. Would that members of the National Rifle Association (NRF) could see the current consequences of bearing arms! Without a firearm, one cannot shoot anyone else. The streets are safer and so are innocent little children.

As for the Second Amendment, it was/ is about security at a time in history when settlers were travelling westward before law enforcement mechanisms could guarantee their security. As I wrote in former posts, the US has long acquired policemen, armed forces and the National Guard (Homeland Security).

The Second Amendment being about security, bearing arms is now a violation of the obsolete Second Amendment. Firearms, military firearms at that, are being used causing the death of children and every day Americans die by gun. Consequently the “security of a free state” now depends on very strict legislation in the area of gun-control.

Self-entitlement

My last posts were about Quebec, but looking at Quebec was a helpful exercise. I came to the conclusion that the students motive for going on strike and flooding the streets to protest had little to do with the increase in tuition fee: $325.00 a year over a five-year period. The current tuition free is $2,168.00. The real motive was entitlement or, perhaps better worded, self-entitlement.

Entitlement is a form Narcissism

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.”[i]

In Greek mythology, Narcissus was led to a pool of water by Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, saw his own reflection in the water and could no longer stop looking at himself, which caused his death.

Narcissus, by Caravaggio

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (28 September 1571 – 18 July 1610)

Italian; Baroque school of painters (Le Caravage, in French)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

From Country to Country

We now leave Canada to travel to its neighbouring country, the United States.

It would be my opinion that members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) are also led by a sense of entitlement, not clinical, but nevertheless a group form of entitlement. They resemble the students who disrupted Montreal because of an increase in tuition fees of $325.00 annually from 2012 to 2017.

Fossilization

Moreover, in linguistics, the term fossilization is used to describe a person who, in the process of learning a second language, is suddenly detained and can go no further.

The same can be true of persons who cannot understand that times have changed and that firearms no longer ensure but endanger the “security of a free state.” They live in a “good guy” vs “bad guy” society, and must have a firearm at the ready because they are the “good guy” who may be shot by the “bad guy.”

Such individuals cannot be brought to reason. They live in their own world. To change them, one would require a magic wand, which, for instance, could be — this is awful — the actual accidental killing of one of their children by another one of their children: fratricide or sororicide (the killing of a sister). But even then…

In “the best of all possible worlds”[ii] (Candide, by Voltaire), it would be easy to convince an individual to surrender his weapon so that human lives are saved. However, for members of the National Rifle Association, it is not about saving lives. It is about entitlement, a “right” that has ceased to be a right, a fossil, even by virtue of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is about the “the security of a free state.” There has long been a “well regulated militia,” so the security of a free state is no longer for a “private force” to ensure.

The Second Amendment reads:

“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.” (Second Amendment)

which means:

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

Conclusion

It is all beyond the realm of reason. Yet the time has come to put an end to a deadly form of entitlement: “we had this right and will not let go.” There comes a point when one simply steps away from the past. But if one won’t, the recourses are the will of the people and the rule of law. The NRA may be powerful, but a group of four million and a half individuals remains a minority.

_________________________

[i] Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (London 1946) p. 499. (Quoted in Entitlement, Wikipedia)

[ii] Phrased by Gottfried Leibniz: “Die beste aller möglichen Welten”

artist: Francisco Goya

composer: Maurice Ravel

piece: Pavane pour une infante défunte (Pavane for a Dead Princess)

painting: John Frederick Kensett (1816 – 1872)

Micheline Walker©

January 27, 2013

WordPress

More on the Second Amendment

12 Saturday Jan 2013

Posted by michelinewalker in Sharing, United States

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Anderson Cooper, National Rifle Association, Right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Stanley McChrystal, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, United States

Breaking Camp, by Charles Marion Russell

Charles Marion Russell (March 19, 1864 – October 24, 1926)

Frederic Sackrider Remington (October 4, 1861 – December 26, 1909)

(co-featured in the video at the bottom of this post)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

(please click on small images to enlarge them)

The Second Amendment flawed, but…

I have reread the Second Amendment, and it seems to me that it lacks coherence.

