Recently, we found ourselves, greatly dismayed, at hearing a television guest introduced and described, among other identifying, descriptions, as a “gun regulation, advocate;” a designation, where applicable, is, in fact, often routinely, expressed and unemotionally, reacted to. However, on this occasion, the recitation of the subject category, had the effect on us of a pronounced, éclat, suddenly, and astonishingly, disturbing us from a thoughtless and philosophical, deep slumber. We were suddenly, and astonishingly, awakened to the empirical significance of the distressing, fundamental, assumption, necessarily, implicit in the all- too -often, heard, identifying, description.
To elucidate, it appeared disturbingly, significant that, the introduced guest, is described as having, “notably” elected to oppose the widespread, unregulated sale and tragic impact of the use of firearms; as if the appropriate opposition to the popular use of deadly firearms were societally, remarkable.
For too long, American society has implicitly, (and erroneously), adhered to the sophomoric, belief in the faux, uncontroversial, existence of the universal concept, of two sides to every question, viz., “for or against.” Yet, empirically, and pragmatically, there exists no valid, societal argument for the citizen’s right of gun ownership and use, just as there is no countervailing argument regarding the desirability of the elimination of Covid, or any other virulent disease. The subject phrase, “a gun regulation advocate,” should not have the requisite status, capable of being employed, as a useful, description, in aid of the identification of an individual. In accordance with moral humanistic, ethnos, as with pathological disease, societal opposition to lethal weapons, should, appropriately, be deemed no less than unremarkably, universal.
The tactical claim, by some, of a Constitutional grant of a right to bear arms,” is easily controverted, by an objective reading of Article 2, in sync with, and as defined by, its contextual history at the time of its inclusion. The Constitutionally, employed, words, “right of the People to bear arms,” in historical fact, was the result of a settlement of an early, fundamental dispute between the “Federalists” who advocated for a “Central Government,” and the “States Rights” advocates, who demanded separate State Governments. Article 2, expresses the terms of the relevant settlement between the contending parties, in which there was to be a Central (“Federal”) government, yet, the States could raise and maintain independent, standing militias, (“the People”) which militias were afforded the right to bear arms.
The horrific, nightmarish results of the tactical and specious assertion, that the Constitution grants the right of every American to own a death-delivering weapon, as is universally, conceded, has borne the bitter fruit of uncountable, tragedy, not to mention, exacerbated, the divisiveness and hardening within the American Nation.
As a pragmatic matter, guns serve no conceivable purpose, other than to kill or maim. Our modest pocket knife, by contrast, has positive utility, in whittling, cutting string from wrapped packages, as a tool, used in a hobby or for repair, to cut fruit or slice cheese or bread or to open containers and jars. The gun’s utility is solely, restricted, to wounding and killing. We cannot imagine the basis of need for a weapon, solely, purposed to maim and kill, on the part of any sane and properly socialized, human being.
The periodic, occurrence of criminally, insane, mass public shootings and killings, of innocent children and adults, should, rationally, tend to convince every moral and healthy, American citizen, without exception, to unstintingly, maintain a firm and unchangeable, opposition to the tactically, irresponsible assertion of a purported, Constitutional right of the individual, American citizen, to be “armed.” Such opposition should, morally and properly be no less than, universal, and empirically, unremarkable. The thoughtless, reference, “gun control advocate,” should not have utility as a notable, characteristic or as a descriptive, nuance, in the identification of any responsible and sane American citizen.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 