|
|
No sane person can ignore recent events of mass killings of children and many more innocent people. We could no longer hold off commenting on it and on the diseased thinking that allows the perpetuation of such atrocities.
|
|
|
|
Cognitive distortion is what our kinder detractors accuse us of. That somehow our perception has been twisted into some unrealistic view is their best way of understanding us. They imagine, "How can a man unrelated to a boy be drawn to him? What could such an adult find appealing in a youngster?" They are however blind to the possibility that a boy's incipient intellect, his personality or joie de vie holds great joy for both adult and youngster and that all of this can sometimes bring about mutual physical attraction. A comprehensive answer to our detractors' distorted thinking needs to be explored in a separate essay, but a different cognitive distortion is the actual theme we are pursuing here.
The incident that brings us to examine our current societal twisted notions is the latest of too many unspeakable acts – the butchering of young children. "Butchering" is too weak a word, but there is no alternative in the English language for a massacre where bullets decapitate children and where their riddled bodies are reduced to unrecognizable meat.
To begin, let's look at the distorted view of the Second Amendment that has taken on near religious proportions among gun fanatics. It reads thus:
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 framers of the Constitution were no imbeciles. They understood grammar and the importance of the meaning of words. The amendment did not say "the right of individuals to own and bear arms." Moreover, the first two clauses of the amendment modify the latter part. That right is granted only with state regulation and in the service of the state.
The framers guaranteed the right to bear arms to the individual colonies, now states of the United States, but not to individual persons – the word "people" is a collective noun. Were our view not so, why would the Second Amendment, as currently interpreted by a politicized Court, not permit private ownership of weapons of mass destruction? Those are arms too, are they not? If ownership of cars can be regulated, certainly firearms deserve the same consideration. Even the operation of a barbershop or beauty salon can be regulated. Give us a break!
When a literate and moderately educated person can correctly parse a basic English sentence such as the Second Amendment, how can one not suspect Supreme Court members of being biased along the views of the parties that promoted their elevation?
Gun aficionados like to suggest that training and arming teachers is a solution to school mass shootings. Really? Are they not aware of the many gun deaths caused by the inevitable carelessness that comes with keeping track of our possessions? Misplacing a gun is orders of magnitude more serious than losing one's keys or wallet. Teachers and schools are no exception to our epidemic of accidental gun death including those motivated by extreme anger. Then, what are we teaching children when teachers must carry weapons? Is it really the lesson that students need to learn that violence can only be dealt with violence? Must children in schools with armed teachers constantly fear that they are only moments away from being maimed or killed?
Then there is the puerile notion that the best way to counter a bad person with a gun is to have a good person with a gun. That may work in movies where these infantile notions originate but not in real life. Imagine a "good person" happening on a situation where a gun is being used. How does he ascertain, in the heat of the moment, what is actually happening? Is the shooter a "good person" or a "bad person?" The shooter might actually be a cop not in uniform defending himself or another. Imagine yet a "good person" now shooting at a "bad person." How are subsequent "good persons" able to figure out who is who? With just about every person armed as the gun lobby would have it, there would then be a free for all with bullets flying indiscriminately in every direction – a plot line for a gruesome comedy sketch.
It is disheartening to realize that many with otherwise adequately functioning brains can formulate misconceptions of the world the way gun apologists do. And guns are far from the many other policy issues that a sane society needs to deal with. Unfortunately, distorted cognitive ability is the case for too many who either do not have the ability for critical thinking or for those who are have it but who cynically work to advance their own agenda.
For us, the struggle is long and hard, but we have reason and virtue on our side.
Recent updates reveal that there were indeed "good people with guns" to thwart the "bad person with a gun." These "good people," if indeed pusillanimous, were well armed and donned with body armor. Yet it took over an hour for these "good people" to act.
If you would like to comment on this or anything else on our website,
please contact us at info (at) nambla.org