As drafted by James Madison, (16 March 1751 – 28 June 1836), the fourth President of the United States (4 March 1809 – 4 March 1817), and passed by Congress (25 September 1789), the second amendment read as follows:

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.

As ratified (15 December 1791) by Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826), then Secretary of State, but later the third President of the United States (4 March 1801 – 4 March 1809), it read and still reads:

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 two versions do not differ from one another except for two capital letters: Militia and State, removed by Thomas Jefferson, and the removal of a comma after “arms.” However, both seem flawed.

The Flaw

Here is the problem. The Second Amendment states that “[a] well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state,” but it fails to state explicitly that such a militia did not exist when settlers started to travel west of the Mississippi. The words “free state,” are followed immediately by the words: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Allow me to quote the Second Amendment again.

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.

In other words, the Second Amendment (see Bill of Rights) does not contain a clause to the effect that there was no “well regulated militia,” in the early years of Western expansion. Without that clause, it would be my opinion that the Second Amendment is not formulated clearly and that it could be misinterpreted. In fact, 222 years later and with the presence of law-enforcement agencies, it would also be my opinion that the Second Amendment is de facto unenforceable, not to say mostly irrelevant.

Indeed, having said the above, I doubt very much that Thomas Jefferson would have considered settlers “[a] well regulated militia.” I believe therefore that the first part of the sentence, ie. “[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” infers that in 1791 there was no “well regulated militia” and that this first part of the sentence was understood as inferring that such a militia did not exist.

In short, the historical context may clarify the Second Amendment but, if read out of context and literally, the amendment may convey the wrong message and may be misinterpreted or used in bad faith and to the detriment of the nation. This has long been the case among members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). I should also note that people tend to read or hear messages according to their expectations, which is an interfering agent labelled noise.

“Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the message of the sender.”[i]

Buccaroos, by Charles Marion Russell

Attack on a Wagon Train, by Charles Marion Russell

Hobbes’ “State of Nature”

However, even rephrased, the Second Amendment remains “flawed.”

It could well be that in their attempt to get to the best land first and claim it for themselves, our settlers bearing arms may have been in Thomas Hobbes‘ state of nature. “In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world, and therefore, lack of a rule of law.” (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, I.13 & 14)

One assumes that a “well regulated militia” and a social contract, ie. a rule of law, would precede the arrival of settlers. If militias are difficult to regulate, imagine scattered armed settlers facing either baffled and indignant Amerindians or settlers competing for a piece of land, a piece of land that had been the Amerindian’s hunting-ground. Amerindians whose territory was shrinking did massacre settlers. Under such circumstances, and settlers being armed, how could one avoid a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes)?

The real and the Mythical Wild West

Western expansion has often been idealized.

“It is a tale of conquest, but also one of survival, persistence, and the merging of peoples and cultures that gave birth and continuing life to America.”[ii]

Not quite! There may not have been a duel once or twice a week, but there was both a real Wild West and a mythical Wild West, a Wild West created by the collective imagination and marketed convincingly by Hollywood. “No other nation,” says David Murdoch, “has taken a time and place from its past and produced a construct of the imagination equal to America’s creation of the West.”[iii]

Author Waddy W. Moore uses court records to show that on the sparsely settled Arkansas frontier lawlessness was common. He distinguished two types of crimes: unprofessional (dueling, crimes of drunkenness, selling whiskey to the Indians, cutting trees on federal land) and professional (horse stealing, highway robbery, counterfeiting).[iv]

Therefore, with respect to Western expansion, it would appear the founding fathers put the cart before the horse. Settlers went westwards before the arrival of a militia, not the other way around. Besides, the Manifest Destiny also militated against the rule of law. Americans were made to believe that they were destined to expand all the way to the Pacific. Yet Waddy W. Moore also writes that “once convicted, punishment was severe.”[v] So, at some point, earlier than later I should think, the long arm of the law did reach a mostly untamed West.

