“What luck for rulers, that men do not think.”
When the wingnuts come out of their gun closets, hang onto your hats. Here are four of the most recent articles I’ve run across that very ably describe the depths to which insanity is capable of descending in the aftermath of yet another gun massacre.
Interesting that three of the four maintain that the frequent occurrence of mass shootings/killings is either Obama’s fault or that he and/or his lackeys have planned them. In the real world, of course, we must perish the thought of doing ANYTHING to curtail the chance of yet another similar episode happening — no politicizing, no action, no nothing, no way! No gun control measures of any kind! Doing something THAT brash, after all, would piss the NRA off, and we all know what THAT means! Besides, guns are a constitutional right, and that means there ain’t nothin’ can be done; ‘cept to make open carry universal and to make sure everybody is armed, locked and loaded. Then there won’t be no more crime cuz them bad guys won’t dare, and if they ever do, BANG BANG!
Gun mythology in the United States is very likely unparalelled anywhere else on earth. In no other country did their “founders” have the “vision” to GUARANTEE to every citizen the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS! There is here, of course, an embedded fallacy in that extremely popular second amendment misinterpretation. Problem is, no one ever mentions it; the ‘popular’ mass media — even when ‘reporting’ on mass murders or the extremely high daily death-by-gun rate in this country — never mention it, not in any context. What is mentioned with at least some regularity is the myth that the purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee an armed citizenry whose task it would be to overthrow the Federal government if it should ever become excessively tyrannical or uppity. The proliferation of “militias” these days adequately demonstrates the popular acceptance of said thesis.
It does happen, however, that one can occasionally run across a topical essay on the second amendment, one that details the entire story. I’ve seen only a small handful, and each within the last two or three years, most recently just yesterday. This latest one is the most detailed, the most descriptive and explanatory essay I’ve yet run across on the topic. It’s entitled The Second Amendment’s Fake History; it’s written by journalist Robert Parry, and is posted on his Consortium News website. It’s quite lengthy, but the following handful of descriptive excerpts demonstrate the core thesis that the second amendment’s original intent has been massively perverted and misinterpreted.
False history continues to kill Americans, as we saw once again last week at Umpqua Community College in Oregon . . .
A key reason why the United States is frozen in political paralysis . . . is that many on the American Right (and some on the Left) have sold much of the country on a false history regarding the Second Amendment.
Republican presidential candidates have been among the leaders in promoting this fake narrative, with surgeon Ben Carson saying the latest slaughter and all the other thousands of shootings are just part of the price of freedom. . . .
But the Constitution’s Framers in 1787 and the authors of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress in 1789 never intended the Second Amendment to be construed as the right for individuals to take up arms against the Republic. In fact, their intent was the opposite.
The actual goal of the Second Amendment was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order in a time of political uprisings, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers. Indeed, its defined purpose was to achieve “security” against disruptions to the country’s republican form of government.
(. . .)
In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army. It didn’t mean that an individual had the right to possess whatever number of high-capacity killing machines that he or she might want. . . .
After a lengthy and detailed analysis of second amendment misinterpretations, the essay concludes with this single sentence summary:
The Second Amendment was not designed to encourage violence against the government or – for that matter – to enable troubled individuals to murder large numbers of their fellow citizens.
And here we are. Yet one more mass shooting, followed by the childish freakouts of right wingers everywhere, from politicians to religionistas, to the (well-armed) M-F ‘commoners.’ No action will be taken to reduce the chance of the next mass murder; to do so would, after all, ‘violate our second amendment rights.’ Bullshite.