Gun Rights Issues Divide the Country & Parties

Article:

Issue of Gun Rights Still Holds Sway

........................................

My opinion. (I encourage you to read the above article first.)
[under construction; bolded words will be linked later. Still mulling and editing]:

• Dialectic polarization regarding this issue must be addressed and transcended as it creates defensive extremism in both directions. Where weapons are concerned this objective is vital as both violence and defenselessness are potential equally dire outcomes of splitting in this case. Ultimately the issue could lead to civil war, and rightly so, according to the founders. And for proponents of non-violence: What would the justification of pushing an agenda to such consequential violence be? Where are your progressive political skills of conflict resolution? What is your responsibility? Antagonism? Fanning the flames? [Note: It is also important to be aware that exploiting dialectical dynamics to "divide and rule" is a common political and military tactic. We must overcome such methods of destabilization by responding to dialectical matters optimally, intelligently and progressively with cooperation, integration and synthesis as the ultimate objectives. Be careful of projection, as distinguished from perception. Know your "enemy." Who are these people defending their (our) right to bear arms? They are your grandfathers, your fathers, your uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters, and former defenders of you and your country (though in times past, sometimes misguided by authority and authoritarianism). For the most part they are ordinary and exceptionally responsible people, every bit as responsible as (if not more than) the police. There is however, a minute minority of provocateurs as well as autonomously violent people drawn to a particular means of violence among them that are in fact dangerous, the greatest danger being to our citizen-based civil defense. They color and promote projected vilification upon our own relatives and fellow citizens whose motives are just, vital and responsible. Use your skills of diplomacy and motives of peacemaking. Step across the isle and discover the truth. Do not allow propaganda to distort your views. Discover as well (shockingly) that America has been thoroughly propagandized and manipulated on both sides of the aisle. With an open and perceptive mind, you will undoubtedly discover the other half (shadow) of your right-brain liberal perspective. Additionally and beneficially it is difficult for friends to be enemies, tending to be comrades instead, with shared goals. Opposites augment and temper one another. Separated they can each be dangerous in their own way.]
  
• The right and means of immediately defending oneself, one's loved ones and one's country from violence and tyranny is an essential cornerstone of our way of government. And with the founders, I believe it is a basic natural human (animal) right. In the heat of the moment a means of defense is essential against murder, rape and other mad violent animal behavior. (Though thankfully the advent of 9-1-1 has eased the need for violence, the time lag in response can be the kiss of death and worse.) Also an armed citizenry is meant to be a safeguard against a government gone astray and contra to it's primary function of protecting its citizens against tyranny. (So I was taught many years ago in an elementary public school in the heartland of the American Revolution, Virginia.)
  
• Secondarily, I believe another basic natural human (animal) right is to obtain food and water for oneself and ones family or community by hunting, gathering and growing food if such is necessary or desired.
  
• Whether acknowledged by government or not, there are inalienable natural rights and there are also negotiable rights of citizenship, potentially such as universal health care. There are also rights of nature including animal rights, so that human predatory and other rights are limited in addition to being limited by the rights of other humans. And so things get sticky where rights intersect, which calls into necessity laws and courts. I do believe people have a right to prohibit weapons from their homes or other property if they so choose. Since they may not disarm people, this means prohibiting armed people from their property as well as arms. I think the same applies to property collectively owned or occupied and controlled by a community. But there is a potential to exploit these rights of prohibition in order to disarm the citizenry by leaving no space un-prohibited. That is why it is important that ownership/occupancy of the prohibited space be the source of prohibition. And it is why some believe Swiss-style/Colonial-style state/community-linked, grassroots organized militias should be established as described by one Virginian. So I continue to ponder this issue and may change my mind...several times. The alternative to respecting this right, is certainly war, as mandated by the founders and embraced by many of those who hold fast to their 2nd amendment rights.
  
• This 2nd amendment right, in my judgment, is vital. Rather than arms, the problem to be addressed is violence, which is a psychological, legal or often political problem. Psychological conditions need to be addressed ideally in order to prevent violent character. Crime must be addressed efficiently so as to curtail violent behavior. Divisive political response to disagreement (dialectics), such as marginalization ("sneer tactics"), must be abandoned and cooperative and integrative responses implemented instead.
  
• Since legally the right to bear arms is a given (though obviously not respected by all), I suggest rather than fighting it, the best should be made of it through obligatory (highly encouraged) education (with strong objections respected). (It only takes a large number of participants to make a significant difference. Universal participation is unnecessary.) Such education would assume many people will have guns and (nearly) all have a right to them, therefore there is a need for preparation for this condition of our society. This might be common ground where both might come together integratively. (If not, I suggest the dialectical polarization must be resolved. Look in the mirror. Look at the shadow of your own views. You might be surprised.) Such education would be extensive and dialectical, evaluated and presented by representatives of all views as well as previewed, evaluated and potentially prohibited by parents. Curricula would be developed utilizing a community-based democratic paradigm (not to be confused with "majority rule" ) that requires inclusive representation and an optimal goal of consensus. From there, inter-community forums could influence each other's views.) I would suggest such as the following be included: 1) addressing psychological issues (including referrals for treatment as the need becomes evident, and that would be for developmental psychotherapy, not medication); 2) anger management training; 3) assertiveness training; 4) communication skills training; 5) conflict resolution/consensus training; 6) non-violent resistance training; 7) self-defense training; 8) history of the 2nd amendment; 9) legal arguments pro/con gun rights/laws; 10) history of violence; 11) comprehensive legal and human consequences of gun violence, including emergency room, morgue, courtroom and prison exposure as well as testimonials about beneficial and tragic gun experiences; 12) fire-arms training; 13) war/peace studies (concepts of which, with exposure to the previous might change and become more progressive through transcendence of the tension of opposites (Jungian concept). Such training might be a rite of passage (such as is driver's ed.) unfurling and highly encouraged during high school years (in public schools, as well as home schools and other alternative options of education media), and up to the age of legal adulthood. At the end of the process, students might also decide whether (or not) to become a part of the nations' defense or peace process (hopefully related to the Department of Peace). They would be better prepared to make such a decision. Universities would offer remedial courses. Adults in the community would receive remedial training, of course respecting a right to decline. [In my view, integrating the fight or flight side of our human animal nature into our conduct is an important aspect of development (joining the hinder and fore parts of our minds, socializing and honing rather than repressing or subverting our instincts. Repression sets primitive impulses behind a dam with potential of bursting into mayhem. It is my opinion that repression also creates a sort of vacuum within consciousness that begs to be filled for the purpose of learning and restoring wholeness. A whole person (including one with instincts in tact and cerebrally linked) is obviously more fully equipped for conducting ones' life. The more prohibited the unconscious matters, the more likely learning experiences will be drawn into a person's life through antagonistic opposites within other people. So the best way to eliminate extremes without is to eliminate them within by cultivating consciousness and psychic integration. Proper maturation and utilization of the full spectrum of our instincts is the optimal goal of development. And this full developmental objective includes such as the heritable trait of altruism, lying dormant within many. (Jung/Fromm/Wilson & My own ideas.)
• Psychological instability does obviously need to be addressed as a danger to society. But, in my opinion, it must be done in a way that protects the human rights of the individual and the spirit of arming the citizenry, so that such limits may not be politically exploited in such a way as to disarm the citizenry against tyrannical rule. This would require individual court hearings where the subject has legal representation and multiple psychological opinions, to be conducted prior to disarmament except in emergencies. I would turn to the expertise of gun owner clubs (collectively) to propose a fool-proof way of imposing such a limitation or addressing this problem. This preventative limitation would be in conjunction with other acts wherever it is sadly necessary to suspend some natural human rights of certain individuals in order to protect society from those determined to be a danger to others and/or themselves. I would like to know more of such laws to enlighten my view; but for now this is my opinion.
  
• Decentralization of power was the key to protection from tyranny that our founders proposed. Keeping the citizenry armed is a part of that vision. Some say that this is a futile stance because of the technological imbalance between armed citizens and the armed federal government. I believe that this brings to light the real problem and that is that the federal government is too powerful militarily and that this power (including armament) needs to be decentralized and redistributed and that the legislative component (leash) of war-making should be restored. Power needs to be restored to the people and the Military Industrial Complex dismantled. If anything should be under the restraint of democratic rule (i.e. rule by the people, consensus being the epitome and constitutionally constricted by inalienable human...and other rights of the natural world), it should be war making. Privatization in this regard creates a dangerous monstrosity. Military and legislative officers should not be permitted to profit financially from their engagement in war by direct or indirect financial investment. This creates an obvious conflict of interest. (I think I read that that is happening. I will need to look again.) Because of the Civil War many assume that the federal government is the means of protecting civil rights. This is true only when it is not guilty of violating civil rights. As our founders knew: Centralization of power is a road to tyranny offering a "steering wheel" to tyrants. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Federal, state and local governments are each responsible to protect our rights from each other, and other potential tyrants. If they fail, the people are responsible to protect their own rights (which was the cause of the American Revolution.)
  
• Personally I am (as usual) with Jefferson. I believe in defensive militias instead of standing armies. However, it's a big world and many human beings are predatory; there has to be a way to keep us safe. To me this is where there are issues that are a matter of world concern. And there is a mandate for world agreement, wherever the whole world is truly at stake. The response as I see it should not be centralized world government, but confederations of militias. Wars of aggression should be illegal. Appropriation of other peoples' things is stealing. Killing people to get stuff or power is murder. This is all sociopathic behavior. World wide individuals should be held responsible for their treatment of other individuals. When there is trouble, rather than wars of groups against groups (damaging innocents and the earth), all are responsible to put down violence in it's tracks (murder, maiming, rape, etc.). When they fail they are complicit. Individuals in the vicinity of such violence are first responsible to respond, next the immediate community, then nearby communities, next militias near the event, extending community by community, state by state in proximity. The only legitimate violent response is to protect people and their inalienable human rights. This is how I imagine a progressive way of dealing with human matters that have always bred war. But I am obviously an idealist. Ideals only absolutely meet their goal within some metaphysical plane from which they emerge (once called "Heaven"). Sound ideals are, however, guiding lights showing the way. They are amendable, organically responsive. But when we let go of them, what remains is darkness, degeneration and depravity. In the Final Judgment, we will all be held accountable for our acts as individuals. "The Devil/Government made me do it," will hold no credence. Amen.

Is there a reason to be concerned about conflict between the government and citizens today?

• Army Combat Team to Train for Homeland Scenarios Under NorthCom
• more later...
• Response of Some Current and Former Military and Police Officers

If you feel that US citizens are incapable of the responsiblity of being armed, please be informed about how that appearance came about and begin to heal from an atrocity perpetrated against us and our revolutionary ideals of 1776. Also notice that this originated in Britain. See a BBC presentation of a film called "The Trap." (Part 1, Part 2, Part3)