The Second Amendment: With this New Year, we need DISCUSSIONS. Discussions where we talk -- hear and listen -- think and respond. No need of rants, sound bites, bumper stickers or political diatribes.

     Another day, another murder. “Just a sad consequence of freedom”. So, why is the United States the only country in the world — that is not in the midst of armed civil war — that has such problems?

History of the Second Amendment

   vv v Back in the days of the beginning of the United States of America, after the Constitution was signed, the “Founding Fathers” continued to work on a Bill of Rights. These aspects — amendments to be considered as part of the Constitution (a work in progress) had been discussed during the time of creation of the Constitution. But, as is true of most things that have to go through committees, agreement was not quick to obtain. So, certain issues, that they KNEW they wanted to have in the Constitution, were postponed so that the foundation document could be sent around to the States and be approved.

     I don’t know if the Bill of Rights, ratified as a group of Amendments on December 15, 1791, had an internal order of importance. The fact that they waited for the group of ten to be ready before sending them to be ratified indicates they were all considered to be important.

     But the Second Amendment is one of those ten composing the Bill of Rights. It 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 Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (including all Amendments) to determine the meaning behind the words. That interpretation is not unmoving and usually reflects the changes that are occurring within the country and how the words may best be interpreted in the current period. Since the Supreme Court Justices are humans, they have the inherent flaws and biases (and potential corruption) of humans, and as such may make decisions that others disagree with. But, that is their legal, Constitutional, power — to interpret what the words mean.

     Generally speaking (not being a professional lawyer or historian), the Second Amendment was created based on the experiences of those writing it. They had experienced — either directly or via their ancestors’ experiences — the effects of only the government having access to weapons (and ammunition). The splitting of the clauses for “a well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has created a lot of the discussion, changes in interpretation, and political divides about the Second Amendment.

     There has been little argument (as far as I have heard) about the “well regulated Militia” part. Each State was to continue to have their own state militia (now called the National Guard) independent of the Federal government and under the control of the State government. The relationship between the Federal government and state government’s control is presently an area of active discussion in the Supreme Court. (To me, it seems pretty clear — but it isn’t my right to make a decision.)

     The part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is the portion that has — over the past 50 years (not very much before that) — been debated and politicized. Does it apply only in connection to the “well regulated Militia” (the primary interpretation until the 1980s) or is that a separate, but equally weighted, protection within the Amendment? (Once again, I have my opinion — but not the right to make a decision.)

If people kill people, what is special about guns?

     “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. AGREED. But does anyone really think that someone could kill 500 people in 5 minutes with a butcher knife?

• Guns make it EASY.

• Guns remove the time possible for second-thoughts.

• Guns reduce the time for potential defence.

• The AR-15 has only the remotest resemblance to a Brown Bess musket muzzle-loader used during the time of the writing of the Second Amendment.

     And yes, there are other means of mass murder available — chemicals, biological weapons, arson, nuclear and conventional bombs, and so forth. But they aren’t as convenient, or easily available, as guns.

Where does gun control come into play?

     Here we come to another area of the division of powers allocated by the Constitution. Congress (NOT the Executive branch) can make laws to clarify aspects of law and the Constitution — subject to the potential judgement of the Supreme Court (which can decide if a law is valid or not, primarily based on the Constitution). So, it can make so-called “gun control” laws to REGULATE access to weapons and ammunition. It cannot forbid access but it can regulate, and control, access — subject to the agreement of the Supreme Court.

     “They want to get rid of all of the guns”. FALSE. Very, very few people want to totally eliminate guns. There are various legitimate uses for guns such as hunting and competitions, and (unfortunately) self-defence. The idea that a group of people “want to take your guns away” is a falsehood (lie) that is very convenient for politicians, or profit-oriented private groups, to repeat over and over. Like other “big lies”, they expect that if it is repeated without end people will believe it is true. So, it goes into campaign speeches and bumper stickers. But it isn’t true.

It IS true that a large number of people would like gun ownership limited. They want gun ownership limited to people who

• Are trained in the use and safety of guns

• Are not criminals

• Are not nuts (I use the technical term here)

The definition of, and requirements for, the above areas are the areas to focus on for discussion.

