Behind the Connecticut Massacre

December 17, 2012

A Culture of Violence

Behind the Connecticut Massacre

by JERRY KROTH

Downloaded 12/17/12 from https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12...icut-massacre/


Each time there is an outbreak of homicidal mania, whether Columbine, Virginia Tech, or Adam Lanza’s slaughter of twenty eight innocents in Connecticut, the media directs us to stories about gun control and the need for better policing of individuals with mental illnesses.


The larger context—that America is a society brimming over with violence—is entirely lost in the discussion.
Let’s take a look at the forest for a change, shall we:


There are 192 million firearms owned by Americans, more than any other society in the world.Our rate of death from firearms is three times that of France and Canada, fourteen times greater than Ireland, and two hundred and fifty times greater than Japan, where firearms are aggressively controlled.
The U.S. has more prisoners, per capita, than any country on earth—three times more than Cuba, seven times more than Germany—and, indeed, we house twenty-five percent of all the prisoners in the world.
As for media violence, by the time the average American child leaves elementary school, they will have witnessed 8,000 murders and over 100,000 other acts of violence, and, to rub more salt into these open wounds, the U.S. also leads the world in the sale and rental of violent video games.


That litany of statistics comes to us compliments of our gratuitous interpretations of the First and Second Amendments.


But the forest we are talking grows ever larger.
Since World War II, the United States engaged in over fifty military operations abroad killing some four million people (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, the list goes on). If you add in to that total massacres by proxies and surrogates, the number flirts with five million (Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, and elsewhere).


We are the only country in the world seemingly perpetually at war. In 2011-2012 alone, the United States was killing people in nine different countries: Iraq and Afghanistan with troops, Libya with rockets, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen with drones, Honduras with raids against drug cartels, the Philippines with air support against insurgents, and most recently in Kenya as 150 Special forces started their operations. No other country in the world can boast of so many military involvements.


To remedy the horrors we saw in Connecticut should not be limited to screening mentally ill individuals from purchasing Glocks—which is about as far as our craven mainstream media wishes to venture. Instead we need to recognize the massacres of Jonestown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Connecticut are merely symptoms of a much more ubiquitous cancer.


To finally address this problem is to begin a long and arduous process of cultivating a culture of peace. Such collective psychotherapy begins by treating the patient on many fronts and in a multi-dimensional way: To forbid the sale of handguns, nationwide; to ration the sale of ammunition; to prohibit the sale of violent toys to children (Greece already does), to aggressively control the sale and access of violent video games to children (Australia, Venezuela, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Brazil already do), and to prohibit the broadcast of violent scenes, explicit or implicit, on network television during family viewing hours, a practice already in effect in many European countries


And, who knows, we might even take it one step further and retreat from our aspirations of empire and global hegemony, close down our military operations, and bring our vast armies and armadas home —over 400,000 Americans at last count stationed in almost 1,000 overseas military bases.
Russia has ten overseas military bases. China none.
So much room to grow!


Imagine our progressive President, instead of limiting his compassion to the shedding of a tear at a press conference, actually proposed comprehensive and revolutionary changes and legislation that focused not on the symptoms but, at long last, finally started to address the disease itself.


Jerry Kroth, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor Emeritus from Santa Clara University and the author of Duped! Delusion, denial, and the end of the American Dream, 2012. He maintains a website at collectivepsych.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dr. Kroth reprises the evidence that America is a violent society. Deep in America's collective unconscious lies a dreadful violent aggression. Each one of us citizens participates in the American collective unconscious to a greater or (rarely) lesser extent. The violent aggression resides in our individual psyches and collectively in our shared unconscious. Movies like "Jack Reacher," "Django Unchained," "Reservoir Dogs," "Looper," "Pulp Fiction," and a thousand more manifest our violently aggressive collective unconscious. Our investment in nuclear weapons, drones, and wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a hundred more manifest our cultural violence.

I advocate for Universal Mental Health Care as well as for Universal Medical Health Care. Unless and until we begin to treat ourselves and to resolve the developmental causes of our violent attitudes, emotions, and behaviors, there will be more Newtowns, more Columbines, more VMAs. The developmental causes are identifiable. Families are sometimes physically violent institutions and often psychologically and psychically violent institutions. President Obama said we must do more. I offer here one example of the "more" that we can and must do.

Star Man

Here's a comment I posted on Huffington Post a couple of days ago that speaks to these issues:

Newtown is a symptom of our civilization's difficulty managing aggression. As a species, we survived because we were violent, more aggressive than our competitors. Aggression no longer serves us, but we have not learned that. Sadly, our civilization has not yet integrated the knowledge about human psychology that has emerged over the last century. We do not have a psychologically informed world-view within which to understand Newtown. We do not have a psychologically informed world-view with which to comprehend our nation's addiction to defense, to America's weapons of mass destruction, to drones, to the way in which America's arms manufacturers have weaponized the world. As a result we call Newtown a "senseless" tragedy. Newtown is not senseless at all. At Newtown the violence that permeates American culture boiled to the surface with tragic consequences, but that violence is everywhere. We glorify violence with the fly-overs at the beginning of major sports events. We accept the implicit violence in the commercials for Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force that sponsor the televised sports events. We accept the investment of over half a trillion dollars of our national wealth every year in violence embodied in the defense department. We have not understood that our national violence manifests the violence inherent in our families and our child-rearing practices. We are a violent nation of violent citizens, and we should not be surprised that the violence we have wreaked in Iraq and Afghanistan has now wreaked havoc in Newtown.

Here's another comment I put up on Huffington Post in response to someone who suggested that teachers should be armed:

I hear the NRA is proposing that school children should be armed. Smith & Wesson is developing a very light-weight, brightly colored, plastic (so it can pass through metal detectors) handgun in association with Nickleodeon's Dora the Explorer. It will be called Dora's Schoolyard Special. It will be loaded with just three .38 caliber hollow-point bullets. Dora says, "Shoot first. Ask questions if he's still alive."

It is helpful to remember and deeply understand that the stance behind Perpetrator is always defensive, often thrusting through overwhelming despair. A culture of violence is also one of defensive despair, arising from deep cultural truama that has never been healed. Blame and Shame are not going to heal this one. Only personal responsibility, thoughtfulness and restraint will help us change this story. Rev. Skye

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

December 17, 2012

A Culture of Violence

Behind the Connecticut Massacre

by JERRY KROTH

Downloaded 12/17/12 from https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12...icut-massacre/

...

======
Dr. Kroth reprises the evidence that America is a violent society. Deep in America's collective unconscious lies a dreadful violent aggression. Each one of us citizens participates in the American collective unconscious to a greater or (rarely) lesser extent. The violent aggression resides in our individual psyches and collectively in our shared unconscious. Movies like "Jack Reacher," "Django Unchained," "Reservoir Dogs," "Looper," "Pulp Fiction," and a thousand more manifest our violently aggressive collective unconscious. Our investment in nuclear weapons, drones, and wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a hundred more manifest our cultural violence.

I advocate for Universal Mental Health Care as well as for Universal Medical Health Care. Unless and until we begin to treat ourselves and to resolve the developmental causes of our violent attitudes, emotions, and behaviors, there will be more Newtowns, more Columbines, more VMAs. The developmental causes are identifiable. Families are sometimes physically violent institutions and often psychologically and psychically violent institutions. President Obama said we must do more. I offer here one example of the "more" that we can and must do.

Star Man

---

I will share a somewhat different view:

Violence is one of many addictions and is common to certain members of our generally addictive society. Fortunately, only a small percentage of us appear to use violence addictively, i.e., as a coping or avoidance mechanism (others use it - generally indirectly - as a means to support their addiction to control/power). As with all addictions, violence is used as a distraction from experiencing a deeply buried sense of powerlessness and the feelings (perhaps including rage) associated with it. And as with many addictions, it can be passed down from one generation to the next. Such was apparently the case with Adam Lanza, whose mother is said to have been somewhat obsessed with guns and encouraged her son to make use of them. In other families, the addiction of choice may be alcohol, drugs or sex; in this one, it happened to be guns.

Violence that kills or maims innocent people - especially children - cries out for an effective response. I question, though, the usefulness of making guns more difficult to get. Those who are addicted to anything will find ways to maintain their supply. Prohibition didn't end alcoholism; it just made it temporarily more expensive or challenging.

Addictive behavior of all kinds arises from real unmet human needs and unexpressed human feelings. We are a society of addicts because we tend to discount certain of these needs: especially emotional or relational needs. These include needs for safety, respect, acceptance, trust, caring, nurturing (e.g., touch) and compassion; valuing/appreciation, being seen and heard, etc. The mind's primary function is to enable us to get our needs met - which means to keep the life energy flowing on all levels of our beings. When it is unable to successfully perform this function, it switches to a secondary function: distancing our attention from the painful experience of failure by providing a range of distractions. These include negative self-beliefs, stories and acquired pseudo-needs, i.e., addictive behavior patterns. We substitute something we can get - food, sex, alcohol, guns, etc. - for those things we believe we can't get: love, safety, respect, etc. Most all of these self-distracting or "coping" mechanisms come from our significant others, starting from the earliest years of our lives.

My sense is that the most effective and powerful way to address our addictive patterns of all kinds is to reconnect with the real unmet needs and unexpressed feelings within us and to re-own the parts of ourselves we have lost touch with or abandoned. This, I believe, is most likely to happen in an environment in which it is possible for us to experience all of our emotional needs being met. And it's not that difficult for a group of people who come together with that intent to create such an environment. Indeed, I believe this is what people are doing in many kinds of support groups or in AA, ACA (etc) groups. What seems missing from these groups is the conscious intention to create such a supportive environment, what that entails and the tools we can use to do it.

