America has outdone itself. In many numerous ways. I'm not sure if any other country could take a group of people who have survived a mass shooting, and then send them death threats because they advocate gun control.
Now, let's be clear here, not every American is doing this. Not every NRA member is doing this either. But the fact that a very small group of Americans (and probably some Russian trolls) are sending death threats to the kids of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is, I think we can all agree, shocking. But it's also not even the top of the iceberg.
Ever since the shooting took place on February 14th, all the kids have asked for is tighter gun laws so that this can never happen in a school again. Some are advocating total gun control, some are just asking for gun laws to be tightened. Either way, the White House, the NRA and others in top positions in Government just seem to be ignoring them. And it comes down to the same bullshit arguments.
But this event is different because the young people who went through the atrocity are the ones calling the shots, they're taking charge and, frankly, they're doing their generation proud. The way they've dedicated themselves to the task at hand despite their obvious immense grief is frankly inspirational. Turning all that anger, that sadness and hurt to try and do something positive out of it is forever commendable. So, why are some Americans so against what these children are doing? And why are they so vitriolic about this that they will seemingly stop at nothing to discredit these survivors?
It's a long and complicated story that involves a lot of legal jargon, political ideology and social psychology. But, I'm going to try and translate it for you. (Be aware that my brain is wired differently and it's more like Google Translate than the Rosetta Stone).
So. The Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was passed by Congress on September 25th 1789 and ratified into the United States constitution on December 15th 1791. In it, it said:
Now, this is where the fun begins.
As I'm sure we can all agree, this is an incredibly ambiguous thing in this day and age. But back then, not so much. When this was passed and ratified, the United States of America had only been a country for just over a decade. (Even though the Americans celebrate the Independence Day of July 4th 1776, the British Empire didn't recognise the US as a country until 1781, following the Siege of Yorktown. [2]) So, realistically, the US was still an incredibly paranoid country. Let's take a trip in the Tardis.
What's happening at this time? Well, George Washington is the President, John Adams is waiting in the wings, and the patent for the Steamboat is filed by John Fitch. But the politics of the time was rife with America trying to work out its position in the world. (America also reached Japan for the first time. One day, Japan would return the favour in a huge way).
So, why did the Second Amendment to the Constitution come about?
Truthfully, the American Government had a rational thought. They revolted and started a revolution. What's to say someone else wouldn't in the future? Or, even worse...what if the Government turned out like the British monarchy and became tyrannical? There needed to be a safeguard in case the American President went off his rocker and decided to become a tyrant. So, the Second Amendment gave the American public the chance to protect their country from going down a dark path.
"Oh, the President is trying to take away my rights? Yeah, I have a musket!"
That way, America could still be the land of the free and the home of the brave. The militias could form and arm themselves to make sure that America could stay this way. But, at that moment in time, the weapons were muskets. (You know, the ones you see in historical re-enactments? The ones that take about a year to reload?) Not a semi-automatic weapon. (We'll get onto that later).
Now, I could go into the deep and rich history into why America cessated in the first place. I could also go into the times when America itself nearly broke apart (Civil War). But that's not really conducive to this argument, nor have I the time. So, let's look at this another way. On December 15 1791, the United States ratified the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. What were they? (Read whichever ones you wish, they are lengthy and wordy).
All of these Amendments created a 'Bill of Rights' for the United States. This, in itself, caused a lot of mistrust in Government from the start. The fact that the Government inputted this means they're trying to take control of the people, right?
In most schools of politics, the role of Government is to protect, serve and carry out the will, of the people who voted them in. So, this causes confliction. But in terms of the Second Amendment, the very nature of it means that the people can arm themselves if Government becomes too involved in public affairs. A very Conservative approach, especially looking at the idea of 'Limited Government', the idea that Government should not interfere in all aspects of public life, while Socialism sometimes does advocate increased intervention as a school of thought.
So, doesn't this create a paradox given the current situation?
Yes. Yes it does.
Has the Second Amendment ever been invoked? Well, without much research, an argument could be made that the American Civil War was a point in which the Second Amendment was unofficially invoked. (Or even officially). But what about since then?
Well, not really. Not even the Conservative wrath Barack Obama seemed to cultivate was enough for the American public to take up arms against the Government. (I know. Shocker!)
So what is the debate right now?
Here's where it gets sickening.
After the Parkland shooting, the teenagers who were caught up within it are asking that assault rifles, like the AR-15 which was used in the shooting, be removed from general sale and that the age in which you can get a gun be raised from 18 to 21.
So, here's a fun fact. Here's a few things Americans can't do at 18:
So, what is the solution? Well, it's a lot harder than many would like to maintain.
Republicans: SORT MENTAL HEALTH OUT.
