As the Court's ruling clearly shows, much of the argument rests on the meaning and the grammar, especially the punctuation, of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Grammar matters! In fact, the Court's ruling explicitly discusses such things as "its prefatory clause and its operative clause" and notes that it "does not limit the latter grammatically" (District of Columbia et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller, 2008, p. 3)
Do you agree with the court's decision? Why? Why not?
Do you think people should be allowed to own guns in a democratic country?
Do you think private gun ownership has greater advantages or disadvantages?
What do you think of the Court's supporting reasons?
Does Thailand allow private gun ownership? Should it?
By the way, the Court's decision was not unanimous, and a group of judges have also filed a dissenting opinion setting out the reasons for their disagreement. That dissenting opinion is also included in the reference cited.
_____________
References:
The Supreme Court opens fire, (2008, June 26). [Electronic version]. The Economist. Retrieved on 30 June, 2008 from https://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11647127
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, (2008, June 26). The Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 30 June, 2008 from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf [The Court's opinion begins on page 4. of this pdf file.]
At only 787 words, the report in the Economist is short and not too difficult. At 64 pages (for the majority opinion only), the Court's actual decision is long, and the language is difficult.
I, personally, believe that American have gun because they fear form attacking by other people. There are a lot of crimanal in US and people want to protect theirselves. I agree with court's judgement because people can make a mess when they have guns , for examaple, a crazy student killed lots of people in university. In democratic country like US or Thailand, citizent should not allow to have own guns because we have rules and laws to control(we are not soldier government). One disadvantage of having own gun is that you may kill or hurt someone without concious when you are out of control.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court's decision that should ban gun ownership because if people can get guns easier,it has a high risk of tragedy evevts as we saw from TV or newspaper news.For example, a student in the US killed a lot of people sinse he can buy a gun easier from a gun store.So I think it has more disadvantages than advantages to allow people have own guns especially in the democratic country such as the US. or Thailand. I think the criminal gang can take advantages from this law more than people who want to have owner guns only to protect themselves. And everyone may be not want to see the painful events like in the US.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Court’s decision result from the freedom base in US’s constitution. However, I do not agree with it since this will outspread crimes in the country. The result from the court will enable citizen to own gun freely at any ages. They can hold guns in public at all times. Former practice, I believe only registered gun and someone with license can own gun. Their guns are legal and those people have an understanding of using gun and have enough awareness when to use. If the new law is announced and anybody can have this little vital weapon, how the society will cope with the gun fighting in public? I heard that there are many cases happened in the U.S. where a student attack the school and university and kill many young victims. I would expect this similar problem after this new law.
ReplyDeleteGun ownership is only provide advantage when it’s held by the right people such as police, soldiers or government offices, not a criminal or someone who do know have enough awareness of save use. The importance question is that how the government can control guns from those who have problem with anger management. A mad man in a bar might use his gun to shoot a guy who step on his foot and say this is self-safety intention. The ownership of gun will absolutely cause more problem than ever.
In Thailand, gun ownership is preserved only those who are in particular government officers and including general people with gun license for collection and sport. Thai law is not allowed by the way to hold gun in public if you are not the officers. I agree with Thai law as long as they can in practice prevent bad guys to own it.
Although I disagree with him, I rather liked Nont's comment. What I like is his observation that the Court's decision was in line with the US Constituion, and that he then explains why he thinks the decision is a bad one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision, not only because I think it is consistent with the US Constituion, but also because I think it is right, even though it is likely to lead to higher numbers of deaths from guns. Actually, I'm not sure that it will lead to higher number of gun deaths, but it might. Even if it does result in more people being killed by guns, I don't think that is a good enough reason to ban gun ownership. Cars certainly kill people: a lot more people are killed by cars than by guns, and a total ban on private car ownership would greatly reduce deaths from cars, but again, I'm not sure that this is really a good enough reason for the government to ban people buying and driving cars. And of course, a lot of people do use cars for criminal activity, such as transporting drugs, escaping after a bank robbery, and so on, but again, I'm not sure that this justifies banning cars, nor does the fact that some crazy poeple use their car as a weapon to kill people, as happened not so long ago in Bangkok.
I agree with the Court's decision. I think that people who will have a right to have their own guns must be the person who is very equanimous in order to not use the gun in wrong ways when he or she loses a temper.
ReplyDeleteOwning the gun is not only one way to protect our life maybe the gun will harm ourselves if we don't know how to used it.
If the criminals know that the others also have a weapon and ready to shoot them as well. Do that bad guys have a second thought to commit criminal? I just wonder that if they think that, the criminal rate might be decreased. However, I disagree with the US court I think we are going back to the old age where everything were judged by force and power. If we allows every person to protect themself by gun, why we need police? What is the purpose of gun? It can not be said that one "just has" a gun but one will not shoot. Personally, this is not the way to solve any problem. For Thailand, like Nont said, we have some rules on gun holding and I feel comfortable with that because I'm sure that Thai people are not ready to have a gun. I heard from news that Thailand is the only one country in the world that students in the same institution team up to fight with another mainly because of anger. Some shoot their opponents in the public area without fear of the laws. What gonna happen if these people have weapons in their hand? Civil war?
ReplyDeletei agree with the court's decistion not to let the people owning the gun because if the people don't like each other they can use gun to do the bad thing such as the korean guys that shoot the college student in the united state. i think, it's more disadvantade than advantage. but the one of advantage is people can protect themself when they have a serious situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court's decision because it will make a harmful if let people to owning a gun. Although some people will owning gun for protect themselves ,somebody will owning gun for their purpose for example to revenge someone that he hate and people in that country also has law to protect them why just let law to handle it
ReplyDeleteI like Pong's comments. We neeed no police if everyone can own and hold a gun in public. A police will only take care of traffic to prevent a car, a another weapon like Peter said:-)
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Pong and I understood the topic differently from Bank, Nok, Hong and Vanda.
Anyone notice this?
I had also noticed the same thing Nont has commented on, and am wondering how that happened.
ReplyDelete