Violent aggression is life energy that has been blocked in its positive forms of expression and instead comes out "the back way," in perverted or monstrous behaviors. It is human consciousness that has been cut off from it's own humanity - from it's true needs and feelings and it's ability to see, empathize and identify with others. The disowned parts of us don't just go away and that energy doesn't give up seeking a way to flow. When it is stifled, the force may build up until it explodes in injurious or even lethal ways. If we want to end such tragedies as occurred in Newtown, CT and other places, we need to be willing to address human needs on all levels. Most all of us are addicted in some way and we could all use some help. Meeting our real emotional and relational needs doesn't cost a lot of money. It does mean turning our attention from all our distractions (including the socially sanctioned ones - like work), spending quality time with each other, offering our presence and our heart-level truth to each other - and creating an environment that is safe, accepting, caring and supportive enough to invite all of who we are to be present, seen and heard.

Clint Summer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Here's a comment I posted on Huffington Post a couple of days ago that speaks to these issues:

Newtown is a symptom of our civilization's difficulty managing aggression. As a species, we survived because we were violent, more aggressive than our competitors. Aggression no longer serves us, but we have not learned that. Sadly, our civilization has not yet integrated the knowledge about human psychology that has emerged over the last century. We do not have a psychologically informed world-view within which to understand Newtown. We do not have a psychologically informed world-view with which to comprehend our nation's addiction to defense, to America's weapons of mass destruction, to drones, to the way in which America's arms manufacturers have weaponized the world. As a result we call Newtown a "senseless" tragedy. Newtown is not senseless at all. At Newtown the violence that permeates American culture boiled to the surface with tragic consequences, but that violence is everywhere. We glorify violence with the fly-overs at the beginning of major sports events. We accept the implicit violence in the commercials for Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force that sponsor the televised sports events. We accept the investment of over half a trillion dollars of our national wealth every year in violence embodied in the defense department. We have not understood that our national violence manifests the violence inherent in our families and our child-rearing practices. We are a violent nation of violent citizens, and we should not be surprised that the violence we have wreaked in Iraq and Afghanistan has now wreaked havoc in Newtown.

---

Santa, this year

Wow, Smith & Wesson is on this, like white on rice! Rather than limiting the gun sales, let's get more into circulation in the hands of the little ones. Initiate our children into violence early on, after all it's part of our history and culture! Even if every child were armed, if a gunman/woman begins a massacre with an automatic weapon, will the Dora Schoolyard Special be of any real defense? What might be more likely is that when conflicts arise among children, as they often do, they'll use the gun rather than learn conflict resolution through communication or a fist fight/hair pulling which has been done for a very long time.

Arming citizens might seem like a defensive move, but the advantage is always in the predator's court because they have the plan of attack, the weapons, and the motivation of anger/depression to make a killing. Only those with special training might be able to thwart such an attack because they have an awareness that the average person doesn't

I know there are defensive actions that we could be more aware of; it's kind of like defensive driving. I learned something from my son, who always sat facing the entrance when we went to a restaurant. He explained that this gave him an advantage to see and be aware of who was coming in, and their demeanor. It was a foreign concept to me. I haven't done any research on this, but it might be helpful to know some of the things we can do to increase our awareness. Children are the most vulnerable, and depend on us for protection.

There's more education now than when I was a child, about "strangers" and even "relatives" who are inappropriate. I was aware of things that most of my classmates weren't, only because I was "street wise"
with no supervision. I was approached several times by men who had harmful intentions. I played along, with my words, so they had the impression that I was unaware.

The first time I was 6, and was with a friend trying to find our teacher's apt. A man approached to "help", and showed me the fire escape ladder which was in the underground parking lot. I told my friend to wait near the parking lot entrance, and that I'd let her in once this man showed me where the apt. was. I started up the fire escape, and he was behind me. I turned back and saw that he had a knife. I screamed to my friend, "Go get my Daddy!" The man was so surprised, he put the knife away, and took off.

There were other incidents, and because of my acute awareness (out of necessity) I was able to escape, and even put a potential molester in jail, for awhile. I was 9 at the time.

I was the one girl in my crowd who saw flashers by the fence of the school yard. When I pointed it out to the others, they were afraid to report it to a teacher. I had no hesitation, but did it in a casual way so the man wouldn't be alerted. He was still there when the police arrived.

I know that awareness most likely couldn't help anyone in a massacre situation. I avoid places where large crowds gather because I know that these events are a perfect scenario for those who wish to kill a lot of people at once.

Obama talks about a way to prevent this in the future, but realistically we can't prevent crime of any kind. In school situations, maybe a kind of electronic response that would react to the metal and composition of a gun or
bomb that would create a lock down situation to prevent entrance. If we can prevent shopping carts from going off the parking lot, we should be able to prevent guns, etc. from entering any place. The school yard is highly vulnerable to attack, but this person didn't wait for that opportunity. He probably could have killed even more.

Let's give more emphasis to "prevention" rather than "defense", just like what's advocated for illness and disease. This is a disease already rampant in our culture. It will be interesting to see what kinds of solutions will be offered, besides arming ourselves and our children.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Here's another comment I put up on Huffington Post in response to someone who suggested that teachers should be armed:

I hear the NRA is proposing that school children should be armed. Smith & Wesson is developing a very light-weight, brightly colored, plastic (so it can pass through metal detectors) handgun in association with Nickleodeon's Dora the Explorer. It will be called Dora's Schoolyard Special. It will be loaded with just three .38 caliber hollow-point bullets. Dora says, "Shoot first. Ask questions if he's still alive."

