If you ever have that double-take moment when you stop and check whether you truly saw/understood something correctly; then this will undoubtedly be reminiscent of such an occasion. I logged on to BBC News today and read a headline entitled 'US pastor tells flock to bring handguns to church'. Ok, I thought, this looks like some kind of amnesty/social reach-out thing. I was a little bemused to read the title 'US pastor opens church to guns'. The pastor was not trying to combat street crime, but defending the rights of people to carry guns. He fears, along with some of his flock, that the Obama administration will clamp-down on gun laws and the pastor is trying to advertise the fact that not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs and that as Mr Pagano told the congregation, "... there are legal, civil, intelligent and law-abiding citizens who also own guns,"
Being an ex-soldier and having spend half my life playing with guns, I appreciate the old adage (/NRA slogan) that 'it's not guns that kill people; it's people' but I also think Eddie Izzard was right when he commented
” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…”
I truly don't understand the US's fascination with guns in the modern 21st century world. I appreciate that back in the wild-west , having a gun was a real important issue. However, those days are long gone. The pastor claimed "If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be here today," errr how excatly???
Gun ownership was important in the revolutionary period, as it allowed for the raising of a well trained militia, however at this time the whole world was packing. The US was not anything special.
Also many Americans promote bearing weapons as their constitutional right. Granted the 2nd Amendment does claim 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. However, the same is true of the UK: That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; Granted, the English law was a bit selective in terms of the religious credentials of those it granted the right to bear arms to. However, while the US law grants the people the right, the English law granted subjects said right. The term the people can of course be understood in two ways: 1) all individuals within a society or 2) the free members of the society as a whole. Given the reference to organised militias, it can be postulated that the meaning was in fact the later. Further to this, the punctuation suggests that the two are in fact connected as they are not separated by and but rather a comma. The English law, on the other hand, uses subject which does not have such a duality. It can only be understood in the individual sense. There is also no conditionality to the law such as in the US version (ok maybe the bit about protestants). Yet, modern Britons do not go around quoting 17th century laws. When the Hungerford or Dumblane massacres happened; gun control was tightened and the people rested peacefully in the knowledge that maniacs could not use the constitution to justify homicidal tenancies. Alas the same can not be said of the USA, where umpteen massacres have resulted in very little legislative action.
If anyone can give an answer to the quandary, then I'd be delighted to here it.
English 1689 Bill of Rights
(Incorporated in to and part of current UK law)
Equivalent to US 1st Amendment:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
Equivalent to US 2nd Amendment:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Source: http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm accessed 28/6/09
