In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, gun control advocates have been hoping for, and gun rights activists have been fearing, an assault on the 2nd Amendment. President Obama made clear in his tearful December 14th press conference that he would move the federal government forcefully to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again. Coming from a president accustomed to making sweeping, utopian promises resulting in an increased sphere of government power at the expense of individual freedom of action and responsibility, the heightened hopes and fears have been justified on both sides.
At the White House on Wednesday, January 16th, flanked by a company of children on whose behalf he was acting, the president signed twenty-three executive orders promising to make American society safe from gun violence. Yet, a close examination of the executive orders reveals dull teeth in the president's promise for bold action against gun violence.
Instead, the executive actions are heavy on issuing memorandums, proposing rules, reviewing safety standards, publishing letters, launching national dialogues, releasing reports, nominating directors, finalizing regulations, providing incentives for schools to hire more officers, providing training for handling shooter situations -in short- more bureaucracy, red tape, and big spending. (See all 23 executive orders below, with bold emphasis added.)
However much these executive orders cost the American people in coin and whatever burdensome regulations they impose on law enforcement and other public and private actors, they do not come close to vindicating the hopes and fears of activists on both sides of 2nd Amendment rights. On the other hand, what these executive orders reveal has less to do with guns and more to do with the constitutionality of Obamacare.
The sixteenth order, stating that the administration will "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" is the only item on the list that stands out from the rest, because of its vast social implications and offense to the Bill of Rights.
To make doctors liable for "asking their patients about guns in their homes" shreds patient confidentiality and jeopardizes the Ninth Amendment rights of health care providers at a stroke. Collective responsibility for crimes committed by individuals is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. The Bill of Rights was partly designed to prevent collectivist tyranny.
Furthermore, the sixteenth executive order may provide the best Tenth Amendment case against the constitutionality of Obamacare yet put forth. For the president to admit the Affordable Care Act compels health care providers to violate patient confidentiality is an admission that Obamacare runs roughshod over any state or local laws protecting doctors and patients in regards to confidentiality.
The president may hope Congress will issue bolder action against gun violence than his executive orders promise, but his twenty-three edicts (possibly designed as theater to pacify the Left among his supporters) has illuminated a glaring vulnerability in his health care legacy than any to be exploited thus far.
Patriot Thought
President Obama's 23 Executive Orders to Curb Gun Violence, Issued Wednesday, Jan 16, 2013:
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal
agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check
system."
2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states
from making information available to the background check system."
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background
check system."
4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals
prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping
through the cracks."
5. "Propose rulemaking to give law
enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before
returning a seized gun."
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing
guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product
Safety Commission)."
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to
trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns
and make it widely available to law enforcement."
11. "Nominate an ATF director."
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with
proper training for active shooter situations."
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute
gun crime."
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease
Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and
most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private
sector to develop innovative technologies."
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal
law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement
authorities."
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource
officers."
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship
and institutions of higher education."
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of
mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity
requirements within ACA exchanges."
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on
mental health."
Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Friday, December 28, 2012
Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)
Americans are catching up to the state of secular reasoning Europeans reached long ago. Whenever horrid massacres are perpetrated in public places such as schools and universities the blame is given to things that do not quite satisfy a well-rounded explanation of the atrocity.
Some blame the weapons used in the crime, as a means of tightening the laws regulating their availability and distribution. Everyone agrees there must be something horribly wrong with the killer himself (a female counterpart does not come to mind) but can not quite figure out the source of what drives him to commit mass murder.
Mental illness, personality disorder, a troubled family history, are the usual lines of inquiry, yet none satisfy. These explanations run aground of the reality that there are tens of thousands of people, with the same problems, who never commit a violent crime. The real explanation for Adam Lanza is an older one - familiar to all - but ignored by many because it is out of fashion with the secularization of our culture.