Conclusion

Given that Second Amendment lacks clarity, I believe it is flawed. Respect for the founding fathers has led me to state that “[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” the opening phrase of the Second Amendment, inferred that there was no “well regulated militia[,]” which may have been the case, but truth be told, the Second Amendment does not indicate that a “well regulated militia” did not exist.

But…

However, although the Second Amendment does not state that there was no well-regulated militia in the territories that were about to be settled, the Second Amendment did not transform settlers into a militia. It goes no further than allowing settlers the right to bear arms to protect themselves. But times have changed. What could protect settlers now endangers the life of innocent little children. So would that the Second Amendment had stated that in the absence and only in the absence of a “well regulated militia[,]” settlers could bear arms!

Yet, as drafted by James Madison and ratified by Thomas Jefferson, the third and fourth Presidents of the United States respectively, central to the Second Amendment is the notion of security: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Such is the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment. It may be flawed, but only in part. When all is said and done, the Second Amendment is about security, every one’s security, but particularly the security of little children whose safety now demands that private citizens not bear arms, which is in keeping with the aforementioned spirit and letter of the Second Amendment.

Consequently, as I noted above, there is measure of bad faith on the part of members of the National Rifle Association. The boys are playing “cowboys and Indians” putting at risk the life of little children and in clear violation of the Second Amendment. Allow me to repeat that although the Second Amendment is flawed, security constitutes its chief component and main concern.

Instead of lobbying Washington, all four and a half million members of the National Rifle Association should visit the bereaved families of Newtown and apologize. Moreover, instead of putting money in the pockets of politicians, members of the National Rifle Association should compensate the families of Newtown. Some mothers and fathers will not recover sufficiently to earn a living and some may require medical treatment.

_________________________

[i] Robert V. Hine and John Mack Faragher, The American West: A New Interpretive History (Yale University Press, 2000) p 10. Quoted in Wikipedia, “The American Frontier.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

[ii] Waddy W. Moore, “Some Aspects of Crime and Punishment on the Arkansas Frontier,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly (1964) 23#1 pp 50-64. Quoted in Wikipedia, “The American Frontier.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Frontier

[iii] David Murdoch, The American West: The Invention of a Myth (2001) page vii. Quoted in Wikipedia, “The American Frontier.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Frontier

[iv] Waddy W. Moore, op. cit.

[v] Ibid.

12 January 2013

WordPress

— A Desperate Stand, by Charles Marion Russell

Geoffrey R. Stone: Understanding the Second Amendment (huffingtonpost.com)
Historical View on the 2nd Amendment (wheatondad.wordpress.com)

Musing on the US Constitution and other Documents

18 Tuesday Dec 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in United States

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Bill of Rights, James Madison, Right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States, United States Bill of Rights, United States Constitution

: Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence depicts committee presenting draft Declaration of Independence to Congress. Adams at center has hand on hip.

John Trumbull (June 6, 1756 – November 10, 1843)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

* * *

Dear Friends,

You may ignore what comes after the Great Seal. It’s the list of documents I examined.

Yesterday, the 17th, I browsed through information concerning the United States. I needed to know more about the Declaration of Independence ( 6 July 1776), the United States Constitution (created on 17 September 1787, ratified on 21 June 1788) and the United States Bill of Rights, passed on 25 September 1789, ratified on 15 December 1791.

It was a slightly limited search as I need to keep my foot up and lie down frequently. What I have discovered is that the Second Amendment is obsolete, not to say vestigial. It belongs to an age when the United States did not have the protection it has acquired since 1788. In my opinion, it should be revised or removed.

There are certain elements contained in documents such as the United States Constitution and the US Bill of Rights[i] that become obsolete or are eventually considered inappropriate. That is perfectly normal. In fact, the United States Constitution (June 21,1788) has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of 27 amendments). Times change. For instance, we have left the age of the horse and buggy.

