The Scale of Values in Alexander Pope's Poem The Rape of the Lock

Back then, the militia was the only form of protection, and it was made up of local citizens. Now though, America has trained authorities whose main job is to protect us, so there is really no need to bear arms.

“Beware: Do Not Read This Poem” is a poem that acts as cautionary tale which is shown by the warning present in the title. It starts off by describing an egocentric “ol woman” who goes missing inside a mirror. the setting changes afterwards in the next section to the present, the time during which the reader is reading the poem. The form of the poem serves to relate the various storylines together. This concept shows the poem as a being able to engulf and devour the reader, like another kind of disappearance.

The novel, rather than describing a complete lack of order, has characters trying to give meaning to events around them. This reinforces the theme of absurdity by strengthening the impact each instance of absurdity has on the novel. The film overlooks this through an overall lack of explanation, resulting in the overall theme of absurdity being collectively, less meaningful. By blatantly introducing absurdity, and attempting to understand the lack of reason, the novel provides a deeper understanding of the theme of absurdity than the film.

A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state

The amount of men that were ready to serve in a military limit was a pressing fear all through the royal period. royal orders to New Jersey requested a count of the men "that fit to manage arms in the civilian army of our said province. Reports from the Georgia borders told the general population's determination to protect themselves, if assaulted by building fortifications for the security of the women, kids, and those who couldn’t fit to carry a gun. Whoever refused to carry arms and also comply with the militia law came with a price. The Georgia Congress imposed a fine against any individual obligated to show up and carry weapons at marshals, who ignored to arrive completely armed and provided. It is evident here that individual guns were liable to control.

Now lets ask ourselves, what does the second amendment mean? Who gets to keep and bear arms? One side focuses on the phrase “A well-regulated militia” to argue that only people who are in a militia such as the National Guard have the right to bear arms. The other side focuses on the phrase “The right of the people” to argue that law-abiding citizens, whether or not they are in a militia have the right to bear arms. Who’s correct? For further insight, the wisdom and prudence of our founding fathers proves to be instructive, as they lived in this influential time. In the Federal Farmer number 28, Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves.” In congruence with Richard’s thinking Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison saying, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve

Senate Bill 656 does not allow for "well regulated" without context of "Militia," because it allows for all citizens to conceal arms instead of carrying them openly, which violates the above requirements for being considered a regular militia. However, militia has also changed in meaning. In the time of the American revolution militias was a localized fighting forces made of all able bodied men, more local even that state level as the Governors of the states were British appointees that the militias were rebelling against. Yet they were regular military forces, forming chains of command, carrying their weapons openly into battle, and following the laws of war while carrying their banners and flags. Our closest modern equivalent would be the National Guard. While they do fit the criteria for being regular militaries, the various National Guards of each state are not militias as the word was used writing the Bill of Rights. This is because they all fall under the ultimate command of the President, to use in any war America fights. More than just the 2nd Amendment, using state militias to fight in foreign wars is unconstitutional. The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (US Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 15). Fighting wars on foreign soil is the realm of the Army. The

It's not 250 years ago when we had no military or police. Not to mention Muskets were the arms. We also don't need militias we have a functioning government. While our current crop are not too swift, that's a given, there is still no need to storm the castle; try

militias were composed of volunteer minutemen. These soldiers had to be quick to act and transform

It is reasonably considered to be a ‘lighter’ version of the absurd – however Nagel also has a vigorous indebtedness of the problems that we face in stepping back from our personal realisms:

Thus, the intent of Pope is not to be invective or bitter but rather to give insight to the comical nature of the event, to bring to light that the universe does not move to the cutting of one's hair and that to have such a mistaken belief is foolhardy. This mockery and satire of aristocratic society is revealed by Pope throughout the poem: Belinda is depicted as a heroine goddess whose beauty causes "The tortoise here and elephant unite, / Transformed to combs, the speckled and the white" (English,1113). Furthermore,her trinkets are depicted as being spoils and ornaments of war, as one would use to prepare for battle: "files of pins extend their shining rows, / Puffs, powders, patches, Bibles, [and] billet-doux" (English,1113). This is comical in that such commoneveryday items suddenly have grave importance to the preservation and transformation of Belinda's beauty. They bring her from the mundane to God-like. Yet, the irony exists that these are just everyday items. The tortoises and elephants did not give

The rapist is always the bad guy, right? Initially when analyzing this poem, reading through the several lines describing Lockwood’s assaulter and ex-boyfriend it was my assumption that it was directed towards him. After over a decade of allowing everything to fester the author was ready to get everything out and let the pieces fall where they may. However, under further scrutiny I realized that Lockwood was not villainizing her ex-boyfriend in these depictions but humanizing him. In these passages she describes his job, his hobbies, and his relationship with herself and her family. She portrays her assaulter as flawed but mundane- anybody could have committed the crime he did. In fact, while Lockwood’s story is specific to her own experiences it is one that rings true with many rape survivors. Close to 50% of all rapes taken place in the

The Rape of the lock is a satire of society because it is written based on the view of the upper English society; better known as high society. It was written to make a mockery of the upper-class behavior concerning the cutting of a lock of hair. We must consider that a woman’s hair is looked upon as her glory. In Belinda’s case she has a beauty that men look upon but dare not touch. When the baron cuts her lock of hair, he breaks trust. After trying to cut her hair three times, he would have given up, instead it only inspired him to complete the mission he had planned to do. One would think the cutting of a lock of hair would be trivial matter but not at this time nor in this era.

In many couplets he pairs something epic, which starts off the couplet, with a trivial anti-climax. The method of writing within "The Rape of the Lock" is mock epic and serves the purpose of criticising the negative themes within the poem by revealing them to the extreme. Although Belinda is very superficial she does have an aura that makes her admirable, and Pope does not look over this. She makes it known that she is quite pure and innocent and with this innocence it is easier to overlook to the arguably negative traits that she holds.

Most of life’s moments have little import. Each day often screams no more of significance than the day preceding. There are a few moments throughout life that manage to contain, within themselves, the power to change the course of one’s life, but more often than not, the moments we give importance to are fairly trivial events, changing or altering nothing more than any other day. We find that those more common moments are created by culture, cultivated in a society that believes that something about a day or a time—though nothing significant changes, like birthdays demarking a specific time on a continuum—makes it special. This same brand of cultural elevation affects physical features and infrequent, though insignificant still, actions. Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the Lock charts that influence in society and, with verse dripping with wit, questions what we hold dear.