Adam Lanza suffered from Asperger syndrome. This may explain some of his social difficulties, but the deliberate, methodical, and cold-blooded nature of his killing spree is something outside the realm of Asperger's. Children with Asperger's show a lack of empathy, a barrier to making healthy friendships and an asset to a killing machine, yet murderous violence is not a hallmark of Asperger's. Often, a disorder of the Schizophrenic type is also present in violent criminals with Asperger's. Perhaps Adam Lanza was an undiagnosed Schizophrenic; there are reports that his mother feared for her safety and planned on having him committed. We'll never know for sure.
Despite its link with violent crime, does anyone feel satisfied that Schizophrenia, with its symptoms of hallucinations and paranoia, explains the planned, methodical, and overwhelmingly successful campaign of Adam Lanza's murder of his mother, destruction of his hard drive to conceal information, his drive to Sandy Hook Elementary with enough ammunition to murder as many children and adults as came into his view until the arrival of law enforcement provided convenient timing for his suicide and escape from justice? It would be a stretch for Schizophrenia to fit this bill.
Was Adolf Hitler a Schizophrenic? Was Joseph Stalin a Schizophrenic? No one who met them thought so. On the contrary, both were reported to be fully in command of their faculties. Both were unbothered by the knowledge that millions of people died as a result of their conduct. Thus we have come to the older, more satisfying (and out of fashion) explanation of what drove Adam Lanza to commit mass murder: evil.
What caused the evil? Did violent video games make Adam Lanza evil? Was there a supernatural force emanating from the semi-automatic firearms? Was he corrupted by the demonic firearms? It is doubtful. And more people in world history have been murdered by sane people than by insane people. What does it take for a man to shoot his own mother in the face? If you can not imagine what it takes, it is a good thing you can not. Adam Lanza knew what it took because he did it. His mother's body was found with four gunshot wounds in her head. All his dead victims had multiple gunshot wounds. One, a six year old boy at Sandy Hook Elementary, had eleven.
It is high time our society has a conversation about evil and that we start teaching our children about evil. Evil will do its work with or without guns. On the same day Adam Lanza butchered his mother and shot-up a few dozen at Sandy Hook, another such atrocity was committed at a Chinese elementary school by a knife-wielding perpetrator (guns are illegal in China) named Min Yingjun. Twenty-two children were hospitalized with knife wounds. Amazingly, none died. Even so, CBS news reported:
The attack marks the latest in a series of violent assaults at elementary schools in China. In 2010, a total of 18 children were killed in four separate attacks. On March 23 of that year, Zheng Minsheng attacked children at an elementary school in Fujian Province, killing eight.
One month later, just a few hours after Zheng Minsheng was executed for his crime, another man, Chen Kanbing wounded 16 students and a teacher in a knife attack at another primary school in Fujian. The following month, on May 12, a man named Wu Huangming killed seven children and two adults with a meat cleaver at a kindergarten in Shaanxi Province. That attack was followed by an August 4 assault by Fang Jiantang, who killed three children and one teacher with a knife at a kindergarten in Shandong Province.
In 2011, a young girl and three adults were killed with an axe at an elementary school in Henan Province by a 30-year-old man named Wang Hongbin, and eight children were hurt in Shanghai after an employee at a child care center attacked them with a box cutter.
See the full article here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559179/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/
China has strict gun control laws and stiffer criminal punishments than western societies have. Are we ready to start talking about evil? If we are, we can teach our children about it. If we teach our children about it, fewer of them may grow up to be Adam Lanza.
Patriot Thought
Some blame the weapons used in the crime, as a means of tightening the laws regulating their availability and distribution. Everyone agrees there must be something horribly wrong with the killer himself (a female counterpart does not come to mind) but can not quite figure out the source of what drives him to commit mass murder.
Mental illness, personality disorder, a troubled family history, are the usual lines of inquiry, yet none satisfy. These explanations run aground of the reality that there are tens of thousands of people, with the same problems, who never commit a violent crime. The real explanation for Adam Lanza is an older one - familiar to all - but ignored by many because it is out of fashion with the secularization of our culture.