Here is the text of the Second Amendment.

“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.”

Given that the United States has its various Law Enforcement Agencies, its Armed Forces, its National Guards and, perhaps, other policing agencies I am not aware of, it does not need to allow people to own and carry firearms.

I don’t have to remind anyone that the US Military found and killed Osama bin Laden. That event is fresh in our memory.

I also remember the story of the poor gentleman, kidnapped in a boat, being saved by a marksman or sharpshooter. You perhaps remember the details. President Obama did not dally. He authorized measures that would free this man.

So the Second Amendment is like a fossil as are parts of the Bill of Rights (see footnote [i]). The Bill of Rights constitutes the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. It therefore includes the Second Amendment. It was authored by James Madison (16 March 1751 – 28 June 1836), the fourth President of the United States.

Moreover, the United States Declaration of Independence guaranties certain rights:

Under the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826), Americans have:

natural and legal rights;
human rights;
the right to revolution; and, above all, the right to
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Moreover, the United States is under the protection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (UDHR)

I most certainly would not recommend a revolution. But it would be my opinion that, because of the National Rifle Association‘s successful advocacy of the right to bear arms, the United States all but put a firearm in the hands of shooter Adam Lanza.

Members of the NRA will have to accept that the Constitution of the United States no longer justifies ownership by a civilian of a firearm. The Second Amendment has become a lame amendment that allows aberrant behavior. It made it possible for Adam Lanza, a civilian, to gun down twenty children and six adults, not to mention the murder of his mother and his suicide.

As I wrote on the 15th, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is therefore complicit in all the mass killings that have taken place in the last twenty years or so. However, on second thought, I must qualify my statement because the system itself, Washington, has shamelessly given in to the NRA’s advocacy of the “right” to bear arms. In other words, it is legal for civilians to own and carry firearms even though there is no need for them to do so and despite the fact that they now imperil innocent lives. I am already hearing myself say: when and where will a massacre happen again?

In short, last Friday, Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and 6 adults not just because Adam Lanza broke down, but because he broke down and had a powerful firearm. And if he had a powerful firearm, it is because the system, i.e. the nation, is letting itself be ruled, not by reason, but by the NRA. So the nation allowed an egregious violation of the basic tenet of its own Declaration of Independence: the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

President Obama is right. The nation must change. But there is a difficulty. Does the nation want to change? I believe Americans are divided on the issue of gun ownership, but that a growing number of US citizens will now want change. Last Friday’s massacre was heart-breaking. Children died. Therefore, I hope sincerely that those who want change will carry the day. Quite frankly, if I were an American mother, I would be tempted to keep my child home until it is illegal for civilians to buy and carry firearms and all firearms have been confiscated.

This idealized depiction of (left to right) Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson working on the Declaration (Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, 1900) was widely reprinted.

Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790) a Founding Father

John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826), 2nd President of the United States

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826), a Founding Father and the 3rd President of the United States

US Great Seal

_________________________

The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

Wikipedia tells me that the

“Declaration of Independence justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Since then, it has come to be considered a major statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:

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.”

From the Declaration of Independence

1. Natural and Legal Rights

“Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.” (Natural and Legal Rights, Wikipedia)

2. Human Rights

Human rights are commonly understood as “inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.” (Human Rights, Wikipedia)

3. The Right to Revolution

“In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.” (The Right to Revolution, Wikipedia)

From the Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), (10 December 1948, United Nations).

Article 1 (UDHR)

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

From the Constitution of the United States

The Constitution of the United States (full text)

The United States Constitution (Wikipedia entry)

The Second Amendment:

“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 Bill of Rights before revisions

“Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men, excluding American Indians, people considered to be “black” (now described as African-Americans), and women. These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights’ text, but were well understood and applied.” (United States Bill of Rights, Wikipedia)

[i] Please read the above quotation.

* * *

December 18th, 2012

WordPress