The United States has experienced yet another mass shooting, this time in Nashville, Tennessee at a religious school. Six people died and the killer carried two assault-style weapons and a handgun. As always, the nation will go through another period of impotent "thoughts and prayers" as its citizens will debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment 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." It is a poorly written amendment, subject to all sorts of weird interpretations. When it was being debated in 1789, its intent was clear. 

The citizens at the time were tremendously suspicious of a standing army since their experience as colonial subjects proved to them that standing armies, maintained by a powerful state, represented a threat to liberty. The writers of the constitution therefore wanted the common defense to be maintained by state militias in order to fragment centralized military control and assumed that militias would only be called upon when there was a specific threat to be addressed. 

The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights adopted in 1780 gives a rough idea of what the concerns were: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."

The most important dimension of this concern was the fear of a powerful state. To that end, the states were not expected to arm the militias. Instead, every citizen was expected to bring their own weapons when the militia was called upon. The "original intent" of the 2nd Amendment was to assure that states never developed their own weapons-producing capabilities. 

This meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been lost and its tortured language is currently interpreted by the US Supreme Court as a right of individuals to possess weapons even though the states now buy weapons for their militias (in the US, the National Guard) and the Federal Government regularly purchases weapons to arm the various branches of the US military. Indeed, soldiers in the US military are not allowed to use personal weapons when they are officially deployed in combat. The reasoning behind this prohibition is obvious: massed armies require standardized equipment so that it is easier to provide the necessary training, ammunition, and maintenance of weaponry. And very few citizens could afford to buy their own modern weapons. 

The Militia Act of 1792 makes it clear that citizens were expected to provide their own weapons: "That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good How to be musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a armed and ac- knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"

This interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was washed away in the Supreme Court's decision, District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The decision was 5-4 and the Majority Opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. That Opinion was summarized as follows: 

"To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to 'guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.' This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment."

The Supreme Court went even further in its decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in 2022 and the Majority Opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. In that opinion , Justice Thomas argued that all gun control legislation needed to be assessed in a manner "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." I personally have no idea what that phrase means. What is the "historical tradition" relevant to an AR-15? It only became widely available in 1963 when the Colt Manufacturing Company sold it to civilians.

The interpretations of Heller and Bruen are hypertrophic and have no logical connection whatsoever with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. To equate the right to carry an automatic or semi-automatic weapon in a public place to the right to speak freely or to assemble peaceably is dishonest nonsense. Indeed, the right to speak freely is itself limited to speech that does not incite violence. And the invocation of "original" intent is itself nonsense. 

The "original intent" of the Constitution was to codify and normalize the kidnapping and enslavement of millions of people. The "original intent" of the Constitution was to deny women the right to vote. Fortunately, the people of the United States decided that slavery was completely inconsistent with the true aspirations of the Constitution and that the voices of women in governance was essential to a well-functioning democracy. One would be hard-pressed to argue that the slaughter of innocents was consistent with the ideals of "domestic tranquility".

We should repeal the 2nd Amendment since its current interpretation apparently only allows "thoughts and prayers" for those who are mindlessly killed and for those who have lost loved ones. And we should examine seriously the health of a society which holds that children should be protected only by participating in "active shooting drills". That advice resonates strongly with me as I remember huddling under my wooden desk in 3rd grade as adults tried to persuade me that it was an effective defense against a nuclear blast.

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would leave a vacuum with respect to gun policy. Much would have to be done to fill that vacuum, but I only offer one suggestion on the issue of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I want to avoid the inevitable controversy over the possible "confiscation" of guns. That policy would never work and would simply aggravate the untenable situation in which we find ourselves. Instead, I suggest a Federal law along the following lines;

1.The sale of any weapon with an automatic or semi-automatic firing mechanism will be prohibited.

2.Citizens can possess such weapons but they can only be held on the property of the primary residence of a citizen.

3.The carrying of an automatic or semi-automatic weapon in a public space will be prohibited and any such weapons found in a public space shall be confiscated and destroyed.

We can debate background checks or the mental health requirements on all other weapons at a future point. But there is no reason why the burden of proving an acceptable solution to gun violence should be borne exclusively by those who want the weapons to be controlled. The burden should more appropriately be borne by those who insist that they have a "right" to possess military-grade weapons. They should be forced to defend that right in the face of all the horror and instability that society faces every day and with stunning regularity. 






                            



REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Israel is preparing for a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip and it has encouraged the Palestinians in the north of the Gaza to move to the southern part of the territory so that civilians will not be subjected to what will likely be a very intense campaign.

It is difficult to move 1.1 million people in such a short period of time given that much of the Gazan infrastructure has been destroyed by bombing. Many people in Gaza have no place to go in the bleak southern part of the Strip and Egypt has not opened the Rafah crossing into Egyptian territory. I suspect that Egypt does not want to be responsible for such a huge influx of refugees. And many Palestinians do not want to leave their homes or familiar neighborhoods. Hamas has encouraged the people not to move to the south, which has been interpreted by some as an attempt to use the civilians as a shield from Israeli bombardment.

The more likely explanation for the number of Palestinians who chose not to evacuate is the fear that they could never return to their homes. While Israel has a "right of return" for any Jew who wishes to emigrate to Israel, it has not allowed the more than 750,000 Palestinians who left their homes in 1948 upon the creation of the state of Israel to return. Many Palestinians refer to that episode as the Nabka ("the Catastrophe"). That refusal is a violation of international law as described by the Institute for Middle East Understanding:

All refugees have a right to return to areas from which they have fled or were forced, to receive compensation for damages, and to either regain their properties or receive compensation and support for voluntary resettlement. This right derives from a number of legal sources, including customary international law, international humanitarian law governing rights of civilians during war, and human rights law. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 13(2) that "[e]veryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his own country." This is an individual right and cannot be unilaterally abrogated by third parties.

In December 1948, following Israel's establishment and the attendant displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians from areas that fell within its control, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194, which states, "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

The Palestinian right of return has been confirmed repeatedly by the UN General Assembly, including through Resolution 3236, which "Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."

There were Israeli settlers who lived in the Gaza Strip after the 1967 war but all 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip were unilaterally evacuated in 2005. I suspect that many Palestinians fear that depopulating the Gaza will offer an opportunity for Israel to assert renewed territorial control in the Gaza. I doubt that Israel is thinking about such a radical move and most Americans do not seem to be aware of that historical episode. But the Palestinian fear is not far-fetched to a people who suffered displacement. It remains unclear, however, what the Israeli plans for the Gaza are. Given the level of destruction that has already occurred in the Gaza, it is unlikely that anyone will be living comfortably there for an extraordinarily long time.
OCTOBER 14, 2023 - ISRAEL AND GAZA

 VINNIE'S BLOG
​"This constant lying is not aimed
at making the people believe a lie,
but at ensuring that no one believes
anything anymore.

A people that can no longer distinguish
between truth and lies cannot distinguish
between right and wrong.

And such a people, deprived of the power
to think and judge, is, without knowing
and willing it, completely subjected
to the rule of lies. With such a people,
you can do whatever you want."

Hannah Arendt
German hisgorian and philosopher
(1906 - 1975)
August 2024
The last post held that much of modern life occurs at an arms-length for most US citizens. We have so distanced ourselves from the actual processes that govern our lives, that we must rely upon experts to fix problems. That procedure allows for greater expertise, but it also means that most people now must rely upon someone or some institutions with authority to make sure that everything moves seamlessly. I think that it is fair to say that one hundred years ago, most Americans were familiar with most sources of relevant authority: the local grocer, the local doctor, the mayor, the school committee, and most of their neighbors. Today, all these people and institutions are less connected to their localities, and most of our interactions are with anonymous people on the telephone or the internet.

