My initial reaction when I saw the news heading 'Americans have right to guns under landmark ruling' was shock and horror. *
I already don't have the best impression of Americans wielding guns (if you recall many posts back, a story with Graham Norton and a fat kid who shot a giant boar). Then again, media nowadays does mimic Hollywood where sex, money and violence creates sensationalist furore, so that could be a result of too much Michael Moore and CSI.
I already don't have the best impression of Americans wielding guns (if you recall many posts back, a story with Graham Norton and a fat kid who shot a giant boar). Then again, media nowadays does mimic Hollywood where sex, money and violence creates sensationalist furore, so that could be a result of too much Michael Moore and CSI.
I took some time to absorb it. So if I tell my neighbours that I'm uncomfortable with them keeping guns, they can tell me "So what? It's my CONSTITUTIONAL right to own one.''
Is it stil copyright infringement if i acknowledge: Yes, this is Yosemite Sam and I got it from here
Really, it baffles me how a court of law can want that. But some people really really do. Like Republican candidate John McCain:
"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of
bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right
-- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.
Anyway, if you're up to date with the American political system ... or not, here's the lowdown. Republicans are the more conservative bunch - generally taking the traditionalist stand in issues like gay marriage (not for it), legalised abortion (not for it), sex education (if you don't talk about it it won't happen), war (if you're not with me, you're against me) and preferring tax breaks to alternative energy sources. I guess think here about your 1950's Stepford Husbands. 'Good old 2.4 average children in my perfect house with the perfect wife using her up-to-date vacuum.'
Key Republicans: George Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain...
The Democrats, on the other hand, come from the more liberalised standpoint, and they have different views on gay marriage (they're people too), environmental policy (global warming is a fact and we're polluting the earth), war (how about diplomacy?) and would prefer social reform in general. If you needed a picture in your mind, think hippies. 'Free love, peace and the world can be a better place.'
Key Democrats: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama...
Now that's really really simplifying things, but to me, the politics are about conservative vs. liberal. Individual candidates have their own stance on things and there are some overlapping policies, so this is a very generalised picture, but a picture nonetheless.
So, if you haven't already figured out which team i'm batting for, here's a quote from Barack Obama which makes sense to me. But obviously not to the Supreme Court:
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of
individuals to bear arms," Obama said, "but I also identify with the need for
crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues
our streets through common sense, effective safety measures."
Anyway, continuing with initial shock and horror, I thought about it somemore.
To me it doesn't make sense to carry an extra spear so the lions go away (ehehe.. my analogies again). Prevention is much better than cure!
To me it doesn't make sense to carry an extra spear so the lions go away (ehehe.. my analogies again). Prevention is much better than cure!
And this relates to Malaysia too. Pepper spray (personally, i can tell you it's nasty) isn't going to keep the murderers and rapists and robbers at bay. I'd very much rather there weren't any in the first place, thank you very much.
I wonder if in future, people complaining about crime can hear the retort, 'Well, if you had carried your gun... like we said you could, maybe this wouldn't have happened.'
So I was thinking 'Dear lord, Now they can all go postal and shoot each other because everyone's entitled to a gun.' (except madmen, ex cons and not in schools - yes, i read that the ruling is not unlimited) But, putting an optimistic spin on it... maybe legalising something will mean less problems with it?
Look at prostitution and drugs in Amsterdam!
Low records of rape and drug overdose, right?
Okay, i don't know. But i don't like knowing people around me own guns and are entitled to. This is my theory as to why policemen aren't respected anymore.
Gone are the days when they really had the biggest stick.
A lot of musings once again, Legalised 'vice', Democrats v Republicans, Crime rates and Law-affected Morals. As always, musings are better with feedback. So, have a point of view? Try me.
Yes Dan, this means you. I know you'll have something to say...
* Note: previously the constitution implied guns were a right but it wasn't clear. Now it is...
2 comments:
haha! me??
oh well. off the top of my head (with no research done since reading your post) I have a few thoughts.
From a historical perspective George Washington, THomas JEfferson and all the other founding fathers of the USA put in the right to bear arms in the constitution on the reasoning that one need's guns to defend one's liberty. It's always handy to have guns when you want to get your independance from those pesky brits.
Initial efforts in the War of Independance were pretty much run by the citizens themsevles. Militia you would call them. They fought the brits alongside the standard american continental army. With no right to bear arms, these militia wouldnt have the capability/rights/legal right to stand up against the brits.
That's from a historical context.
From a modern day context you see gun crime at a pretty high level. I would say that it is pretty hard to control gun crime if every tom, dick and harry has the right to own a hand gun. I remember the CLinton Administration putting a ban on ordinary folks owning automatic assault weapons but the ban has since expired under Dubya's term.
In anycase, I think the right to bear arms is too engrained in the American pshyche to actually imagine them changing the constitution.
I have a 100% fascist solution. Only servants of the state (military/civil service) should be given the right (but not obligation) to bear arms. This right should be earned and not merely given freely.
On the flipside, we can only hope that you are rich enough that you don't have to move into a drug/gun infested neighbourhood.
p/s.
there are guns in Malaysia. Blame China as usual. Lax export controls of weapons. NORINCO (Chinese state arms producer) hand guns. Pretty popular with Malaysian bank robbers nowadays.
Or we can blame video games.
NooOooo...
Cannot blame video games! I enjoy my samurai mass-slashing games but that doesn't mean i go around massacre-ing people!
Waaaaahh... historically i think we were more about 'i want something i clobber you for it' (think caveman mating, right?)
We're supposed to have progressed to a more peace-loving community (cos that's what the 70's was for?) but NooOoooo... now we just have easier ways to clobber people with the pull of a trigger.
i don't know if we can ever reconcile the gun for security vs. gun as danger argument. but i still don't think carrying weapons should be a norm.
on an aside, i think i read somewhere that most people who get injured/killed by a weapon are actually assaulted by their own weapon. As in it's used against them. Ironic, yes?
Post a Comment