OK, so the guy lacks personal skills. (I mean the gun nut, not specifically Piers Morgan.) And I do not agree with his life choices. However...
There is a genuine risk in a society where public citizens have powerful weapons. There is also a genuine risk to the public good when you have a corrupt government plus the military armed far more heavily than the public.
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution is meant to allow individuals to protect themselves from random baddies AND to give them power when the bosses try to push them around. When the Constitution was written, this was a very sensitive point.
Obviously, the US has turned its evil genius to making far more destructive weapons than existed when the 2nd amendment was created. It's an established culture of violence, and glorified violence.
Yes, it is crazy to allow the public to have auto and semiauto weapons. It's also crazy to let the military have them, unless you value violence and destruction over peace. Piers asks, "Why do people need them?" Follow that thought. Consider the US gun death statistics inside the US. Now consider deaths by US guns outside the US.
For defense? Yeah, right.
(And Piers is behind the times when he exposes Alex's opinion on 9/11. It's not just nutcases questioning the official story in the 9/11 demolitions.)
Shooting the 99%
Our local hero Alex is afraid of giving up his power - he has good reason.
How would we feel if the automatics were banned from US citizens, then we watched the Occupy movement gain real strength? Imagine 10,000 marching on the capital demanding that the illegal mortgage foreclosures be reversed, only to be mown down by the military for the government in the name of stability? Would we wish there were some well-armed freedom fighters?
I do not know the answer. I hate guns. But I know we need to go deeper and higher than ridiculing the angry scared gun nuts.
The Shifting Definition of the Second Amendment
Second Amendment Debate
No comments:
Post a Comment