Attenuated authority is difficult to assess, and becomes even more so if there are competing authorities. And most people lack the ability to make rigorous assessments. Just think about how people assess the veracity of their news sources. Is CNN reliable? Fox News? MSNBC? And over the last 8 years, Americans have been subjected to a withering barrage of criticisms about eacsh source. How does one go about finding a Medicare Supplement Plan? There are numerous insurance companies which want your business, but the plans are complicated, opaque, and, in many cases, misleading. Under such circumstances, many people will defer to someone they think is trustworthy to make the decisions for them.

We actually know a great deal about why people defer to authority. The Milgram experiment suggested that a commanding percentage of people would engage in activities that their senses and experience clearly indicate a high degree of harm to others. The Zimbardo prison experiment indicated that many people behave quite differently than expected when cast into roles that demanded harsh treatment of others. Erich Fromm's desire to understand how the Holocaust could occur led to his superb work, Escape from Freedom. But the most compelling analysis of deference to authority is Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. In one part of the book, Dostoyevsky imagines that Jesus returns to earth during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. The religious authority in Seville (The Grand Inquisitor) has Jesus arrested in order to prevent Jesus from undermining the authority of the Catholic Church. What follows is a monologue by the Inquisitor (Jesus says not a word in the excerpt) outlining a criticism of Jesus by giving people the freedom to choose between good and evil. The Inquisitor argues that the Church has corrected that error by taking away that freedom:

"No science will give them bread as long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us: 'Better that you enslave us, but feed us.' They will finally understand that freedom and earthly bread in plenty for everyone are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share among themselves. They will also be convinced that they are forever incapable of being free, because they are feeble, depraved, nonentities and rebels. You promised them heavenly bread, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race? And if in the name of heavenly bread thousands and tens of thousands will follow you, what will become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not be strong enough to forgo earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Is it that only the tens of thousands of the great and strong are dear to you, and the remaining millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, weak but loving you, should serve only as material for the great and the strong?"

The argument is straightforward: people will defer to authority when they feel vulnerable. This statement is similar to the Hobbesian state of nature: if you want power over a people, make them know fear. Our feelings of vulnerability are not unique, but they can be amplified, manipulated, and directed. The fears of the French after the Revolution led them to embrace Napoleon. The fears of the German people after World War I and the punitive terms of the Peace Treaty, made them embrace Hitler. The American people have not suffered similar calamities, but their sense of vulnerability is heightened by their inability to live out the American dream of the rugged individual. We are acutely aware of the fact that we have little direct control over some of the things that are necessary to survive in such a complicated, overly technological environment. The American people have become alienated because of the growing discrepancy between what they can and cannot explain and that uncertainty has made them susceptible to easy and direct answers.

Unfortunately, those easy and direct answers do not really address the real issues. It is undeniable that the American working class suffered a great deal due to globalization which sent many jobs to low-wage areas such as China. But the decisions that led to those job losses were not made by the government; they were made by private corporations whose job is to create profit for their shareholders. Attacking the government is purposely misleading. But the distraction does not end with attacking the government. Somehow, many people in America believe that their economic misfortunes are due to undocumented immigrants, or gay or transexual individuals, or diversity initiatives. The tactic is familiar to those who study historical and contemporary despots, and should be threadbare by now. But it seems as if it is still resonating all over the world as evidence by recent events in France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

The proper political response is to highlight the systems that lead to economic decisions that harm people. One should focus on the processes that allow the accumulation of wealth, such as the taxation rules, the disregard for markets overwhelmingly dictated by oligoplies, such a petroleum and agriculture, the willingness to tolerate the hiding of wealth in offshore banks, and the insane neglect of the global environment. Unfortunately, political decisions in the US now seem to be determined by unregulated campaign contributions. Elon Musk invested $280 million in the re-election of Mr. Trump; his wealth since 6 November has increased by about $200 billion--an obscene commentary on the state of democracy in the US.
December 24, 2024