Ban - galore

Personally, I am against any ban of any sort on any thing. It really doesn't make any sense to me that any government (or any authority) has any right to ban anything on society. Whether it is banning films or guns or eating habits, it really seems like someone else deciding for me that I am not mature enough to decide for myself.. It's even more ridiculous when a government does that. "You mean I am smart enough when you want my vote, but I am not smart enough to decide whether Black Friday is a good move or not?"  This stand of mine however comes under serious introspection when it comes to gun control.

 

Having been out of the US for almost a year, this topic was out of sight - out of mind for a while now.. However, just as I was about to come back for a visit, the tragedy at Virgina Tech happened.. And the topic is back. I think about it long and hard, but I still think a ban on guns is not practical. Much as you want it, it is just not possible to remove guns from society. Chad bhai (my ex-roommate in LA, and ex-cop) used to say that legal guns are hardly ever a problem, it's the illegal ones that cause all the problems.. And the more you ban it, more people want to keep it. So, you get bootlegging. Anybody who thinks that prohibition in Gujarat is a practical solution, should go to a place called Daman on the Gujarat shoreline, where it is a Union Territory.. Anyway, I digress..

 

That said, I personally think, it should be made mighty hard to get a gun. In the US, it is easier to get a gun than buying a house.. There are certain faux-rules which says so-and-so cannot buy guns, but as Mr. Seung Hui Cho showed us, it really is a rule only in name. It really is too easy.. You can buy guns in Wal-mart for god's sakes.. The reality however is that the NRA and other gun lobbies will never allow it to be tougher to get guns.. The second amendment was passed in 1787 (checked Wikipedia). My guess is that life then was much different then, what say. Heck, life in 1986 was different. The amendment reads something like, "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". Now, it seems to me that this amendment was setup before there was an army in the US or even the police.

 

By the same logic, warring factions in civil wars are necessary to the security of the country.