GUN RIGHTS: A PERVERSION OF FREEDOM.



Lawrence Davidson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Davidson een van mijn favoriete columnisten laat zijn licht schijnen over de aberrante gedachtewereld van de Amerikanen. Een gedachtewereld die ons al enige tijd geleden had moeten doen besluiten ons los te maken van de Verenigde Staten en zelfstandig als Europa (lees: het Continent) verder te gaan. Een standpunt dat al geruime tijd bepleit wordt door Karel van Wolferen https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_van_Wolferen: De Ondergang van een Wereldorde en van Wolferen met Jan Sampiemon: Een Keerpunt in de Vaderlandse Geschiedenis. http://www.johanblaauw.nl/Recensies/recwolferen.html
Ook de Amerikaanse ‘human, mom, photographer, journalist, activist’ Emma Fiala https://www.behance.net/Frostonflower waarschuwt in het tweede deel van mijn epistel B midden februari 2018 voor de ernst van de situatie. Zij graaft echter in de morbide Amerikaanse psyché en komt tot zorgwekkende conclusies.
A  Freedom’s Perversities
An Analysis (5 March 2018) by Lawrence Davidson
http://www.tothepointanalyses.com/
Part I – Freedom as a Recent Idea
For much of human history, the idea of freedom had little meaning.https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes

This was because life was, as Thomas Hobbes put it, “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” And while he thought this descriptor applied to life outside of society, for a long time it did not really matter – life within pre-modern societies often had the same limiting character. Religious belief in these same times reflected this depressing fact by asserting that there was no hope of meaningful freedom in this life. To achieve it you would have to die and go to Heaven. So, what set you free was death.

 Around the end of the 18th century, progress in technology and science suggested an alternative to this “life is a vale of tears” scenario. It was at that point that different types of freedoms started to become viable goals. However, as the use of the plural implies, the idea of freedom manifested itself in discrete categories: political freedom, economic freedom (here defined as freedom from want), religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and so forth. It really had to be this way. Total freedom produces anarchy and – here is the irony – anarchy will quickly make any particular freedom meaningless.
Thus it was that over time, as constitutions came into vogue, freedoms were written down, usually in the form of rights. Yet, not surprisingly, their translation into practice often ended up reflecting the needs and desires of the powerful and influential. This was the case whether we are considering democracies or more authoritarian forms of government. This customizing of freedoms by select groups inevitably led to less than satisfactory, and sometimes quite perverse, results.
Let’s take a look at an example of such a conceptual deformity taken from the practice in the United States, “the land of the free.”
Part II – Gun Rights – A Perversion of Freedom 
Perhaps the most perverse American definition of freedom is the one that promotes largely unrestricted gun rights. The champion of this definition is the National Rifle Association (NRA). We are not just talking about guns used to shoot at targets or for hunting game. One can actually make an argument for ownership of the latter weapons along the same line as bows and arrows, slingshots and fishing rods.


However, according to Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, freedom demands more. His stand is that citizens have a fundamental right to own almost any firearm, including military-style assault weapons. His position is that this right is the sine qua non of American freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_LaPierre
And only by exercising it can you really ensure individual freedom.
LaPierre insists that gun ownership is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the NRA has taken an out-of-context fragment of that amendment as its motto – “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.” The fact that this phrase is part of a a comprehensive statement that ties gun ownership to the government’s need to maintain “a well regulated militia” is disregarded by the NRA leadership. In truth, if we are to take the Second Amendment in its entirely as describing a discrete “freedom,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Mr. LaPierre and his buddies would have to join the National Guard in order to play with guns.

So here is a case where a definition of a freedom or a right has been customized to meet the demands of a politically powerful subgroup of society, and it has had predictably disastrous results. The largely open-ended access of U.S. citizens to military-style weapons has resulted in a prolonged bloodbath. It is estimated that between 2011 and 2014, there was a mass shooting (defined as the killing or wounding of 4 or more people) in the United States every 64 days. This rate has not slowed down in the last four years. As the world now knows, the latest of these massacres came on 14 February 2018, when 17 high school students were shot dead in Parkland, Florida.






Soon after this massacre, Wayne LaPierre gave the NRA’s response to those surviving students and their supporters who were demanding greater gun regulation laws. He accused them of being “socialists” who want to make “law abiding” citizens “less free.” If these “leftists” manage to “seize power … our American freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever.”


LaPierre’s answer to the bloodbaths caused by guns is to have more guns. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” In the case of the Parkland high school shooting, where, in fact, there was an armed guard present at the school, as well as with previous school shootings, LaPierre’s formula translates into arming teachers as a way of “hardening the schools.”



