(17f) Gun lobby sinks deep after last school schooting

How low can you sink as a human when those who sell guns ridicule the victims of a shooting massacre at a school? And it's not only the weapon lobby, also certain politicians call opponents who want stricter gun laws "leftists who create the crisis" and thus are America's bad side. Still, I also believe many are really convinced that the solution in a country packed with weapons are "more guns but for the good guys" to stop more massacres.
Also President Trump stunt allies as he seemed to agree that stricter gun laws are necessary and thus had a topic to unite with the Democrats although this creates opposition by majority of his own parties (and thus, whoever is in power has either extreme followers and extreme opponents). Still, later he seemed to have changed his mind after he discussed the issue with the weapon lobby.


Another group of politicians are the opportunists, those who think they can win elections by being supportive of the second amendment of the Constitution to carry weapons. However, if they notice a majority is opposed to the current gun laws, they will change opinion to get elected and thus this group is important as they can shift the balance in favour of stricter gun laws. Therefore, it is very important that those who favour stricter gun laws share massively via social and other media that they want changes to the laws and thus reduce the number of guns and thereby the possibility to kill; after the latest shooting, growing numbers of people are starting to support more gun control. Also youngers from parents who support the gun lobby's position should be more assertive towards their parents, if needed by no longer visiting their family. Indeed, when few weapons are available, fewer people can use them to kill.

Still, the supporters of the current gun laws probably will not accept stricter laws without a fight against, what they consider to be enemies of the USA, the so-called "left", and to protect the second amendment of the Constitution as this seems to guarantee the freedom to carry guns. However, this is not an individual freedom such as men who decide to have long hair or people having tattoos. Because, the first "freedom" can harm others while having long hair or having tattoos doesn't harm anyone; still, many of the supporters of the current gun laws are those who condemn men with long hair, even when women are proof that long hair doesn't make you stupid, neither do tattoos. And thus, although they say guns are needed to protect society against dictatorship, those supporting even more weapons in society are the people who often silence people when they speak out for stricter laws; if needed with the threat of their gun. And thus, speaking out on social media may be dangerous if supporters of the NRA are in power and they fear they may lose influence and power but also the legal use of their toys.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

(12z) Don't blame animals for the climate crisis

Image
In today's society, many people comment how animals are a main contributor to climate change. However, we should stop blaming animals for the production of too much methane as they are victims because of the industrialised meat industry and habitat loss due to human activities, and thus the resulting climate change. Animals release methane, but are not responsible for climate change As usual, nowadays many people in comments under articles about climate change accuse animals that they produce too much methane and, although animals release methane (a potent greenhouse gas), humans are mainly to blame as we pack animals together so locally animals produce high levels of methane. Therefore, we should condemn the practice of today's meat industry, an industry whereby animals are considered to be things that are locked up with too many animals in cages that are too small so animals can't move. Therefore, they are given antibiotics to prevent they become ill and thus to prev
Read more

(18l) Belgium, king Leopold II and Congo

Image
Leopold II in Congo Belgium has a terrible human rights track record because of its second king Leopold II (1835 - 1909) during whose reign millions of people in Congo died. People may say he is not personally responsible but the same can be said of Hitler. However, Leopold II could have ruled only Belgium but this he considered too small and thus he lobbied to gain Congo for himself and succeeded on the condition he would treat its people correct, something he refused to do from day one. Therefore, he is responsible as he actively searched for this expansion to enrich himself so he could enlarge his own glory in his kingdom Belgium with neglect of his "subjects" in Congo. And people in those days had already a conscience because the king had to replace the first ambassador who refused to collaborate to expand the king's personal property.   To have an impression of the terror Leopold ii allowed in Congo is a picture in this article that shows a black father who l
Read more

Extreme left joins extreme right over Ukraine. Hard to understand

Image
Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov analyses 2023's Russia Russia's Nobel-winning journalist Dmitry Muratov, whose newspaper was closed by the authorities, speaks about Russia's war in Ukraine . Does president Putin have a support base he asks? He answers himself: an enormous one of mainly elderly people who see Putin as their own grandson as they are pleased he wishes them each year "Happy New Year". Many of those elderly wouldn't mind sending their real grandchildren to die for Putin. In contrast, many younger people oppose the war against Ukraine, and many of them are now even imprisoned. So, he hopes the future of Russia will be different.  But yes, while Russian propaganda tries to convince Russians that even nuclear war may be something positive, there are also people in the West who create their own propaganda to justify their support for Russia, and condemn Ukraine because it wants to remain a free democracy, and therefore opposes Russia's invasion.
Read more