Why the US wont act either way.
This isnt so much a debate but more a possibility of why there is always so much debate and so little action done either way.
You know what I was just thinking about the recent washington DC court ruling.
For our over seas forum friends, handguns were basically totally illegal to posess even in homes
for anyone in Washington DC,
still gun related crime was big, lots of criminals with guns, victimising non criminals. Of course as you could imagine pro gun people had been arguing "Well considering handguns are banned in DC, The criminals still have them anyways so why cant I as a responsible law abiding citizen?"
The court case went all the way to US federal court. The federal court ruled that Washington DCs longtime ban on owning a handgun in your own home was unconstitutuional. It stated that the 2nd Constitutional Amendment did not require citizens to be a part of a miltia etc.
Im not going to state whether i care about this or not. i simply needed to describe it for what Im about to say.
I was thinking that if this decision does make its way up all the way to the surpreme court and is upheld, well any type of handgun restriction could then be violating the 2nd amendment.
And my point being whether you agree with gun control or not, perhaps why america is so unwilling to address the topic definitivly one way or another is that it would require a change to the amdendments. In effect a change to the constitution. Its not like this hasnt been done in the past (banning alcohol) but if you can change such a long standing and highly debated amendment such as the 2nd? Well why stop there? Lets amend the the 1st amendment as well.
if gun control policies are put into place for the reasons of "benefiting society" well why not change what peope can and cannot say as well... To benefit society.
Just look at Don Imus. he gets fired from both his radio show and TV simulcast for saying a "racially charged comment"
Imus is white, the people who spoke in reffernce too are black.
Needless to say the black community was outraged and understandably so.
But then again what Imus stated was from a direct qoute from lyrics written and preformed by black music preformers. Who make a living through rap and hip hop music that is filled with sexually demeaning and racially charged lyrics. Double standard?
If we are going to limit what a talk show host can say, will we stop there or continue on now with everyone else who already uses negative language? Artsits? musicians? Movies? games?
It seems to me that one possiblity as to why the US wont take any action either way in both these topics, (lots of debate, little change) is that we are afraid of where it might lead. the Pandoras Box of losing our perosnal freedoms if you will. aka the slippery slope.
Whether your benefiting society or not you would be damaging or imposing restrictions on what what america stands for, even if it can be hurtful.
What are everyone elses thoughts?
If the people be of sound mind, laws are unneccesary.
If the people be not of sound mind, laws are useless. --Plato