Yeah, ok. You could put far more funding into it than you already have. Oh, and maybe don't repeal legislation that prevents them getting guns?
Democrats: BRING IN MORE GUN CONTROL.
Yeah, good. But, to respect the culture, you have to have a limit to this. There are people with guns who don't go f*****g mental and you don't want to alienate them, they may be politically useful later.
What is not ok though?
Tell the kids who survived this shit that they don't know what they're talking about.
You don't like them talking about guns but you're perfectly ok with them buying them?
And some have received death threats. Really? That's ridiculous. They're not doing anything wrong.
In fact, by saying all this, you're restricting their right to the FIRST AMENDMENT. Huh. Now, are your other Amendments as important to you as the Second? Or are you just picking and choosing the ones you like because you like them?
Worth thinking about.
I could go on but I find this topic too explosive. I'm going to stop here because, frankly, this is hurting my brain more than it perhaps should.
What are your thoughts?
[1] Lund, R & Winkler, A. (2017). THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Available: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii. Last accessed 26th February 2018
[2] Greene and Pole, A Companion to the American Revolution p 357.
[3] Available: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii. Last accessed 27th February 2018
[4] The Odessey Online: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/10-things-that-can-do-now-that-im-21. Last accessed 27th February 2018.
Now, let's be clear here, not every American is doing this. Not every NRA member is doing this either. But the fact that a very small group of Americans (and probably some Russian trolls) are sending death threats to the kids of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is, I think we can all agree, shocking. But it's also not even the top of the iceberg.
Ever since the shooting took place on February 14th, all the kids have asked for is tighter gun laws so that this can never happen in a school again. Some are advocating total gun control, some are just asking for gun laws to be tightened. Either way, the White House, the NRA and others in top positions in Government just seem to be ignoring them. And it comes down to the same bullshit arguments.
But this event is different because the young people who went through the atrocity are the ones calling the shots, they're taking charge and, frankly, they're doing their generation proud. The way they've dedicated themselves to the task at hand despite their obvious immense grief is frankly inspirational. Turning all that anger, that sadness and hurt to try and do something positive out of it is forever commendable. So, why are some Americans so against what these children are doing? And why are they so vitriolic about this that they will seemingly stop at nothing to discredit these survivors?
It's a long and complicated story that involves a lot of legal jargon, political ideology and social psychology. But, I'm going to try and translate it for you. (Be aware that my brain is wired differently and it's more like Google Translate than the Rosetta Stone).
So. The Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was passed by Congress on September 25th 1789 and ratified into the United States constitution on December 15th 1791. In it, it said:
"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". [1]
Now, this is where the fun begins.
As I'm sure we can all agree, this is an incredibly ambiguous thing in this day and age. But back then, not so much. When this was passed and ratified, the United States of America had only been a country for just over a decade. (Even though the Americans celebrate the Independence Day of July 4th 1776, the British Empire didn't recognise the US as a country until 1781, following the Siege of Yorktown. [2]) So, realistically, the US was still an incredibly paranoid country. Let's take a trip in the Tardis.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 1791.
What's happening at this time? Well, George Washington is the President, John Adams is waiting in the wings, and the patent for the Steamboat is filed by John Fitch. But the politics of the time was rife with America trying to work out its position in the world. (America also reached Japan for the first time. One day, Japan would return the favour in a huge way).
So, why did the Second Amendment to the Constitution come about?
Truthfully, the American Government had a rational thought. They revolted and started a revolution. What's to say someone else wouldn't in the future? Or, even worse...what if the Government turned out like the British monarchy and became tyrannical? There needed to be a safeguard in case the American President went off his rocker and decided to become a tyrant. So, the Second Amendment gave the American public the chance to protect their country from going down a dark path.
"Oh, the President is trying to take away my rights? Yeah, I have a musket!"
That way, America could still be the land of the free and the home of the brave. The militias could form and arm themselves to make sure that America could stay this way. But, at that moment in time, the weapons were muskets. (You know, the ones you see in historical re-enactments? The ones that take about a year to reload?) Not a semi-automatic weapon. (We'll get onto that later).
Now, I could go into the deep and rich history into why America cessated in the first place. I could also go into the times when America itself nearly broke apart (Civil War). But that's not really conducive to this argument, nor have I the time. So, let's look at this another way. On December 15 1791, the United States ratified the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. What were they? (Read whichever ones you wish, they are lengthy and wordy).
The First Amendment:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'. (The right to free speech, free press and free assembly).
The Second Amendment:
'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 right to bear arms).
The Third Amendment:
'No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law'. (The Quartering of Soldiers).
The Fourth Amendment:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized'. (The right to a warrant for a property search).
The Fifth Amendment:
'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation' (The right to being innocent until proven guilty).
The Sixth Amendment:
'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence'. (The right to a fair trial and to be represented by a lawyer).
