Ledarbloggen
Sanna Rayman
Sanna Rayman
Det görs en massa snabba poänger om vapen på Twitter i dessa dagar. Som vanligt efter ett dåd som det i Colorado kommer amerikanska vapenlagar i fokus och debatten blir snart förutsägbar. Om vi inte hade så många vapen skulle inte det här hända, säger en. Jaså minsann, triumferar den andra, titta på Norge och Breivik! Det hände där! Så förbjuds batmankostymer och annan utklädnad på biografer, varpå någon snart syrligt konstaterar att ett förbud mot vapen kanske vore mer funktionellt. Men om fler i salongen hade haft vapen hade de kunnat försvara sig mot Holmes, invänder någon annan.
Sådär håller det på. Och det där är bara de hyfsat rimliga invändningarna. Sen har vi ju det koleriska gapandet om vad som är unconstitutional eller inte också. Den delen av debatten fick Jason Alexander, alltså George Costanza i Seinfeldt, smaka på när han twittrat ut några väl valda ord om vapenlagar. Då valde han i sin tur att skriva lite längre än 140 tecken:
”This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
”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.”
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
”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.”
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia.”
Så följer förstås frågan om huruvida alla de tillskyndare av rätten att bära vapen de facto är organiserade i miliser? Varpå Alexander landar i följande slutsats:
”There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.
These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.”
Det är en fin text. Jag föreslår att du läser hela.