I inadvertently created the term "homicidal bullying" in December of last year while forming a petition on the White House web site. The petition failed to gather 150 signatures which would have earned it a place on the main site where it may have acquired the balance of 25,000 signatures that would have brought it to the attention of the White House. Had that happened, the White House may have decided to sponsor a national discussion on bullying. That discussion would have had the potential to help more people look at bullying differently and hopefully would have lead to all forms of bullying being considered socially unacceptable. If my readers have any ideas as to how to achieve that goal by other means, please let me know. This post is about homicidal bullying. Bullying is the effort to intimidate, dominate, exercise illegitimate power over another or others. The form bullying takes varies with circumstances, personalities, etc. Different forms of bullying vary in terms of intensity. Least to greatest intensity, they are: 1. Attitude. 2. Verbal/written taunting/teasing including gossip/lies/yelling. 3. Threatening. 4. Unwelcome body to body contact. 5. Violent physical attack without weapons. 6. Violent attack using weapons. 7. Lethal attack - with intent to kill. Bullying at its greatest intensity can result in murder. Thus the term "homicidal bullying". When a woman is raped and killed, that is homicidal bullying. When black people were lynched in the South, that was homicidal bullying. When a spouse kills his/her partner in a jealous rage, that is homicidal bullying. Every mass murder in the last 70 years in the U.S. was homicidal bullying. A drive-by shooting is an example of homicidal bullying. Killing is the ultimate way of controlling another person. Ironically, it also ends the possibility of further control of that person. But killing also has a psychological effect on the killer. Killing can make a killer even more of a bully than he/she was before becoming a killer. How should society deal with homicidal bullies? If they had not been supported in their previous bullying behavior, they may never have become homicidal bullies. But once they have murdered, the best thing society can do with homicidal bullies is to keep them separated from others. Whether that takes the form of capital punishment or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is up to the courts. The legal system fails to protect society if it hands out any lesser punishments for homicidal bullies.
ARE VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES A GOOD IDEA?
The answer is, it depends. Do we want to allow our young children to be indoctrinated with the idea that power to destroy life is more valuable than life itself? If so, allow them to play violent video games as much as they can. It will help prepare them to be better professional soldiers, body guards, secret service agents. That is, if, in the meantime, they can (1)avoid being arrested for a violent crime, (2)keep from being killed, and (3) refrain from committing suicide . Professional soldiers in combat situations need to disregard the belief that life is intrinsically valuable. At times they must even be willing to put their own lives at risk for the sake of accomplishing the mission. The mature warrior can shift his value system in non-combat situations and realize life is important. When immature or mentally unstable warriors are allowed to intermingle with civilians in non-combat situations, there is always the possibility of violence erupting. Do we want immature young people living in our midst who have the mind set that power to destroy/dominate/control others is more important than life itself? This is the mind set of a bully. Our willingness to tolerate the playing of violent video games by children under 18 begs the question posed by this blog-do we really want bullying to stop?
WHY DOES THE NRA BUG ME?
I confess to never being fond of the National Rifle Association and other private organizations allegedly designed to protect our "right to bear arms". I thought that it is the function of the Supreme Court to make sure our constitutional rights are preserved. Some people evidently fear the Court is not up to the task. I have no problem with people who feel more secure with a handgun handy to protect the home as long as it is locked up and the ammunition locked up separately from the gun. Personally, I think a lifeline button would make me feel more secure. Nor do I have a problem with people who responsibly own and handle hunting rifles. But let's face the truth. There is a certain percentage of the seemingly normal, law-abiding American population which is psychologically prepared to go hunting in the event of a national disturbance such as widespread race riots. This percentage of the population I suspect would consist mostly of white adult males. They would not be hunting rabid animals, however. Their targets would be members of minorities such as Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, transsexual and homosexual citizens, illegal immigrants, etc.
There is also a certain percentage of the population which owns semiautomatic guns, automatic guns, and large capacity ammunition clips. Not all of the above population would hunt and kill human prey if they had the chance. However, there is bound to be some overlap between the people who are potential homicidal murderers and those who own military style weapons and large ammunition clips. This is something with which I definitely have a problem. Since the NRA and similar organizations support the right of potential homicidal bullies to own and use military style weapons and large ammo clips, I have a problem with them as well.
I also have a bit of compassion for people addicted to all sorts of things. I can sympathize with the thrill seeker who gets a charge from firing military style weapons without having to repeatedly reload. Why can't we limit that activity to licensed firing ranges? The weapons could be checked out like a pair of shoes in the bowling alley. Return the weapon when finished. That way thrill seekers could still fire the weapons but the weapons could also be banned from distribution to and ownership by the public in general. There would have to be regulations on how the weapons would be stored by the firing range owner, etc. That is a task for the bureaucrats.