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Wow, Smith & Wesson is on this, like white on rice! Rather than limiting the gun sales, let's get more into circulation in the hands of the little ones. Initiate our children into violence early on, after all it's part of our history and culture! Even if every child were armed, if a gunman/woman begins a massacre with an automatic weapon, will the Dora Schoolyard Special be of any real defense? What might be more likely is that when conflicts arise among children, as they often do, they'll use the gun rather than learn conflict resolution through communication or a fist fight/hair pulling which has been done for a very long time.

---

Dear Shandi, My comment about Smith & Wesson was satire. I have no idea whether Smith & Wesson is working with Nickelodeon or not or whether they are planning to release a Dora the Explorer Schoolyard Special, BUT THEY MIGHT. In this insane culture, the idea is not impossible. I apologize for having fooled you. At the same time, your willingness to believe my satire exposes how ingrained in our culture the insanity is. Satire is the way I deal with the insanity of our society. I don't know what else to do.

Clint, I agree with your summary, and just wonder about this part: "
"Most all of us are addicted in some way and we could all use some help. Meeting our real emotional and relational needs doesn't cost a lot of money. It does mean turning our attention from all our distractions (including the socially sanctioned ones - like work), spending quality time with each other, offering our presence and our heart-level truth to each other - and creating an environment that is safe, accepting, caring and supportive enough to invite all of who we are to be present, seen and heard."

Addictions are not easy to eliminate, and replace with what you're suggesting. Who of us will turn our attention from our addicting distractions? Imagine how difficult it would be to turn off the TV for even a day? Or our cell phone, computer, shopping, etc.

I agree that if we were willing and able to do these things you suggest, it would help a lot. This is what's behind my willingness to spend time with the people I know who are lonely, isolated and mentally ill. I could be spending my time having more personal fun, but I believe that the time I spend with them makes a huge difference. It's something I can do to show that I care....that someone cares.

To be able to "listen" is the greatest gift we can give each other, and all beings have the need to be heard, even if they're shy and have difficulty expressing or if they're manic unstoppable talkers. I know that this is something I've been blessed with, the ability to be with someone and truly listen.

I remember the first time I met a mentally ill person who always wore headphones with music blasting (to shut out the sounds of his environment). I invited him to sit with me, and to share my sandwich. He started talking, but left the headphones in place, but probably turned the volume down. He told me he was bipolar, and other details of what was going on in his life. He talked very fast and very loud, but I continued to hold eye contact, and just listen, with no questions. (There really wasn't space for me to speak anyway, but I had no need.)

After about 20 minutes into his monologue, he removed the headphones, and said "You're really listening, aren't you?" I said "Yes, I am." After that day, he stopped wearing his headphones when we visited with each other. He had a lot to say, and I had the feeling that he'd never really been heard. Now, almost 20 years later, I've given him a cell phone, and he calls almost everyday, just to be listened to. Sometimes, I say "I need to tell you something", and it can take awhile for him to make that space to hear me. But I explain that if he doesn't listen to me, he's going to miss something important that I have to say about an upcoming visit, or asking for a list of his needs. When we are in person with each other, I may use the hand gesture used in schools, for permission to speak, because trying to talk over him doesn't work at all. It's almost like he can't hear me, but his hearing is fine.

With so many of us needing to be heard, it can be a challenge to "just listen", but I believe it's one of the most powerful healing tools we possess. The second powerful tool is to be able to ask for space to be heard, without comment, suggestions or attempts at problem solving from the listener we choose. I realize this is ancient stuff that some of us learned from Carl Rogers, way back in the day. But it still works, even without the reflective feedback.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

I will share a somewhat different view:

Violence is one of many addictions and is common to certain members of our generally addictive society. Fortunately, only a small percentage of us appear to use violence addictively, i.e., as a coping or avoidance mechanism (others use it - generally indirectly - as a means to support their addiction to control/power). As with all addictions, violence is used as a distraction from experiencing a deeply buried sense of powerlessness and the feelings (perhaps including rage) associated with it. And as with many addictions, it can be passed down from one generation to the next. Such was apparently the case with Adam Lanza, whose mother is said to have been somewhat obsessed with guns and encouraged her son to make use of them. In other families, the addiction of choice may be alcohol, drugs or sex; in this one, it happened to be guns.

Violence that kills or maims innocent people - especially children - cries out for an effective response. I question, though, the usefulness of making guns more difficult to get. Those who are addicted to anything will find ways to maintain their supply. Prohibition didn't end alcoholism; it just made it temporarily more expensive or challenging.

Addictive behavior of all kinds arises from real unmet human needs and unexpressed human feelings. We are a society of addicts because we tend to discount certain of these needs: especially emotional or relational needs. These include needs for safety, respect, acceptance, trust, caring, nurturing (e.g., touch) and compassion; valuing/appreciation, being seen and heard, etc. The mind's primary function is to enable us to get our needs met - which means to keep the life energy flowing on all levels of our beings. When it is unable to successfully perform this function, it switches to a secondary function: distancing our attention from the painful experience of failure by providing a range of distractions. These include negative self-beliefs, stories and acquired pseudo-needs, i.e., addictive behavior patterns. We substitute something we can get - food, sex, alcohol, guns, etc. - for those things we believe we can't get: love, safety, respect, etc. Most all of these self-distracting or "coping" mechanisms come from our significant others, starting from the earliest years of our lives.