Adam Lanza suffered from Asperger syndrome. This may explain some of his social difficulties, but the deliberate, methodical, and cold-blooded nature of his killing spree is something outside the realm of Asperger's. Children with Asperger's show a lack of empathy, a barrier to making healthy friendships and an asset to a killing machine, yet murderous violence is not a hallmark of Asperger's. Often, a disorder of the Schizophrenic type is also present in violent criminals with Asperger's. Perhaps Adam Lanza was an undiagnosed Schizophrenic; there are reports that his mother feared for her safety and planned on having him committed. We'll never know for sure.
Despite its link with violent crime, does anyone feel satisfied that Schizophrenia, with its symptoms of hallucinations and paranoia, explains the planned, methodical, and overwhelmingly successful campaign of Adam Lanza's murder of his mother, destruction of his hard drive to conceal information, his drive to Sandy Hook Elementary with enough ammunition to murder as many children and adults as came into his view until the arrival of law enforcement provided convenient timing for his suicide and escape from justice? It would be a stretch for Schizophrenia to fit this bill.
Was Adolf Hitler a Schizophrenic? Was Joseph Stalin a Schizophrenic? No one who met them thought so. On the contrary, both were reported to be fully in command of their faculties. Both were unbothered by the knowledge that millions of people died as a result of their conduct. Thus we have come to the older, more satisfying (and out of fashion) explanation of what drove Adam Lanza to commit mass murder: evil.
What caused the evil? Did violent video games make Adam Lanza evil? Was there a supernatural force emanating from the semi-automatic firearms? Was he corrupted by the demonic firearms? It is doubtful. And more people in world history have been murdered by sane people than by insane people. What does it take for a man to shoot his own mother in the face? If you can not imagine what it takes, it is a good thing you can not. Adam Lanza knew what it took because he did it. His mother's body was found with four gunshot wounds in her head. All his dead victims had multiple gunshot wounds. One, a six year old boy at Sandy Hook Elementary, had eleven.
It is high time our society has a conversation about evil and that we start teaching our children about evil. Evil will do its work with or without guns. On the same day Adam Lanza butchered his mother and shot-up a few dozen at Sandy Hook, another such atrocity was committed at a Chinese elementary school by a knife-wielding perpetrator (guns are illegal in China) named Min Yingjun. Twenty-two children were hospitalized with knife wounds. Amazingly, none died. Even so, CBS news reported:
The attack marks the latest in a series of violent assaults at elementary schools in China. In 2010, a total of 18 children were killed in four separate attacks. On March 23 of that year, Zheng Minsheng attacked children at an elementary school in Fujian Province, killing eight.
One month later, just a few hours after Zheng Minsheng was executed for his crime, another man, Chen Kanbing wounded 16 students and a teacher in a knife attack at another primary school in Fujian. The following month, on May 12, a man named Wu Huangming killed seven children and two adults with a meat cleaver at a kindergarten in Shaanxi Province. That attack was followed by an August 4 assault by Fang Jiantang, who killed three children and one teacher with a knife at a kindergarten in Shandong Province.
In 2011, a young girl and three adults were killed with an axe at an elementary school in Henan Province by a 30-year-old man named Wang Hongbin, and eight children were hurt in Shanghai after an employee at a child care center attacked them with a box cutter.
See the full article here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559179/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/
China has strict gun control laws and stiffer criminal punishments than western societies have. Are we ready to start talking about evil? If we are, we can teach our children about it. If we teach our children about it, fewer of them may grow up to be Adam Lanza.
Patriot Thought
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)
Pro and anti-gun advocates cite the
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the source fueling their arguments. The Second Amendment provides: “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 phrasing and words employed by the Framers more than two hundred years ago seem awkward and ambiguous to some twenty-first century readers. Questions arise, for example, What is the connection between the first and second phrase of the sentence? Moreover, Is the right to bear arms somehow dependent upon the people’s connection with a militia, or militia-like activities? Certain experts on the news channels conclude this, while others beg to differ. And, What exactly does the words “Militia”, “Arms”, and “infringed” mean?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court endeavored to construe the meaning of the Second Amendment. The following is a summary of the Court's decision, written by Justice Scalia:
The 5-4 ruling in this case shows a Supreme Court divided on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's 27 words. Furthermore, although the connection between colonial militias and the modern day right to own and possess a firearm was clearly rejected by the court, we don’t know what future government restrictions on the right to possess and own will pass constitutional muster.
New questions are enriching the controversy. Is a total ban on assault rifles and high volume clips a “reasonable” state action consistent with the lawful defense of self, family, and property? Are other types of weapons such as single-shot pistols or hunting guns sufficient to protect self, family, and property? How about the court’s elevation of the sanctity of possession in the home? Could possession of an assault rifle be limited to the inside of one’s house?
Finally, Scalia's allusion to the Court's ruling in another case raises 'historical tradition' to a level of authority rivaling that of the U.S. Constitution: ‘Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.’
Have we reached the time in our history when assault weapons, designed to kill as many people in the shortest amount of time, constitute a prohibited dangerous and unusual weapon?
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, these are the issues and questions that require diligent, yet respectful, argument as ours is a government of laws. St. Thomas wrote, “Law is an ordinance of reason enacted and promulgated by he who is in charge of the community for the common good.” (Emphasis added). So let us reason together to find the common good.
Charles J. Emma
The phrasing and words employed by the Framers more than two hundred years ago seem awkward and ambiguous to some twenty-first century readers. Questions arise, for example, What is the connection between the first and second phrase of the sentence? Moreover, Is the right to bear arms somehow dependent upon the people’s connection with a militia, or militia-like activities? Certain experts on the news channels conclude this, while others beg to differ. And, What exactly does the words “Militia”, “Arms”, and “infringed” mean?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court endeavored to construe the meaning of the Second Amendment. The following is a summary of the Court's decision, written by Justice Scalia:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a
militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces
a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the
operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes
an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right
is not unlimited. It is not a right to
keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under
the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons
and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [for example]Miller’s holding that the sorts of
weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the
historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual
weapons. Pp. 54–56.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock
requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The
District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition
on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to
enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the
importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most
acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any
lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it
impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense
and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that
the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and
capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for
relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not
disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit
Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the
home. Pp. 56–64. (Emphasis in bold added by Charles J. Emma)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting
opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
The 5-4 ruling in this case shows a Supreme Court divided on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's 27 words. Furthermore, although the connection between colonial militias and the modern day right to own and possess a firearm was clearly rejected by the court, we don’t know what future government restrictions on the right to possess and own will pass constitutional muster.
New questions are enriching the controversy. Is a total ban on assault rifles and high volume clips a “reasonable” state action consistent with the lawful defense of self, family, and property? Are other types of weapons such as single-shot pistols or hunting guns sufficient to protect self, family, and property? How about the court’s elevation of the sanctity of possession in the home? Could possession of an assault rifle be limited to the inside of one’s house?
Finally, Scalia's allusion to the Court's ruling in another case raises 'historical tradition' to a level of authority rivaling that of the U.S. Constitution: ‘Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.’
Have we reached the time in our history when assault weapons, designed to kill as many people in the shortest amount of time, constitute a prohibited dangerous and unusual weapon?
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, these are the issues and questions that require diligent, yet respectful, argument as ours is a government of laws. St. Thomas wrote, “Law is an ordinance of reason enacted and promulgated by he who is in charge of the community for the common good.” (Emphasis added). So let us reason together to find the common good.
