Aggrieved of Connecticut

I hold solace in the Lord, but my grief is not assuaged.  The innocent, the young innocent, how many will be allowed to be killed?  Beyond my comprehension, this act which has harmed so many.

Practically I was not surprised by the initial responses.  There were those who, almost irrationally, opposed any discussion of gun control.  I own firearms, neither proudly nor abashedly.  However, I recognize that the 2nd amendment is just that, an amendment, it was not a part of the original Constitution of the United States.  With regard to a Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State I can not accept this means every citizen possesses the right to possess a firearm with no regard to purpose. 

There are also those who believe this act is conclusive proof that no firearm should not be accessible to individuals who desires one.  Surely this act of a man can leave no doubt that no citizen can be allowed to possess the means to inflict such harm.  Neither can I find this view to be valid.  If only the State is allowed to possess such weapons then I find the power of the State to overwhelm that of its citizens. 

However, I think each of these view points are ancillary to the act of horror which has occurred in Connecticut.  Here, now, has occurred an act which should not even be possible to be contemplated.  How, my Lord, can this happen?  I accept we have free will, but is there no limit to the degradation to which we can allow ourselves?  Are we to be allowed to harm others to no end?  There will be those who will be offended by my use of the pronoun we.  To them I say, none of us lives in a vacuum.  If we claim to be a society, civil or barbaric, we must acknowledge that an act by any member of that society is a reflection of the whole.  I say this is the case whether such acts are reprehensible or heroic.

I offer no answers here.  I cannot relieve the grief of those affected.  They number in the thousands, family, friends, acquaintances and fellow citizens.  I can only share the suffering. 

A basis for civility

My asking you a question should not be construed to act as a method by which I may judge you. I make a query of you because I am interested. I desire your response because I value your ability to contribute.

If I do not agree with you, that in and of itself is not a rationale to act disagreeably. This observation is to apply equally to all involved parties. That you may hold an opinion contary to what I conceive to be correct, or vice versa, is no call for me to condemn you. I hold that a concept may exist and be expressed without totally defining the individual sharing said concept.

 We can have ideas that are not fully developed.  We may be misled or posess an incomplete understanding.  We may desire something to be true to such an extent we deny evidence to the contrary.  The expression of a concept can be the basis for a disgreement for many reasons.  This need not be a basis for enmity nor hostility.

 I can express a view which may run counter to one you hold dear.  You may connote a doctrine which is the antithesis to that which I sincerely maintain.  Such a lack of accord should not require hostile nor malicious acts.  Rather, such a difference of understanding should provide an opportunity to share a greater understanding of perception.  What are the views of the other that have created a difference in conviction?  Do either of us have knowledge of events or relationships which could provide a greater understanding to the other? That I may not agree with you does not provide a justification for me to afflict you.

Possessing the ablity to impose my will or viewpoint upon another does not require I act in such a matter.  I may work towards the modification of my own or another's conceptual holdings without  the destruction of the individual. 

Living; and death

Recently, my father died.  In the months preceding his demise I was involved in his care.  Based on that involvement I would share some thoughts.

There is no process of dying.  Living is a process.  Death is an event.  To constantly anticipate this event is to degrade the process of living.

There are none among us who will elude death.  That only serves to make living a more precious gift. 

There are conditions which clearly indicate the process of living will cease in the not too distant future.  These existence of these conditions does not call for us to, at such a point, engage in a trial of dying.  Rather, all parties should find it incumbent upon themselves to embrace and cherish all the living which remains.  It is frivolous to deny that death will occur or may even be imminent.  However, as long as life continues we should endeavor to live as completely as our ability and resources allow.  Even following the introduction of hospice care the purpose should be to provide for some quality of life rather than some quality of dying. 

My emphasis in the preceding has been upon the individual whose life may be approaching an end.  I have been intimately acquainted with imminent death in my own existence.  I am fully cognizant of the joys and trials of life in its many and varied forms.  Caregivers, friends, family; your life is not ending with the death of your patient/loved one.  Your life will have changed, it will not have ended.  As long as life continues, there is hope.  Share that hope.  This hopefulness will support you and the one who is approaching the end of their life.  Share the knowledge that life will continue and your patient/loved one will always be a part of that living even when they are no longer present in  it.  Hopelessness and despair serves neither the living nor the late.  Allow them and yourself to cherish all the life each of you has.

We will all experience death but we need not be ruled by it.  While you are alive, live.