My sense is that the most effective and powerful way to address our addictive patterns of all kinds is to reconnect with the real unmet needs and unexpressed feelings within us and to re-own the parts of ourselves we have lost touch with or abandoned. This, I believe, is most likely to happen in an environment in which it is possible for us to experience all of our emotional needs being met. And it's not that difficult for a group of people who come together with that intent to create such an environment. Indeed, I believe this is what people are doing in many kinds of support groups or in AA, ACA (etc) groups. What seems missing from these groups is the conscious intention to create such a supportive environment, what that entails and the tools we can use to do it.

Violent aggression is life energy that has been blocked in its positive forms of expression and instead comes out "the back way," in perverted or monstrous behaviors. It is human consciousness that has been cut off from it's own humanity - from it's true needs and feelings and it's ability to see, empathize and identify with others. The disowned parts of us don't just go away and that energy doesn't give up seeking a way to flow. When it is stifled, the force may build up until it explodes in injurious or even lethal ways. If we want to end such tragedies as occurred in Newtown, CT and other places, we need to be willing to address human needs on all levels. Most all of us are addicted in some way and we could all use some help. Meeting our real emotional and relational needs doesn't cost a lot of money. It does mean turning our attention from all our distractions (including the socially sanctioned ones - like work), spending quality time with each other, offering our presence and our heart-level truth to each other - and creating an environment that is safe, accepting, caring and supportive enough to invite all of who we are to be present, seen and heard.

Clint Summer

---

Starman, Thanks for letting me know; I can be a little naive, even at my age. It seemed so possible because of other insane creations I've seen. It might actually not be far off the mark, but I'm really glad to know it was your satire, and not reality.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Dear Shandi, My comment about Smith & Wesson was satire. I have no idea whether Smith & Wesson is working with Nickelodeon or not or whether they are planning to release a Dora the Explorer Schoolyard Special, BUT THEY MIGHT. In this insane culture, the idea is not impossible. I apologize for having fooled you. At the same time, your willingness to believe my satire exposes how ingrained in our culture the insanity is. Satire is the way I deal with the insanity of our society. I don't know what else to do.

---

Yes, I agree, Shandi. Until we have a taste of our real needs being met, we're likely to cling to those things that keep us distracted.
And in a society that feeds and supports our addictive patterns in so many ways, it's very difficult to imagine any other way of life. I think of rats that once lived in a healthy natural environment adapting to surviving in urban sewers, with all the toxic substances. Yet I want to believe that the capacity for a healthier and more natural way of life still exists within us, and that we can find our way back to a way of living that doesn't depend on the effluent of a dead-end culture.

Meanwhile, armed guards at all the public schools may make a lot of sense. For myself, I will keep seeking others who want to build communities as oases in the emotional/relational desert that is the dominant culture; communities that could model a nonviolent, humane, sustainable way of life.

An older movie ( "Black Narcissus," based on a pre-WWII novel) I watched recently was about a group of nuns who establish a convent in Himalayan India. The "holy man" in the movie was someone who did nothing but sit in silence, day in and day out, apparently living on gifts of food that people brought him. To me, it was a profound contrast to the Catholic (and British) way of life with all the rituals and practices of their religion and lives. It brings up one of my favorite questions: Why do anything?

Clearly, doing nothing is ultimately not a sustainable way of life for most of us. And our life energy wants to flow in so many creative and interesting ways! So how do we distinguish "right action" from addictive or self-distractive activities? One moves us toward health and wholeness, toward "seeing more and being more" - expanded awareness and blossoming of our higher potential; the other tends at best to keep us stuck where we are and at worst can move us in a degenerative downward spiral.

Addictive behavior can be viewed as a "holding pattern" that we stay in, waiting - like a plant deprived of water, nutrients or light - for the conditions that will support the healing and growth that can enable us to let go of our limiting beliefs and move forward on our spiritual journeys. I believe (unlike plants) it is within our power as humans to create those conditions, and by spending time within such special environments, complete our growth to full adulthood with the capacity for living cooperatively in relationships and communities of mutual caring and support.

Peace,
Clint

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Clint, I agree with your summary, and just wonder about this part: "
"Most all of us are addicted in some way and we could all use some help. Meeting our real emotional and relational needs doesn't cost a lot of money. It does mean turning our attention from all our distractions (including the socially sanctioned ones - like work), spending quality time with each other, offering our presence and our heart-level truth to each other - and creating an environment that is safe, accepting, caring and supportive enough to invite all of who we are to be present, seen and heard."

Addictions are not easy to eliminate, and replace with what you're suggesting. Who of us will turn our attention from our addicting distractions? Imagine how difficult it would be to turn off the TV for even a day? Or our cell phone, computer, shopping, etc.

I agree that if we were willing and able to do these things you suggest, it would help a lot. This is what's behind my willingness to spend time with the people I know who are lonely, isolated and mentally ill. I could be spending my time having more personal fun, but I believe that the time I spend with them makes a huge difference. It's something I can do to show that I care....that someone cares.

To be able to "listen" is the greatest gift we can give each other, and all beings have the need to be heard, even if they're shy and have difficulty expressing or if they're manic unstoppable talkers. I know that this is something I've been blessed with, the ability to be with someone and truly listen.

I remember the first time I met a mentally ill person who always wore headphones with music blasting (to shut out the sounds of his environment). I invited him to sit with me, and to share my sandwich. He started talking, but left the headphones in place, but probably turned the volume down. He told me he was bipolar, and other details of what was going on in his life. He talked very fast and very loud, but I continued to hold eye contact, and just listen, with no questions. (There really wasn't space for me to speak anyway, but I had no need.)

After about 20 minutes into his monologue, he removed the headphones, and said "You're really listening, aren't you?" I said "Yes, I am." After that day, he stopped wearing his headphones when we visited with each other. He had a lot to say, and I had the feeling that he'd never really been heard. Now, almost 20 years later, I've given him a cell phone, and he calls almost everyday, just to be listened to. Sometimes, I say "I need to tell you something", and it can take awhile for him to make that space to hear me. But I explain that if he doesn't listen to me, he's going to miss something important that I have to say about an upcoming visit, or asking for a list of his needs. When we are in person with each other, I may use the hand gesture used in schools, for permission to speak, because trying to talk over him doesn't work at all. It's almost like he can't hear me, but his hearing is fine.

With so many of us needing to be heard, it can be a challenge to "just listen", but I believe it's one of the most powerful healing tools we possess. The second powerful tool is to be able to ask for space to be heard, without comment, suggestions or attempts at problem solving from the listener we choose. I realize this is ancient stuff that some of us learned from Carl Rogers, way back in the day. But it still works, even without the reflective feedback.

---

Today and for a couple of days now the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are being buried. I ask this question:

The Second Amendment authorizes a well-regulated militia. How well-regulated is the so-called militia when the right of citizens to bear arms results in these funerals?


Star Man

I'm not understanding your question. What does a well regulated militia have to do with the right of citizens to bear arms? Does that mean we would depend on the militia to protect us, and give up our guns and other weapons of defense? Forgive my ignorance, but I sincerely want to know.

I do hope there are some changes in the gun control laws, but you and I know that there will always be a way to find anything that's illegal. And our government profits from this, so they're not too anxious to change things.

The "War on Drugs" has been futile, and if we have a "War on Guns" (sounds strange!) it will also be futile. As long as there's money to be made, it's not going to be stopped. Sad, but true.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Today and for a couple of days now the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are being buried. I ask this question:

The Second Amendment authorizes a well-regulated militia. How well-regulated is the so-called militia when the right of citizens to bear arms results in these funerals?


Star Man

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

I'm not understanding your question. What does a well regulated militia have to do with the right of citizens to bear arms?

---

Shandi,

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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 words appear to mean that people should have the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. The words do not appear to say that citizens should have an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. The importance of a militia as a deterrent to invasion or governmental takeover has been poorly understood.

Sorry, Starman, but you have this precisely backward. The comma is critically important. At the time of writing, a "well regulated militia" was seen as a necessary evil, one that had the capacity to get out of hand.

While a well regulated militia may be needed to deter invasion, it was also seen that a well regulated militia could become the means of a government takeover. (Think police state.)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is precisely to keep that from happening. No other reason.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Shandi,

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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 words appear to mean that people should have the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. The words do not appear to say that citizens should have an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. The importance of a militia as a deterrent to invasion or governmental takeover has been poorly understood.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Sorry, Starman, but you have this precisely backward. The comma is critically important. At the time of writing, a "well regulated militia" was seen as a necessary evil, one that had the capacity to get out of hand.

While a well regulated militia may be needed to deter invasion, it was also seen that a well regulated militia could become the means of a government takeover. (Think police state.)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is precisely to keep that from happening. No other reason.

---

Handy,

You may find it instructive to read the following article on the history of the Second Amendment by Robert Parry. You will find that in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to be able to put down insurrections like the Whiskey Rebellion. Parry demonstrates quite conclusively that it is a right-wing deception that the Second Amendment was framed to prevent a government takeover. As the article concludes, "Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as dangerous as it is false." Star Man

News & Politics

Downloaded December 23, 2012 from https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...out?paging=off

Consortium News / By Robert Parry


The Real Rationale for the 2nd Amendment, That Right-Wingers Are Totally Ignorant About


A big obstacle to commonsense gun control is the Right’s false historical narrative that the Founders wanted an armed American public that could fight its own government.



December 21, 2012 |



Right-wing resistance to meaningful gun control is driven, in part, by a false notion that America’s Founders adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could battle the U.S. government. The opposite is the truth, but many Americans seem to have embraced this absurd, anti-historical narrative.


The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers, after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.
President George Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, leading a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.



The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 weren’t precursors to France’s Robespierre or Russia’s Leon Trotsky, believers in perpetual revolutions. In fact, their work on the Constitution was influenced by the experience of Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786, a populist uprising that the weak federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, lacked an army to defeat.


Daniel Shays, the leader of the revolt, was a former Continental Army captain who joined with other veterans and farmers to take up arms against the government for failing to address their economic grievances.
The rebellion alarmed retired Gen. George Washington who received reports on the developments from old Revolutionary War associates in Massachusetts, such as Gen. Henry Knox and Gen. Benjamin Lincoln. Washington was particularly concerned that the disorder might serve the interests of the British, who had only recently accepted the existence of the United States.


On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter seeking more information from a friend in Connecticut, Washington wrote: “I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”


In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln about the spreading unrest. “What is the cause of all these commotions? When and how will they end?” Lincoln responded: “Many of them appear to be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”


However, the U.S. government lacked the means to restore order, so wealthy Bostonians financed their own force under Gen. Lincoln to crush the uprising in February 1787. Afterwards, Washington expressed satisfaction at the outcome but remained concerned the rebellion might be a sign that European predictions about American chaos were coming true.


“If three years ago [at the end of the American Revolution] any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house,” Washington wrote to Knox on Feb. 3, 1787, adding that if the government “shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws … anarchy & confusion must prevail.”
Washington’s alarm about Shays’ Rebellion was a key factor in his decision to take part in – and preside over – the Constitutional Convention, which was supposed to offer revisions to the Articles of Confederation but instead threw out the old structure entirely and replaced it with the U.S. Constitution, which shifted national sovereignty from the 13 states to “We the People” and dramatically enhanced the power of the central government.


The drastic changes prompted strong opposition from some Revolutionary War figures, such as Virginia’s Patrick Henry, who denounced the federal power grab and rallied a movement known as the Anti-Federalists. Prospects for the Constitution’s ratification were in such doubt that its principal architect James Madison joined in a sales campaign known as the Federalist Papers in which he tried to play down how radical his changes actually were.


To win over other skeptics, Madison agreed to support a Bill of Rights, which would be proposed as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Madison’s political maneuvering succeeded as the Constitution narrowly won approval in key states, such as Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. The First Congress then approved the Bill of Rights which were ratified in 1791. [For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]


Behind the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment dealt with concerns about “security” and the need for trained militias to ensure what the Constitution called “domestic Tranquility.” There was also hesitancy among many Framers about the costs and risks from a large standing army, thus making militias composed of citizens an attractive alternative.
So, the Second Amendment 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.” Contrary to some current right-wing fantasies about the Framers wanting to encourage popular uprisings over grievances, the language of the amendment is clearly aimed at maintaining order within the country.


That point was driven home by the actions of the Second Congress amid another uprising which erupted in 1791 in western Pennsylvania. This anti-tax revolt, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, prompted Congress in 1792 to expand on the idea of “a well-regulated militia” by passing the Militia Acts which required all military-age white males to obtain their own muskets and equipment for service in militias.


In 1794, President Washington, who was determined to demonstrate the young government’s resolve, led a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey rebels. Their revolt soon collapsed and order was restored, demonstrating how the Second Amendment helped serve the government in maintaining “security,” as the Amendment says.


Beyond this clear historical record – that the Framers’ intent was to create security for the new Republic, not promote armed rebellions – there is also the simple logic that the Framers represented the young nation’s aristocracy. Many, like Washington, owned vast tracts of land. They recognized that a strong central government and domestic tranquility were in their economic interests.


So, it would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed.


However, the Right has invested heavily during the last several decades in fabricating a different national narrative, one that ignores both logic and the historical record. In this right-wing fantasy, the Framers wanted everyone to have a gun so they could violently resist their own government.


This bogus “history” has then been amplified through the Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus – Fox News, talk radio, the Internet and ideological publications – to persuade millions of Americans that their possession of semi-automatic assault rifles and other powerful firearms is what the Framers intended, that today’s gun-owners are fulfilling some centuries-old American duty.


The mythology about the Framers and the Second Amendment is, of course, only part of the fake history that the Right has created to persuade ill-informed Tea Partiers that they should dress up in Revolutionary War costumes and channel the spirits of men like Washington and Madison.


But this gun fable is particularly insidious because it obstructs efforts by today’s government to enact commonsense gun-control laws and thus the false narrative makes possible the kinds of slaughters that erupt periodically across the United States, most recently in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 schoolchildren and six teachers were murdered in minutes by an unstable young man with a civilian version of the M-16 combat rifle.


While it’s absurd to think that the Founders could have even contemplated such an act – in their 18th Century world of single-fire muskets that required time-consuming reloading – right-wing gun advocates have evaded that obvious reality by postulating that Washington, Madison and other Founders would have wanted a highly armed population to resist the U.S. government.


Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as dangerous as it is false.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).


Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

I agree.

What we need now is a solution and that solution is gun control.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Shandi,

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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 words appear to mean that people should have the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. The words do not appear to say that citizens should have an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. The importance of a militia as a deterrent to invasion or governmental takeover has been poorly understood.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Handy,

You may find it instructive to read the following article on the history of the Second Amendment by Robert Parry. You will find that in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to be able to put down insurrections like the Whiskey Rebellion. Parry demonstrates quite conclusively that it is a right-wing deception that the Second Amendment was framed to prevent a government takeover. As the article concludes, "Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as dangerous as it is false." Star Man

'

---

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the types of insurrections the Second Amendment was designed to put down manifested in armed groups like "The Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord," "Aryan Nation," Ku Klux Klan," "Aryan Brotherhood," "Army of God," and "Montana Freemen." As Robert Parry makes clear, in 1787, the central government was not strong enough to put down insurrections like these, and so armed militias of citizens were an important countervailing force. By the late twentieth century the central government had become strong enough to deal with these insurrections itself through the FBI and if necessary the National Guard.

What I get, Handy, is that organizations like the KKK, CSA, Aryan Nation, Aryan Brotherhood, AOG, and Montana Freemen fear a strong central government that would put down their insurrection should they attempt one. Although I believe our government has many failings, it does keep the civil order, and it does prevent the kind of armed and violent insurrections these organizations would certainly attempt were it not for a strong central government. We have the tragic examples of Afghanistan and Iraq and Uganda and Mexico that illustrate what can happen to a state when there is no strong central government to prevent armed factions (e.g., Taliban, Shiite and Sunni militias, Lord's Resistance Army and drug cartels respectively) from terrorizing the citizens and warring on each other and the central government.

Star Man

In support of your position...The Very Politically Incorrect Truth About The Second Amendment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=igerQd0dpHY

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Sorry, Starman, but you have this precisely backward. The comma is critically important. At the time of writing, a "well regulated militia" was seen as a necessary evil, one that had the capacity to get out of hand.

While a well regulated militia may be needed to deter invasion, it was also seen that a well regulated militia could become the means of a government takeover. (Think police state.)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is precisely to keep that from happening. No other reason.

---

Sharing Wisdom,

You are utterly wrong. The Second Amendment, as Robert Parry demonstrates based on historical facts, was designed to help a WEAK central government defend itself against insurrections, for example the Whiskey Rebellion. I have posted Robert Parry's article below in this thread. You should read it. The Second Amendment was designed to allow today's citizens to defend themselves against the Aryan Nation, Aryan Brotherhood, Montana Freemen, and the like. I am very thankful that today we have a strong central government that can indeed defend us law-abiding, non-weaponized citizens from groups like these. If you think I am wrong, just look at Afghanistan where a weak central government cannot defend citizens against the Taliban.

Star Man

If the Constitution is a living document, which it is, then the Second Amendment seems to have evolved into tonsils. I'm having trouble picturing how any type of combat with guns could mean a win against crony capitalism and the reactionary demagoguery of a highly influencial mass media.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

In support of your position...The Very Politically Incorrect Truth About The Second Amendment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=igerQd0dpHY

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Handy,

You may find it instructive to read the following article on the history of the Second Amendment by Robert Parry. You will find that in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to be able to put down insurrections like the Whiskey Rebellion. Parry demonstrates quite conclusively that it is a right-wing deception that the Second Amendment was framed to prevent a government takeover. As the article concludes, "Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as dangerous as it is false." Star Man

News & Politics

Downloaded December 23, 2012 from https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...out?paging=off

---

I read it. Twice. He sure does use a lot of words and strawmen to try and negate one simple statement.

Does it never occur to you that even the "experts" you think you like may have a less than transparent political agenda that is not in your best interests?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

I read it. Twice. He sure does use a lot of words and strawmen to try and negate one simple statement.

Does it never occur to you that even the "experts" you think you like may have a less than transparent political agenda that is not in your best interests?

---

Handy,

Robert Parry is not offering his opinion, he is presenting the historical facts. Robert Parry is an historian. I totally get that you want to keep your guns so you attack the history and the historian. Your thinking is not well-regulated.

Star Man

I said nothing about opinion. I mentioned political agenda, with which much accepted "history" is saturated.

I own no firearms, although I'm fairly competent with a compound bow, a crossbow and an air rifle.

I'm not a gun nut; I'm a rights nut.

Your thinking is off the mark and irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Handy,

Robert Parry is not offering his opinion, he is presenting the historical facts. Robert Parry is an historian. I totally get that you want to keep your guns so you attack the history and the historian. Your thinking is not well-regulated.

Star Man

---

Perhaps background checks should exclude people who are members of terrorist groups like the KKK, White Supremacist groups that have killed or terrorized people, and ideological fanatics such as Libertarians?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Star Man:

Handy,

Robert Parry is not offering his opinion, he is presenting the historical facts. Robert Parry is an historian. I totally get that you want to keep your guns so you attack the history and the historian. Your thinking is not well-regulated.

Star Man

---

In further support of the 2nd Amendment...WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID ABOUT GUNS
https://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

I read it. Twice. He sure does use a lot of words and strawmen to try and negate one simple statement.

Does it never occur to you that even the "experts" you think you like may have a less than transparent political agenda that is not in your best interests?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuVBjhEQkLo

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

In further support of the 2nd Amendment...WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID ABOUT GUNS
https://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.html

---