Charles J. Emma
Monday, December 17, 2012
Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)
Gun control is hotly political. After
all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the individual the
right to bear arms. Virginia's George Mason, a key author of the Bill
of Rights declared, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual
way to enslave them." For more than two hundred years, gun rights
activists have shared the same sentiment. At the same time, a movement
to control and in some cases ban the legal sale of firearms has gathered
strength. All states practice some form of gun control, especially in
background checks done during waiting periods for purchase. In many
states, any conviction of domestic violence is enough to prohibit a gun
purchase for a lifetime.
What follows is a reasonable analysis, not one reinforced by statistics. In this framework, "reasonable" does not mean "right" and "statistical" does not mean "wrong". It is just important to draw a distinction between two types of analysis and this one is of a reasonable kind. In the interest of being reasonable, the views of both sides on gun control will be treated with equal respect in this analysis.
Statistics are of limited value in support of gun control because they mostly measure the correlation between gun ownership and gun-related violence. The problem on either side of the equation is that the presence of a gun is already a key variable. Therefore, automatic correlation is shown no matter the outcome of the study. Statistics measuring murder rates among several categories of death method are problematic because they are only comparing among instruments of death. The reason for the murder, suicide, or accidental death, goes unaddressed.
Proponents of gun control point to higher numbers of murder by firearms and assume that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders and accidental deaths. They have several reasonable arguments in their favor. For example, if there is intent to kill, a gun shot from a distance is easier to accomplish and safer for the killer, than murder by other methods. By contrast, a knife attack requires closer proximity, lesser advantage of surprise, greater room for resistance, greater chance of failure, and greater danger to the killer's safety.
Furthermore, considering modern technological improvements made to firepower, accuracy, distance, innocent by-standers are many more times likely to be killed or injured by stray bullets, bullets passing through their target, and the ricochet effect, than by other instruments of death by criminal intent. It is hard to imagine a scenario, without the presence of guns or explosives, in which James Holmes could have entered a movie theater, butchered twelve people and wounded fifty-eight, inside of six to eight minutes before being rushed and overcome by some of the people in the theater.
Intent, however, provides the stronger reasonable argument for the opponents of gun control. For whatever, they teach us, statistics can not reveal to us what murder rates would look like if guns were legally eliminated from society. Guns can not be uninvented. The genie has been out of the bottle for well more than a thousand years. If guns can not be unmade, they can only be legalized or criminalized. The technology of modern weapons does not disappear with a change of laws. Criminalizing gun possession may very well take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law and limit possession to those who break the law.
The criminal mind does not want to do the right and legal thing and, so it follows, that the criminal will obtain the weapons without legal sanction. The law-abiding public will be disarmed. The criminal public will remain armed and organized crime will make a killing (financially, but the pun works anyway) from the sales of illegal weapons with spiraling prices. James Holmes may have lacked a criminal history, but it is clear that James Holmes had a criminal mind. He purchased his weapons legally because he did not have to purchase them illegally. James Holmes well understood that committing murder is illegal, but would he not have obtained the weapons if buying them had been made illegal?
Patriot Thought
What follows is a reasonable analysis, not one reinforced by statistics. In this framework, "reasonable" does not mean "right" and "statistical" does not mean "wrong". It is just important to draw a distinction between two types of analysis and this one is of a reasonable kind. In the interest of being reasonable, the views of both sides on gun control will be treated with equal respect in this analysis.
Statistics are of limited value in support of gun control because they mostly measure the correlation between gun ownership and gun-related violence. The problem on either side of the equation is that the presence of a gun is already a key variable. Therefore, automatic correlation is shown no matter the outcome of the study. Statistics measuring murder rates among several categories of death method are problematic because they are only comparing among instruments of death. The reason for the murder, suicide, or accidental death, goes unaddressed.
Proponents of gun control point to higher numbers of murder by firearms and assume that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders and accidental deaths. They have several reasonable arguments in their favor. For example, if there is intent to kill, a gun shot from a distance is easier to accomplish and safer for the killer, than murder by other methods. By contrast, a knife attack requires closer proximity, lesser advantage of surprise, greater room for resistance, greater chance of failure, and greater danger to the killer's safety.