The Seventh Amendment:
'In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law'. (The right to a jury).
The Eighth Amendment:
'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted'. (The right to fair punishment).
The Ninth Amendment:
'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'. (The right to all rights, even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution).
The Tenth Amendment:
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. (The right for individual states to administer their own rights in line with the Constitution...I think...it's a little vague). [3]
In most schools of politics, the role of Government is to protect, serve and carry out the will, of the people who voted them in. So, this causes confliction. But in terms of the Second Amendment, the very nature of it means that the people can arm themselves if Government becomes too involved in public affairs. A very Conservative approach, especially looking at the idea of 'Limited Government', the idea that Government should not interfere in all aspects of public life, while Socialism sometimes does advocate increased intervention as a school of thought.
So, doesn't this create a paradox given the current situation?
Yes. Yes it does.
Has the Second Amendment ever been invoked? Well, without much research, an argument could be made that the American Civil War was a point in which the Second Amendment was unofficially invoked. (Or even officially). But what about since then?
Well, not really. Not even the Conservative wrath Barack Obama seemed to cultivate was enough for the American public to take up arms against the Government. (I know. Shocker!)
So what is the debate right now?
Here's where it gets sickening.
After the Parkland shooting, the teenagers who were caught up within it are asking that assault rifles, like the AR-15 which was used in the shooting, be removed from general sale and that the age in which you can get a gun be raised from 18 to 21.
So, here's a fun fact. Here's a few things Americans can't do at 18:
- Get a pilot's licence.
- Gamble in Iowa
- Get married without parental consent (Mississippi only).
- Obtain a concealed weapons permit. (Interesting)
- Legally possess one ounce of marijuana in Colorado.
- Apply to adopt a British child.
- Drink (legally)
- Be tried as an adult. [4]
But you can legally buy a gun. You can buy a gun, but you have to wait 3 years to obtain a concealed weapons permit.
You know what, I've been working on this blog for a couple of days now and I've been reading all of the information and been trying to wrap my brains around everything and I've had enough. I can't sit and write this without talking about what I, as a Brit, thinks should happen. So I'm going to do that from now on instead.
Yes, the FBI screwed up. But they're not infallible. And the fact that many Republicans are turning their attention to the FBI's behaviour is deeply troubling. Because they're ignoring the common denominator.
Guns.
When the Second Amendment was written in the 1780s and ratified in 1791, they were working with Muskets. They were not thinking about semi-automatic, or even fully, automatic weapons. How could they? The technology for that wasn't around at that point. So, the question becomes, 'would the founding fathers have changed their minds on the second amendment if they saw the weapons of today?'
We'll never know the answer to that question because we don't have a time machine. What we do have is evidence and common sense. Or, in this case, a distinct lack of.
Guns are fun to watch but they're not fun when you're on the other end of a barrel. And, when a mass school shooting happened in Scotland in 1996, the UK brought in gun control and we've had no mass shootings since.
This is how I explained my view to my Mum the other day:
"There's an argument for guns and mental health being the issue. However, in the UK, if you have a mental health issue and you want to take it out on people you can go 'well, I can try and get a gun but it'd hard to. Alternatively, I could just get this knife from my kitchen, jump in my car, and let loose'. It works the same in the United States. The difference is, guns are more widely available, they're more powerful and they'll cause more damage!"
So, what is the solution? Well, it's a lot harder than many would like to maintain.
Republicans: SORT MENTAL HEALTH OUT.
Yeah, ok. You could put far more funding into it than you already have. Oh, and maybe don't repeal legislation that prevents them getting guns?
Democrats: BRING IN MORE GUN CONTROL.
Yeah, good. But, to respect the culture, you have to have a limit to this. There are people with guns who don't go f*****g mental and you don't want to alienate them, they may be politically useful later.
What is not ok though?
Tell the kids who survived this shit that they don't know what they're talking about.
You don't like them talking about guns but you're perfectly ok with them buying them?
And some have received death threats. Really? That's ridiculous. They're not doing anything wrong.
In fact, by saying all this, you're restricting their right to the FIRST AMENDMENT. Huh. Now, are your other Amendments as important to you as the Second? Or are you just picking and choosing the ones you like because you like them?
Worth thinking about.
I could go on but I find this topic too explosive. I'm going to stop here because, frankly, this is hurting my brain more than it perhaps should.
What are your thoughts?
[1] Lund, R & Winkler, A. (2017). THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Available: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii. Last accessed 26th February 2018
[2] Greene and Pole, A Companion to the American Revolution p 357.
[3] Available: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii. Last accessed 27th February 2018
[4] The Odessey Online: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/10-things-that-can-do-now-that-im-21. Last accessed 27th February 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment