HANDGUN CONTROL VS II AMENDMENT

http://bernadettesamerica.blogspot.com

      The Amendment II of the U.S constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. This sound ok, the question is why?  Why did thepeople who wrote the constitution thinkthat they had to spell this out?  It seems to be setting a limit on the power of the federal government. So, perhaps it’s the government they were worried about, maybe the people need to have guns because if only the government had them, then we the people wouldn’t be safe from the tyranny.

       If that really is what the Amendment II means, then it isn’t doing us much good these days. Even if every citizen owns a handgun, will that be enough to ward off a potential tyranny of a local police department not alone the pentagon! You are going to need at the very least the hydrogen bomb, some jets, and some rocket launchers. Is this what the constitution had in mind?

       Is it the right or even the duty of every American to own a nuclear submarine or tanks? Will the Founding Fathers of this great nation be happy to hear that there are now over two hundred and seventy million weapons floating around in this country? Does the Amendment II mean that over 13,000 people a year at least are supposed to die from gun-shot wounds not to mention the many thousands more who get banged in their arms or feet? Is the mayhem on our streets today, the fault of the guns or the fault of something in us? Is the control of guns going to reduce the death toll caused by guns? Has gun availability to citizen’s help reduce the crime that everyone claims is the purpose of owing a gun?

Why would the Founding Fathers give the new settlers at the time a sense of insecurity among themselves by authorizing them to arm themselves against each other?

Last year alone, over 17,000 American were killed in the United States, of these, 67% were done with handgun.

      It is a true that Guns don’t kill…. People do, but they do so mostly with guns and handgun make it all too easy. The fact remain that handgun are the preferred method of murder according the FBI uniform crime report in the last 20 years. Automobiles are also dangerous; therefore we require new drivers’ training and driver’s licenses. We should at least do the same for deadly handguns whose only purpose it kill or destroy. In this country, firearms have claimed the lives of over 950, 00 Americans- more than the total numbers soldiers killed (755, 00) in all wars from the civil war to through the war in Afghanistan. If the US were losing this many people to some kind of killer virus or to war, there would be public outcry. In this Country, gun wounds to children ages 16 and under have increased 250% since 1986 in urban areas according to a leading pediatric surgeon.

In Switzerland, for example, every adult male is required to own a gun and yet the murder rate is very low……why?

It because every adult male is a member of the Militia and are issued rifles and ammunition by the government. These long guns are registered and all ammunition must be accounted for. Guns are very tightly controlled…… there is background checks, a permit to possess a handgun, and a hand gun registration

      It is a sad commentary that today most American public schools, especially those in major cities as New York, Chicago and Detroit, and recently Colorado, and Connecticut, a new curriculum  has been added “ HANDGUN DRILL” . Many children today are afraid to go to school each day, on the other hand, parents of these kids are no longer sure if they may see their kids back from school alive or dead.

     In other to do something about this problem, we must use some kind of preventive medicine. I believe this begins with tighter regulation of the most deadly of all murder weapon- the handgun. Every study on homicide has revealed that handgun crime rate is directly proportional to easy accessibility of the handgun. Assault-type weapon should be banned from private use. The Framers of the constitution specified that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” Well, the last time I checked, the United states has the best and most powerful, and a well regulated air force, the marines, the Navy, the Army, the CIA, FBI etc… so we do not need a Militia as the case may be in third world countries where there are no free states.

Neo-Imperialism and the Arrogance of Ignorance

It is rather puzzling that a conservative writer as the one above would use the word NEO IMPERALISM to try to make a point and score a cheap political point against the Obama administration involvement in Sub Sahara African conflict as is the case in Mali. To go straight to the point, this writer uses unrelated analogy or argument that due to recent United States involvement in several countries with dominant Muslim population to argue that it will be conceived in the Muslim world as an attack against Islam is rather silly and does not add up. The writer should openly argue that the poor Sub Sahara African countries have not much resources to offer the united states in return, as regards to countries, like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Libya, therefore the Unites States should not bother with helping the poor masses of these countries  to live a peaceful life from Muslim extremists. It is rather sad how this conservative writer has forgotten so soon how United States has political romance with one of the greatest Muslim dominated countries and the seat of Islam without seeing anything wrong with it. Saudi Arabia which has one of the most anti-democratic laws enshrined in their constitution and their daily lifestyles, but it is ok to be considered our friend. Saudi Arabia is the seat of sharia law that is spreading like wild fire all over the Middle East countries and several African countries. In Nigeria today, for example, the so called Boko Haram Muslim extremists are bombing churches and places of worship by Christian with impunity. Who would believe that 10years after the then President Clinton sent cruise missiles in an attempt to kill Osama Ben Laden ,the same Terrorist group would find their way to bomb America on September 11, 2001.  When former president Clinton took that risk to eliminate the terrorist, several conservatives complained that he his real intended motive was to distract the American people from his legal issue with Monica Lewinsky. President Obama will not let history repeat its self  when it comes to his effort to eliminate the terrorist no matter how far they may be or religious affiliation the may belong. This writer is attempting to galvanize the Republican legislatures to oppose the president’s effort to complement the French in their effort to stabilize that part of the world from the grips of the terrorist. President Obama is a student of history and knows the consequence of such past failure to act.

As a matter of fact, the African are pleading with the United States to come to their rescue. This is in fact will give the United States a better image in African against how Africans perceive her now as former slave master. Mr. Franklin should also remember that Obama is descendent of an African immigrant so he is the best man to deal with African issues.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/01/neo-imperialism-and-the-arrogance-of-ignorance/

The Critic of Law that Backs Guns in Class for Teachers in South Dakota

In the entire nation today, there is no doubt that the recent killing at elementary school in Newton, Conn, and the one in Colorado has  once again raise the issue of what is the best way to protect our children  at the place of their schools from killing by  their fellow peers.. The quick rush by the legislatures in South Dakota to allow school personnel to carry hand gun on school premises is rather regrettable and ill-conceived at best. How can the Legislatures with clean conscience come to a conclusion that such measure will help deter the intended outcome without first conducting research or considering other measures that may better suit the issue at hand. It seems to me that what they are saying is that more  guns in  schools but in the hands adults is the solution to will help deter a young person with emotional issue who may be suicidal in the first place from carrying such act.

Do these Legislatures consider the legal implication that may bear on those school personnel   who will act as first responders in those kinds of situations? Is the purpose of this Legislation to prevent young people from killing each other or who ought to be killed in those kinds of situations? What kind of metal or psychological requirements or evaluations will these school personnel’s go through to be able to carry these guns? What happens if kids have access to these guns through the negligence of these school personnel?   Factual evidence has shown that a measure as simple as the use of metal detectors through entrances to airports, court houses, major sporting events have helped reduce or in many cases eliminated the introduction of fire arms in those places.  South Dakota brags about that their kids start using guns at very early ages, but fail to distinguish hunting guns from hand guns. I hope this type of legislation will not be a trend in other states across the nation. This is what I call legislative quick fix for a problem bordering on mental health and proper education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/south-dakota-gun-law-classrooms.html?hp&_r=0