Furthermore, considering modern technological improvements made to firepower, accuracy, distance, innocent by-standers are many more times likely to be killed or injured by stray bullets, bullets passing through their target, and the ricochet effect, than by other instruments of death by criminal intent. It is hard to imagine a scenario, without the presence of guns or explosives, in which James Holmes could have entered a movie theater, butchered twelve people and wounded fifty-eight, inside of six to eight minutes before being rushed and overcome by some of the people in the theater.
Intent, however, provides the stronger reasonable argument for the opponents of gun control. For whatever, they teach us, statistics can not reveal to us what murder rates would look like if guns were legally eliminated from society. Guns can not be uninvented. The genie has been out of the bottle for well more than a thousand years. If guns can not be unmade, they can only be legalized or criminalized. The technology of modern weapons does not disappear with a change of laws. Criminalizing gun possession may very well take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law and limit possession to those who break the law.
The criminal mind does not want to do the right and legal thing and, so it follows, that the criminal will obtain the weapons without legal sanction. The law-abiding public will be disarmed. The criminal public will remain armed and organized crime will make a killing (financially, but the pun works anyway) from the sales of illegal weapons with spiraling prices. James Holmes may have lacked a criminal history, but it is clear that James Holmes had a criminal mind. He purchased his weapons legally because he did not have to purchase them illegally. James Holmes well understood that committing murder is illegal, but would he not have obtained the weapons if buying them had been made illegal?
Patriot Thought
Gun Control Part 1: Politics and the Batman Theater Shooting
Everything
is political. The movies we watch, the songs we listen to, the books we
read - all are loaded with political messaging intended to make us feel
a certain way about our society. Superhero films are very political
because they get straight to the heart of everything we want: safety,
security, love, and prosperity. We never have any or all of these in the
way we want or in the quantity we desire. It is tempting to blame it on
the imperfections of our world and the powerlessness of ordinary people
to make it better. The attraction of a hero to rush in, deliver us from
our fears and restore our hope is intoxicating, especially in the
difficult times many of us are facing these days; times which many
Americans had grown up unaccustomed to.
Predictably, politics followed hard on the heels of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. So too, did tragedy. A gunman in Colorado took his politics to a crowded theater and massacred innocent people, many of them teenagers and young adults. Before that, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, was already telling his millions of listeners what he believed was the political messaging of the film. Then, the Colorado massacre gave new ammunition to nation's on-going debate over gun control.
A political animal by nature, my mind eagerly absorbed the political messages that came to me last Saturday afternoon when I caught a matinee showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Gotham City had enjoyed eight years of unprecedented safety and security because of a controversial law (inspired by the memory of District Attorney Harvey Dent) that had made it easier to jail criminals, infringing to some degree on the ordinary rights of the accused. The superhero, Batman, was in retirement all this time. He felt society no longer needed him. The system took care of its self, at last.
Yet, out this calm, a storm gathered. Gotham's criminal underworld gradually came under the control of a mercenary/villain known as Bane (who happens to have a Darth Vader-like dependency on a breathing device that gives him steady doses of a substance that relieves chronic pain from severe, past injuries).
Bane's mission was to gather an army of followers and an arsenal of mega-ton explosives to destroy the city's entrances and exits; seal it off from the rest of the country; paralyze and control it through fear of nuclear holocaust if the people disobeyed him; open up the jails and "liberate" the people from the chains of the few, rich people who (Bane claimed) lived off the backs of the poor and oppressed; redistribute the wealth by allowing the people to loot the property of the rich, at will; invite the masses to participate in his regime of terror by setting up and executing their own trials and punishments of anyone they have a problem with.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It comes straight out of the playbook of the 20th century's various Communist revolutionaries. As if this wasn't enough to make the point, Christopher Nolan has Catwoman (Ann Hathaway) roam among Gotham's ruins as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich, taking her cut, and tossing the remaining spoils to the needy. Is she a villain? Not in the eyes of Che Guevara.
