So, I’m sure many of you1 are already aware of yet another mass shooting that occurred in my home state, down south from where I live, in San Bernardino County. This had to occur some weeks right after the massacre in Paris. May God bless their souls.
And then there were other shootings that happened prior to San Bernardino, including the ones from last year and the years before. I couldn’t even list them down from the top of my head because there’s just way too many of them. Second, I’m just too angry and frustrated that we’ve got another meaningless mass shooting that happened in my home state.2 Now some people are now wondering if this mass shooting is considered terrorism. Seriously, a lot nowadays have different meanings of terrorism.
I didn’t write about my thoughts about the Paris shooting before because I was way too angry to write about them. I’ve written a lot about the past mass shootings on my blog some years ago and those feelings I expressed through those past blog entries still remain the same. What prompted me to write about yesterday’s shooting wasn’t the fact that it occurred (more or less) close to where I live. I was prompted to write about this because I’m really upset with some people on my Facebook list who are making their own outcry of supporting the idea of having individuals carrying more guns to protect themselves from others who may pose a threat to them. If you ask me about that statement, more guns owned by individuals at random means more killings. The outcome will still be the same.
I know about the 2nd Amendment of “having the right to bear arms.” But if you think about it, that amendment was presented at the period where people think that the only solution to survive from getting killed is to kill in return. You know, fight fire with fire. But a lot of things, a lot of ideals, changed since then. I don’t understand why some people would want to go back to the “good ol’ days” where killing for the smallest reasons (for example, just bumping in to that one person in accident while that person is in a bad mood) is considered normal.
There’s also the argument of “Guns don’t kill. People do.” First of all, what is the purpose of a gun in the first place? It’s to kill and end lives, right? But a gun can’t be operated by itself unless if it’s operated by a person behind the trigger. In short, guns still kill, no matter how much you look at it. But with that argument in place, that should also apply to this particular one as well:
Religion and other forms of classification (race, gender, age, etc.) don’t kill. People do.
Proper gun control is absolutely needed here, which should also include background checks and a person’s personal history (everything including medical and psychological history too). The government agrees that we should place proper gun control regulations and yet nothing has been done. I blame the NRA3 and all those right wingers for all of this.
I just wish everyone, no matter what side you’re on, would just wake up with all this. This isn’t about who’s right and who’s left, what constitutes terrorism as in oppose to just a “general” mass shooting, etc. etc. This is a human problem. We don’t know what kind of mindset these fanatic murderers are as people. Regardless, there is a root of evil within each and every one of us that awaits its emergence through action.
If I’m not wrong, isn’t there an allowable action in which a new amendment may be drafted and ratified that can repeal another existing amendment? A good example of this is the 18th Amendment4 and it was repealed/eliminated by the 21st Amendment5. How about another amendment that can repeal the 2nd Amendment? Sure, the 18th Amendment isn’t part of the Bill of Rights, but it has been done in history anyway. Why not?
- who are updated with the local news in the U.S. I mean [↩]
- although not that close to where I actually live, California is a very huge state after all. [↩]
- National Rifle Association [↩]
- prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the U.S. [↩]
- elimination of the 18th Amendment [↩]