     It is true that any restriction, no matter how reasonable, will delay the ownership and use of guns by people who meet the above criteria. Such a delay may be irritating to those who qualify but help in keeping all of us safe.

So areas of discussion apply to the above characterization of a qualified gun owner.

• What kind of training is required? Should there be tests involved with granting gun ownership? Who should create these tests? Who should administer them? What is required for safety? Another test or mandatory equipment (gun locks, vaults, etc.)"?

• How is the lack of a criminal record determined? Not all states communicate information to federal, or other state, bureaus or administrators. What types of infractions should disqualify?

• What is “nuts”? A person undergoing, or who has undergone, therapy may be more sane and rational than someone who has never approached a counselor, psychiatrist, or psychologist. Some internal instabilities may be fully invisible. Should ranting on social media count?

Some of my own thoughts in the area of training in use and safety.

     Personally, I think that we should look to the example of Switzerland. Although I do not agree that every citizen should be required to serve in the military, I do agree that every person who has a gun, to be potentially used, should be trained.

     A week long course in use of the weapon, cleaning, dismantling and re-assembly, and movements under active fire — very similar to U.S. military training — should be required. Use of a gun is not limited to being able to point and shoot. Decisions about shooting need to be made calmly and quickly. This is especially hard for people totally unused to having weapons fired near, or around, them.

     Switzerland requires use of a gun vault in every home. These are not tiny tin boxes — the vaults are similar to bank vaults in the U.S. A home invader in Switzerland will never use the weapons present in the house. A child will never pick up a gun and shoot their sibling.

Summary

     There are many politicians and profit-oriented groups who try to move disasters and tragedies immediately to “thoughts” and “prayers” which may have some type of good behind them — but which do NOT directly address the problems. We won’t reach any type of approach to the problem without discussion. Discussions are squashed by lies about what groups of people believe. Within the United States, with 342 million people, we may have up to 342 million ideas about what can, and should, be done.

     The first step is discussion. Speaking. Listening. Understanding. Replying. and back to Speaking again.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It's true: You cannot please everyone

 

     Have you ever been in a situation where you are evaluating what to say or do and end up saying to yourself "what if they don't like it?" I have that very much on the top of my mind when I am writing blogs -- and that awareness, I believe, helps me to watch my words carefully to attempt to communicate clearly and succinctly.

     But, do I succeed in not offending anyone? No, though negative responses (actually, any responses) have been very few. Have I succeeded in making my meaning understood by everyone? Absolutely not. I have gotten a couple of responses where I could only say "are they talking about my blog?" The responsibility of making clear what I say still resides with me -- but I cannot, or will not, accept the full burden of other people understanding.

     What about negative responses in which it is clear that they understand what I am saying and disagree? Well, I make no claims of omniscience -- I can be wrong. I may be wrong because I am unaware of other facts and instances which weigh against what I am saying. I may be wrong because _I_ don't understand some of the information that I have read, researched, and analyzed. There are, of course, subjects about which the reader has made up their mind and nothing can persuade them to consider something else. I may be perceived as wrong in areas where there is NOT a single "right" and a single "wrong" perspective. Some things just aren't that clear cut. Perhaps more agreement might occur with further clarification; "B is true if C is happening and D didn't happen in an environment where E and F are possible with interactions from G." Whew. Sure, maybe more people would be of like mind but would I be achieving anything other than making it more difficult for those other readers to understand?

     There are issues I choose to not tackle because of the likelihood of disagreement. These are areas in which I would enjoy one-on-one discussion where we can each present other examples, histories, or viewpoints where we can both benefit and, perhaps, come to better understanding. But that's not very useful in a blog with thousands of unknown readers, with thousands of unknown histories and viewpoints. Blogs aren't very useful for discussions. I would say that it is even very difficult with bulletin boards and discussion threads because for each of the people actively participating within a thread, there may be dozens who are passively reading and without that necessary give-and-take the value may be very small. There are, of course, blogs where it is the reputation of the person that creates the audience and they say (hopefully clearly and carefully with integrity) whatever they want without that opportunity for useful discussion.

     Is this lack of universal pleasure at reading what I say a good reason not to say it? Well, it would certainly be "safer" -- less potential conflict, fewer potential attacks. If you don't say anything then it can't be knowingly attacked. However, I am sure that you have been in situations where you have "bitten your tongue" when someone says something that you greatly disagree about. Having a personal shield within a "cone of silence" does not eliminate disagreement -- it just stops you from actively participating.

     As I say on my blog header, the original purpose of this blog was to expand upon technological subjects (see my first couple of years of blogs such as one on email or clouds -- but there didn't seem to be any serious questions and it is not possible to know what others do not know -- questions are needed. So, the blog changed into, primarily, one of helping to "facilitate general communication". I try to make them useful, when possible, in both the work and personal environments. But, if I am trying to facilitate communication then that means to make it easier. I can't do that by sealing myself away. My skin has to be able to take those potential slings and arrows. Hopefully, my efforts are of some benefit to some people.

Troll attack: the new playground bully of the Internet

    The more that a person uses social media, the more likely it is that you will be the subject of a troll attack. Like most situations of being attacked, the most direct way of avoiding such an attack is to not be present. Within social media, this means do not post -- do not show any indication that you exist. For some people, this works pretty well -- they "lurk" in the background and notice what is happening in other people's lives and what are the topics that others are interested in discussing.
     There is nothing wrong with passive use of social media -- unless there is something important going on about which you want to give your opinion. Or some event is occurring of which you are particularly proud -- maybe an anniversary or an award that your child has won. Or you keep encountering situations where you say to yourself -- "yes, that is possibly true -- but this other point, which I think is much more important, keeps being missed". Perhaps they keep talking about point B and they don't talk about point A which is related but not the same.
     Pride, knowledge, a desire to contribute all may add to the reasons why you may want to actively participate. But, once you are visible, you can (and probably will) be attacked.
     You may have heard about flame wars -- which are related to troll attacks. In both cases, the person attacking is primarily making personal attacks -- the messages have little, if any, relation to what was actually said. Many times, there is no way to tell from the attack whether the original message was read at all. However, the sneakiest (and most hurtful) troll attacks occur when they DO mention something that is somewhat relevant to what you have said -- because it can seem like the personal attack is based on some part of your message. It isn't.
     Why would a person conduct a troll attack? It truly is the same situation as a "playground" (or workplace, or other locale) bully. First, they are angry. You don't know why but they are angry. Perhaps they lost their job or were refused a promotion in a job or their child was struck by an unlicensed (and uninsured) driver or they dropped a bowling ball on their foot or they were just screamed at by their mother or cousin. You just plain do not know. The only thing you know is that they are angry.
     Second, they want to hurt others. Why do they want to hurt others? Why do they want to hurt you? Unfortunately, many people seem to feel that if others are feeling badly, or are being treated badly, then they -- in comparison to the others -- are doing better. This happens with various prejudices as well as in the arena of bullying.
     Why are they attacking you? Well, it is possible that your message mentioned a keyword -- or "hot button" -- something about which they have an entire set of preset ideas and emotions. Am I saying that they ARE addressing your message? No -- not at all. They are still creating a personal attack based on anger. They are not listening (reading), analyzing, researching, thinking, or anything that really is concerned with the topic. They are reacting in anger because they are angry.
     Why else might they choose you to attack? It might be because your message shows some indication that you may be vulnerable to attack -- it indicates insecurity or that you are hurting -- and there are also "-ist" attacks based on peripheral things like religion or pigmentation or ethnic origin or such. They attack because you seem to be a person who can be attacked.
     What do you do if you are attacked? Personally, I suggest to do nothing. Like other bullies, if they do not get anything back to feed their anger, they will choose a different target. (It is conceivable, but unlikely, that they will even reconsider what they have said and try a different response -- at which point in time it is up to you whether to respond.) It may be useful for you to create a reply -- but never, never send it -- in order to allow emotional responses to find a form.
     It is possible that others will come to your defence -- which may have some effectiveness unless they also start attacking from anger rather than addressing the contents of the messages.
     Disagreements occur in life -- and they occur on the Internet. When the contents of messages are addressed, researched, explained, expanded upon, and treated as a bit of information within a much larger pool of information, those disagreements can lead to growth, change, and continued exchanges of ideas. When people attack the person who writes the message then there is no route to constructive response. It is an emotion not a thought and they may have reasons to be angry -- but they do not have the right to address that anger upon you.
     How do you deal with flames and troll attacks? Do you have any methods that work to decrease them?