By the way, President Trump initially agreed with LaPierre. He too called for arming teachers, suggesting that if 20 percent of teachers were armed and “adept with the firearm, they could end the attack very quickly.” Assuming Trump meant giving teachers a sidearm while the usual assailants continue to use military-style automatic weapons, one can only call such a suggestion naive. He also praised the NRA leadership and specifically LaPierre, saying that “they are great people and great American patriots who will do the right thing.”
Subsequently, Trump suggested that the country may well need to toughen its gun laws, much to the dismay of all those “patriots” at the NRA. Twenty-four hours later he was back on track with the NRA.

Perhaps his flip-flopping was a tactical maneuver. Throw out some reforms and then do nothing. Later he can then say to the general public, perhaps during a reelection campaign, that he proved more willing to sign off on gun control reform than any president in history. Trump is famous for such mendacious hyperboles.

In the end LaPierre and all the the other gun fanatics who whittle their definition of freedom down to the nearly unrestricted right to own weapons are archaic primitives whose idea of freedom harkens back to those pre-civilized times so well described by Thomas Hobbes. In a perpetually dangerous world, one that is “poor, nasty, brutish and short,” the armed man is the only one with any chance of being “free.” And so, he is the “real man,” the man who can protect himself, his family and his country.
But that is not the way the world is, at least in the West. It is a relatively settled and safe place where the major threat is not so much crime, and certainly not socialists, but rather LaPierre’s own demand – the proliferation of guns. What we are all threatened by is the perversion of this discrete freedom.
Part III – Conclusion 

The gun rights issue is not the only perversion of freedom one can come up with.
The whole issue of economic freedom (as defined as freedom from want) is another. One can argue that, in an era of sufficient resources, this should be an undeniable right. Yet, in the United States, economic freedom is defined in such a way as to satisfy the desires and needs of a particular powerful group. Economic freedom is the freedom of the capitalist to operate within a “free market.” Unfortunately, such a definition, applied in practice, has left many people economically disadvantaged.
As is the case with the issue of gun rights, those who want to alter the definition of economic freedom so as to minimize such conditions as indebtedness and poverty are accused of being socialists and wanting to take away “our freedoms.”
So, really, just what does freedom mean? Well, it means what the powerful and the influential say it means. And, having it manifested in discrete categories makes it easy to customize. Nonetheless, part of civilizational progress is assuring that freedoms are sane and beneficial to larger and larger groups – but, obviously, progress in this sense is a real struggle.
B   A Nation that does not value Life
Mass Shootings Are a Symptom of a Problem That Gun Control Won't Solve
door Emma Fiala
School shootings are a symptom of a very large, very dangerous problem. They are not simply a symptom of a need for gun control, or a symptom of a lack of accessible mental health services, or a symptom of an over-medicated, desensitized youth population.
Our problem, a problem that has bled into every level of our society, is simple. We are a nation that does not value life.
This country was built on the genocide of its native inhabitants and not long after we bought and sold humans as if they were commodities. We have occupied nations and murdered their inhabitants for years. We have been at war with the idea of terror for SIXTEEN YEARS.





And we wholeheartedly support a nation actively engaged in apartheid. 
Each one of these things is woven into the fabric of our very beings. Each one of these things is connected to our identity as citizens of the United States. And each one of these things influences the actions of our nation today. On our own soil there continues to be a race and class struggle that results in the ruining of lives and actual loss of life. Halfway around the world our nation is responsible for the murder of innocent lives. Every single day children die at the hands of the United States or because of something our nation had its hands in. There is no ignoring this and there is no way to gloss it over.
The United States is DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of over 4 million Muslims. Four million. Pause for a moment and let that number sit in your mind. Picture it and then try to picture 4 million people. Do you even know what 4 million people looks like? That’s the population of Los Angeles.


(Emma Fiala vergeet nog de miljoenen doden in Vietnam en Zuid-Amerika te vermelden) Het aantal mensen dat door de Amerikaanse militaire acties geestelijk of lichamelijk beschadigd is, is hier een veelvoud van!

And who bats an eye? Hardly anyone. Collateral damage. Consequences. We make excuses daily. But every time we allow more death and destruction in our names, we allow that death and destruction to seep into the fabric of who we are.
The children who are dying at the hands of their classmates have lived in a world in which their nation has been at war for their entire lives. 

 They see it on the news, they see television shows and movies that glorify the war on terror, and they play video games set in actual war zones. Most of us cannot even begin to imagine how this might influence development or perception of the world, reality, and understanding of the role we play the greater collective of humanity. They have grown up with a constant enemy, a constant vibration of unrest and violence in their universe.









Populaire posts