In the film, Bane accomplishes all the above and it is clear to everyone that the system can not defeat this foe, only Batman can. Bruce Wayne has to tough out the aches and pains from all the years of punishment his body has taken from fighting bad guys, do some more push-ups, and dust off the old Batman costume. This sounds like a very simple, straight-forward formula for a superhero story, doesn't it? In fact, there's a lot more texture to it than that, but this observer does not want to give away any more plot spoilers than is necessary to make the point that this film is very political.
The Dark Knight Rises is so political that even before its release, Rush Limbaugh ranted about it to his listeners over the airwaves. He viewed Nolan's choice of villain (Bane) as an attempt to blacken the image of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an election year. In discussing the film's impending release, Mr. Limbaugh said moviegoers are, "going to hear [Bane]in the movie, and they are going to associate [Bain]." Bain Capital was a company Mitt Romney had once been C.E.O of. Mr. Limbaugh complained, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh does not see an innocent coincidence.
Ironically, Bane's desire to bring down the rich capitalists and give their money back to "we the people" bares closer relation to the various "occupy" movements of the last year than it does to the values and deeds of Mitt Romney. Indeed, one scene shows Bane "occupying" Gotham City's stock exchange with his thugs, terrorizing the brokers, and sending the market into a tail-spin. One cowering broker tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange. There's no money to steal here" to which Bane asks "than why are you people here?" We can just imagine the followers of "the ninety-nine percent" give out a raucus cheer as Bane proceeds to toss the wimpy broker several feet across the room. Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Hardly.
In fact, even Mr. Limbaugh's claim of a deliberate word association between "Bane" and "Bain" in the 2012 election is not plausible considering how long the script and film were in production. Before the outcome of the Republican primary contest this last spring, no one knew Mitt Romney would still be a presidential candidate come November. Furthermore, Bane had been a character in the Batman universe for many years. A version of him appeared in the 1997 film Batman and Robin. No one at that time had any clue Mitt Romney would some day have a shot at the presidency. But such political posturing from one of the nation's leading political pundits suggest the potential for politics to be read into any film that gets released in 2012.
Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh's politics is harmless compared to the politics of James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20th. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight wounded. The full motive is still unclear, but the fact that Holmes dressed himself in a disguise; told police that he was "The Joker"; executed a well-planned massacre using several types of guns and screened with tear gas; booby-trapped his apartment with trip wire and explosives; all suggests he was acting out a punishment on society in a way inspired by the Batman universe. The fact that his guns and 7,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased legally, has given new fuel to those who advocate a tightening of gun control laws.
Was it the politics of The Dark Knight Rises that led to the tragedy in Colorado? Was it the availability of a vast array of legal weapons? Was it the result of a member of society conditioned by violent entertainment acting out his frustrations in a way inspired by that same entertainment? This observer will not play politics by attempting to answer these questions for you. The proper conveyance of this tragedy's magnitude can not be done if it is shrouded in politics.
Patriot Thought
Predictably, politics followed hard on the heels of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. So too, did tragedy. A gunman in Colorado took his politics to a crowded theater and massacred innocent people, many of them teenagers and young adults. Before that, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, was already telling his millions of listeners what he believed was the political messaging of the film. Then, the Colorado massacre gave new ammunition to nation's on-going debate over gun control.
A political animal by nature, my mind eagerly absorbed the political messages that came to me last Saturday afternoon when I caught a matinee showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Gotham City had enjoyed eight years of unprecedented safety and security because of a controversial law (inspired by the memory of District Attorney Harvey Dent) that had made it easier to jail criminals, infringing to some degree on the ordinary rights of the accused. The superhero, Batman, was in retirement all this time. He felt society no longer needed him. The system took care of its self, at last.