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Article 2, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President authority over the State militias, which are distinguished from the national Army and Navy. So why does the second amendment to the Constitution read "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 term "free State" seems to refer to individual states since the Constitution proper never refers to the nation as a 'State". The original purpose of the right to keep and bear arms seems to be contingent on the existence of state militias consisting of citizens using their own muskets, knives, etc. rather than relying on state supplied weapons. The present day equivalent of a militia would be each state's National Gaurd which uses government-supplied weapons. I suspect that the writers of this amendment did not envision individual state militias being dependent on the federal government for their weapons. I have no idea why the President of the country was given authority over the state militias unless it would be the reluctance of one state's militia to come to the aid of other states under attack from foreign powers.
Whatever the reason, the Second Amendment was added later. Why was it felt that individual free states needed a well regulated armed Militia in order to be "secure"? Or was the actual emphasis supposed to be remaining "free" states? Since the President was given authority over the state militias, would that not mean he could order them to be disarmed or disbanded? If that happened, would the Federal government not be able to more freely interfere with the rights retained by the states? I don't know that that was the reasoning behind the second amendment. But if it was, the arguments that people need guns for self defense and/or for hunting don't seem very relevant to the defense of the second amendment. In fact, the more people with assault weapons and high capacity clips who would be willing to oppose totalitarian rule by government, the more secure our political freedom may be. The problem is, I, perhaps naively, trust that government poses less of a threat to me than bullies with automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.
The country's founders did not want a totalitarian federal government.
THE SENATE VOTE
The U.S. Senate last week voted against a bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and Internet purchases of firearms. It begs the question, "What are those senators afraid of?" Is it the gun lobby, the NRA, or the federal government itself? It is easy to assume that they are worried about getting reelected. But since 90% of the American public favored this bill, perhaps that assumption is in error. If there is a contingency plan for the American populace or some portion thereof, to overthrow the federal government, any legal controls on weapons, especially assault type weapons with large ammunition capacity, would be a threat to the efficacy of implementing that plan. I believe the U.S. Constitution, in fact, calls for such action if the federal government ever becomes totalitarian. With each administration it seems that our personal rights are getting increasingly eroded. I suspect that has more to do with the increasing complexity of our culture and of the world in general than with the emergence of Big Brother.
But who can say if certain U.S. senators are privy to and supportive of a contingency plan to overthrow the government?
There are any number of anti-government militia groups all over this country already. The Senate vote against background check, intentionally or not, supports these groups. Unfortunately, these militia groups are led by and made up of bullies, bullies with dangerous firearms. Bullies are not interested in freeing anyone from oppression. The only freedom bullies value is the freedom to dominate the non-bullies of this world!
If you are against bullying, please vote against those senators that voted against background checks.
Whatever the reason, the Second Amendment was added later. Why was it felt that individual free states needed a well regulated armed Militia in order to be "secure"? Or was the actual emphasis supposed to be remaining "free" states? Since the President was given authority over the state militias, would that not mean he could order them to be disarmed or disbanded? If that happened, would the Federal government not be able to more freely interfere with the rights retained by the states? I don't know that that was the reasoning behind the second amendment. But if it was, the arguments that people need guns for self defense and/or for hunting don't seem very relevant to the defense of the second amendment. In fact, the more people with assault weapons and high capacity clips who would be willing to oppose totalitarian rule by government, the more secure our political freedom may be. The problem is, I, perhaps naively, trust that government poses less of a threat to me than bullies with automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.
The country's founders did not want a totalitarian federal government.
THE SENATE VOTE
The U.S. Senate last week voted against a bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and Internet purchases of firearms. It begs the question, "What are those senators afraid of?" Is it the gun lobby, the NRA, or the federal government itself? It is easy to assume that they are worried about getting reelected. But since 90% of the American public favored this bill, perhaps that assumption is in error. If there is a contingency plan for the American populace or some portion thereof, to overthrow the federal government, any legal controls on weapons, especially assault type weapons with large ammunition capacity, would be a threat to the efficacy of implementing that plan. I believe the U.S. Constitution, in fact, calls for such action if the federal government ever becomes totalitarian. With each administration it seems that our personal rights are getting increasingly eroded. I suspect that has more to do with the increasing complexity of our culture and of the world in general than with the emergence of Big Brother.
But who can say if certain U.S. senators are privy to and supportive of a contingency plan to overthrow the government?
There are any number of anti-government militia groups all over this country already. The Senate vote against background check, intentionally or not, supports these groups. Unfortunately, these militia groups are led by and made up of bullies, bullies with dangerous firearms. Bullies are not interested in freeing anyone from oppression. The only freedom bullies value is the freedom to dominate the non-bullies of this world!
If you are against bullying, please vote against those senators that voted against background checks.
