Thoughts on Dallas
We mourn the deaths of the police officers slain in Dallas
just as we mourn the deaths of the victims of police officers sometimes too
ready to use firearms in situations where such force is not warranted.
In the United Kingdom, there are proportionately far fewer
shootings by law enforcement officers than there are in the United States
because that nation does not possess the infatuation with weapons present
here. A police officer here making a
routine traffic stop always considers the likelihood that the person he is
approaching may be armed, considering the unbelievable number of weapons,
licensed and unlicensed, out there, particularly in states where openly carrying
arms is legal. A suspicious move is more
likely to put the officer in fear of his life and provoke him into violent action than
it would be in a less “armed” society.
Add to this the fact that because of historic economic
inequalities stemming from slavery (from which we are only 151 years removed), residential
and educational segregation and still-existing prejudices, the necessity for
law enforcement intervention in predominantly Black and other minority areas is
greater than elsewhere. Hence when police
officers go into action in such areas, the tripwires which result in violent,
and perhaps unnecessary, action on their part are stretched even more tightly.
And when such things happen, there is a “multiplier” effect. Protests take place, peaceful and otherwise,
resulting in further confrontation involving law enforcement. When anger becomes so blind that it overwhelms
reason, we have a tragedy such as that which occurred in Dallas.
The entire nation, people of all races and religions, on all
economic levels, and of course, all law enforcement agencies, must work to solve all aspects of this problem. Reducing the economic inequalities mentioned
above will take a long time. It has been
a “work-in-progress” for a century and a half and will continue to be
such. Reducing the number of guns in
this country, however, is a challenge which can, and must, be met. (This logic can also be applied to dealing with domestic terrorism, the causes of which also will take years to resolve ... but a reduction in the availability of weapons would help us there too, at least to some extent.) Read on.
Jack Lippman
The Second Amendment to
the United States Constitution
Reads 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.”
In
the lobby of the NRA Headquarters Building in Fairfax, VA, the final fourteen
words of the Second Amendment are exhibited on the wall. It’s as if the first thirteen words of the
Second Amendment did not exist. (Imagine a group which opposed equality of the
sexes misquoting the Bible’s Fifth Commandment as “Honor Thy Father”
eliminating any reference to one’s mother.
This is what the NRA has done to the Second Amendment.)
In the lobby of the NRA Building
Those
first thirteen words of the Amendment were pertinent from its inception until
a politicized Supreme Court chose to ignore them in D.C. vs. Heller in 2008. Up to then, the right to bear arms was taken
to mean that back in the days when the government could call up civilians to serve
in militias telling them to bring their own guns, there should be no
impediments to gun ownership. In 1789
those first thirteen words made sense.
But nowadays we have a regular army.
We didn’t then. So while those
first thirteen words are no longer important, it doesn’t mean that the second
fourteen words can be taken to stand alone in regard to freedom to bear arms,
and that States and municipalities cannot regulate weaponry, if they choose to,
without violating the Second Amendment.
But that is what the Supreme Court said in 2008.
A
popular cartoonist characterized the Court’s 2008 decision as follows:
The role of the NRA in shaping public opinion and
supporting legislators who support this misreading of the Second Amendment will
be viewed by history as a dark time in American history. Its constant opposition to any kind of gun
control legislation has contributed to making weapons available to those with
mental disorders and with evil intent, including terrorists. Anyone who really wants to secure a weapon
can always do so, but the NRA (and the Supreme Court decision in 2008) makes it
much easier. Opponents of gun control
measures look to the misinterpreted
Second Amendment as a protector of “due process” for gun purchasers.
The “Father of our Country,” George Washington, had his
own thoughts on gun ownership. He
strongly implied that owning guns was important not only for use if called up
to serve in a militia, but to use if our own government became oppressive.
This kind of thinking is held by many today who oppose
certain things our government may do.
That’s why there are extremists training in the woods bent on taking the
law into their own hands with the aid of their weapons! In the United States in 2016, however,
opposition to the government should be voiced in the voting booth, and not with
a gun, regardless of what George Washington may have said. But don’t tell this to the NRA, nor to those of
its members who fear that gun control regulation, on a local basis, will be the
first step toward trying “to take their
guns away” if the Second Amendment is ever again interpreted the way it was
written, and intended, until 2008. And
they feel their opposition to gun control is justified by the words of George
Washington.
Well, George was wrong! This is why it is very important to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate in 2016. The "Right" chose to play politics with the High Court ... and now it will be the "Left's" (and the "Center's") turn. George was wrong.
Well, George was wrong! This is why it is very important to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate in 2016. The "Right" chose to play politics with the High Court ... and now it will be the "Left's" (and the "Center's") turn. George was wrong.
JL
Trumpocalypse, Cosmopolitans and Nativists
In a recent column about the forthcoming Presidential election, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman quite accurately describes the mission of the Republican Party as follows: " To put it bluntly, the modern Republican Party is in essence a machine designed to deliver high after-tax incomes to the 1 percent. Look at Mr. Ryan: Has he ever shown any willingness, for any reason, to make the rich pay so much as a dime more in taxes? Comforting the very comfortable is what it’s all about."
And then he goes on to bash those whose actions resulted in a candidate he feels will lead to the party's "Trumpocalypse." Well, while I agree with most of Krugman's thoughts, I am not so certain as he seems to be that Trump will lead to the G.O.P.'s demise. I used to think that, but remember, many an election has been lost by a candidate, or a party, overestimating the intelligence of the voter.
Read Krugman's column by clicking here!
And in this vein, recent columns by various pundits have seen this election as one not between Republicans and Democrats, but rather one between Cosmopolitans and Nativists. Well, the Nativists won in the United Kingdom and I wonder how many unemployed or underemployed Cosmopolitans there are in the rust belt states sipping their lattes, reading the Economist, watching public television and priding themselves on how globalization has made New York City, Paris, London and Rome so wonderously similar. Not many.
JL