Yet, out this calm, a storm gathered. Gotham's criminal underworld gradually came under the control of a mercenary/villain known as Bane (who happens to have a Darth Vader-like dependency on a breathing device that gives him steady doses of a substance that relieves chronic pain from severe, past injuries).
Bane's mission was to gather an army of followers and an arsenal of mega-ton explosives to destroy the city's entrances and exits; seal it off from the rest of the country; paralyze and control it through fear of nuclear holocaust if the people disobeyed him; open up the jails and "liberate" the people from the chains of the few, rich people who (Bane claimed) lived off the backs of the poor and oppressed; redistribute the wealth by allowing the people to loot the property of the rich, at will; invite the masses to participate in his regime of terror by setting up and executing their own trials and punishments of anyone they have a problem with.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It comes straight out of the playbook of the 20th century's various Communist revolutionaries. As if this wasn't enough to make the point, Christopher Nolan has Catwoman (Ann Hathaway) roam among Gotham's ruins as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich, taking her cut, and tossing the remaining spoils to the needy. Is she a villain? Not in the eyes of Che Guevara.
In the film, Bane accomplishes all the above and it is clear to everyone that the system can not defeat this foe, only Batman can. Bruce Wayne has to tough out the aches and pains from all the years of punishment his body has taken from fighting bad guys, do some more push-ups, and dust off the old Batman costume. This sounds like a very simple, straight-forward formula for a superhero story, doesn't it? In fact, there's a lot more texture to it than that, but this observer does not want to give away any more plot spoilers than is necessary to make the point that this film is very political.
The Dark Knight Rises is so political that even before its release, Rush Limbaugh ranted about it to his listeners over the airwaves. He viewed Nolan's choice of villain (Bane) as an attempt to blacken the image of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an election year. In discussing the film's impending release, Mr. Limbaugh said moviegoers are, "going to hear [Bane]in the movie, and they are going to associate [Bain]." Bain Capital was a company Mitt Romney had once been C.E.O of. Mr. Limbaugh complained, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh does not see an innocent coincidence.
Ironically, Bane's desire to bring down the rich capitalists and give their money back to "we the people" bares closer relation to the various "occupy" movements of the last year than it does to the values and deeds of Mitt Romney. Indeed, one scene shows Bane "occupying" Gotham City's stock exchange with his thugs, terrorizing the brokers, and sending the market into a tail-spin. One cowering broker tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange. There's no money to steal here" to which Bane asks "than why are you people here?" We can just imagine the followers of "the ninety-nine percent" give out a raucus cheer as Bane proceeds to toss the wimpy broker several feet across the room. Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Hardly.
In fact, even Mr. Limbaugh's claim of a deliberate word association between "Bane" and "Bain" in the 2012 election is not plausible considering how long the script and film were in production. Before the outcome of the Republican primary contest this last spring, no one knew Mitt Romney would still be a presidential candidate come November. Furthermore, Bane had been a character in the Batman universe for many years. A version of him appeared in the 1997 film Batman and Robin. No one at that time had any clue Mitt Romney would some day have a shot at the presidency. But such political posturing from one of the nation's leading political pundits suggest the potential for politics to be read into any film that gets released in 2012.
Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh's politics is harmless compared to the politics of James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20th. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight wounded. The full motive is still unclear, but the fact that Holmes dressed himself in a disguise; told police that he was "The Joker"; executed a well-planned massacre using several types of guns and screened with tear gas; booby-trapped his apartment with trip wire and explosives; all suggests he was acting out a punishment on society in a way inspired by the Batman universe. The fact that his guns and 7,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased legally, has given new fuel to those who advocate a tightening of gun control laws.
Was it the politics of The Dark Knight Rises that led to the tragedy in Colorado? Was it the availability of a vast array of legal weapons? Was it the result of a member of society conditioned by violent entertainment acting out his frustrations in a way inspired by that same entertainment? This observer will not play politics by attempting to answer these questions for you. The proper conveyance of this tragedy's magnitude can not be done if it is shrouded in politics.
Patriot Thought
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)