There was one more 'public shooting' on 1 October, this time at a community college in Oregon State. The 26-year old killer, a student there himself, shot dead 9 persons and ended up in killing himself.
There has been an attempt by Mr. Obama to restrain the holding of weapons from time to time, who said that this is the kind of incident that takes place 'every few months'. The killer is said to have been in possession of as many as 13 guns.
Usually, and this time also, there is a strong opposition to such an attempt to control the guns. And usually, the theoretical basis of such opposition is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, saying that 'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It was an Amendment of 1791.
I do not want to go into details of the US domestic politics here. But I wonder if many Americans who are opposed to the restraint on the weapons have read this whole Article. I am discussing it here because it is not simply someone else's business. The Amendment says that the weapons are necessary for building up a well-trained militia in time of need. But the US today is the biggest military power. She is pressing Japan to build a permanent air and naval base in Okinawa much against the expressed wishes of the locals. She is capable of bombing an MSF hospital, unarmed, at Kunduz, Afghanistan, which she did, may be by mistake but unpardonable mistake, in the small hours of 4 October.
If the US citizens have a second thought on carrying guns, it would do a great deal to change the atmosphere of depending on the weapons, thus making a significant step forward to the peace of the world. We will all be grateful to them.
There has been an attempt by Mr. Obama to restrain the holding of weapons from time to time, who said that this is the kind of incident that takes place 'every few months'. The killer is said to have been in possession of as many as 13 guns.
Usually, and this time also, there is a strong opposition to such an attempt to control the guns. And usually, the theoretical basis of such opposition is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, saying that 'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It was an Amendment of 1791.
I do not want to go into details of the US domestic politics here. But I wonder if many Americans who are opposed to the restraint on the weapons have read this whole Article. I am discussing it here because it is not simply someone else's business. The Amendment says that the weapons are necessary for building up a well-trained militia in time of need. But the US today is the biggest military power. She is pressing Japan to build a permanent air and naval base in Okinawa much against the expressed wishes of the locals. She is capable of bombing an MSF hospital, unarmed, at Kunduz, Afghanistan, which she did, may be by mistake but unpardonable mistake, in the small hours of 4 October.
If the US citizens have a second thought on carrying guns, it would do a great deal to change the atmosphere of depending on the weapons, thus making a significant step forward to the peace of the world. We will all be grateful to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment