Obama, Obama, Obama
To me, it’s stunning the degree to which Americans look to their President to solve the gun ownership problem for them, and yet isn’t the reason behind the American nightmare of universal gun ownership so that private property owners can start shooting if the government trespasses on their land?
I may be wrong about the reason. I’m not an aficionado of American constitutional history. The American constitution reminds me too much of the bible, so sacred and yet open to interpretation is it, that I haven’t bothered reading it, either.
Enough already with the American constitution (and the bible, too, for that matter). Get a modern Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Americans. That’s what we have and it sure as hell works a lot better to have the justice system working for you than just a bunch of politicians owned by the NRA and the oil industry.
This is an aside, but I haven’t watched much of the coverage of the latest mass murder of civilians going about their day by a young disaffected American male going about his, because there’s no point, is there. It’s just very sad for the families of the dead. But one thing I saw before I stopped watching, was a man on the edge of the television news screen who appeared to be reacting, by his parked car, to the news that his child was one of the dead.
It should have been gut-wrenching (I lifted that expression from the apology by the Australian DJ who imitated the Queen in a call to the hospital where Lady Kate was convalescing, thankfully? knocked out of the news) but I’ve seen that same reaction in a movie. It was like watching a pantomime of grief. I know it was real, but it felt removed from my reality, much like CNN images of aerial bombing. I know people are being murdered, but I don’t feel it.
Celebrities want to do something to help the bereaved. I suggested on twitter that they stop acting in movies that advertise gun-shooting heroes to young American males. But that’s really a cheap shot, isn’t it. Celebrities aren’t to fault for the gun ownership nightmare south of the border.
How many parents of little boys who were murdered the other day at school in America probably own guns themselves? Sure, they’re responsible gun owners, whatever the hell that means, law-abiding (until they aren’t), but does it matter if you’ve got a teenaged or young adult male around the house, mad at the world, at you, at themselves – not because of anything anyone has done, but just because they’re at that age, society’s doing its thing of not working out the way its supposed to, fill in the blank.
We know now, for a fact, that the reasoning part of the adult male brain isn’t finished developing until at least age 25. That’s not a new normal, it’s the same old normal, except now we know that it is.
Gee, you’d think we could have guessed that from all the black male on black male gun violence in the American communities they’ve been holding hostage for years. It’s not that they’re black, as so many white pundits like to pretend, it’s that they’re male and they have guns.
Male + gun = shooting deaths, often of women, increasingly often of children.
I was a young female once. I’m glad there were no guns handy for the young males who were in and out of my life, including the one I married, for both his sake and mine. I’m curious about girls and women who do live with guns in the house, whether they feel safe? Or threatened? Because the facts clearly are not in their favour in terms of safety. They just aren’t. The facts indicate that that they’re more likely to be shot than shoot.
But to me the real difference between Canadians and our American cousins is that we don’t look to our Prime Minister, particularly in the person of Stephen Harper, to do anything other than cut back on social programs paid for with our taxes, and increase government subsidies for whichever industry is the flavour of the day for whichever political party got 35% of the 60% of first past the post votes cast by eligible Canadians partisan enough to actually wade through all the vote misdirection by the Conservative Party of Canada, find their way to the correct polling booth, and cast a ballot.
And speaking of parents of murdered children who probably own guns, I wonder how many victims of electoral fraud in Ontario voted Conservative anyway in order to prevent an NDP government from being elected?
The media bias during a campaign against the election of an NDP government is stunning, isn’t it? The party is routinely treated like either a joke or a threat, take your pick. Shameful, really, but there you go, even our taxpayer funded broadcaster, CBC, can’t bring itself to break ranks with the private profiteers and go for balanced coverage.
I know what you’re thinking, dear Sooey Says reader(s), “but Sooey, how can you conflate gun violence with electoral fraud”?
Well, this is my blog. So far, I’ve been able to write pretty whatever I want and if there’s been a request by Vic Toews to have me shut down, my internet provider hasn’t complied. Yet.
I don’t want to separate Stephen Harper out from Americans who believe government is the problem and then look to the President to DO SOMETHING about a society so paranoid about each other that it’s armed to the teeth and shooting its own children. I believe Stephen Harper belongs to America. I believe he’s owned by the NRA, by the oil industry, by the worst profiteers operating out of America and Conservative Alberta today.
And I believe he knowingly cheated his way into power.
So sue me, Stephen Harper. There. I dare you. Sue me. Because those are my beliefs, my religion, as it were. I also believe the Conservative Party of Canada is a criminal organization, the NRA a terrorist organization, and that the two are mutually beneficial to each other – financially.
Because, lest we forget, we know that the Canadian gun registry (what Alberta Conservatives like to refer to as the “Liberal” gun registry) ended up costing taxpayers billions of dollars largely because it was sabotaged by Alberta Conservatives under the direction of the NRA. We know that. It’s a fact, a Canadian fact. The same people responsible for electing Stephen Harper are the same people who tried to convince Canadians that the gun registry was bad because it would prevent Canadians from shooting at their government when it came to take our land.
As opposed to putting a crunch on gun ownership, otherwise known as profits for gun salesmen.
But the gun debate is still a good example of how compromised and contradictory politics is south of the border in comparison to here. Imagine 30 kindergarten children being gunned down by a young man anywhere in Canada (with the exception perhaps of Conservative Alberta, where life is evidently cheaper). There wouldn’t be calls from Canadians for Stephen Harper to lead us out of the wilderness he got us into. There would be continued accusations that the governing party, not the government itself, is incompetent/corrupt/bad for the country.
Canadians simply don’t have the paranoia of government that Americans do. And we don’t have reverence for our Prime Ministers. That’s because we view government, still, as a public service, and the Prime Minister as the lucky co-citizen who gets to staff his office with a bunch of partisan hacks to parcel out the money. Sometimes more of it goes to the buddies of the partisan hacks, sometimes less of it does.
The problem we have now is that not enough of the money has been kept back to run the public services on which Canadians depend so that we don’t end up in the wretched mess Americans are currently living.
And, of course, instead of building on the gun registry, Stephen Harper has done his duty by the NRA and taken us in the opposite direction. Why? To increase gun sales. As always, the narrative that Stephen Harper doesn’t care about money should be ignored because it’s complete bullshit, spin, a distraction. Money is ALL Stephen Harper cares about. His hope is that by eliminating the gun registry he can increase gun sales and make good on whatever deal he made with the NRA.
But like I said at the beginning of this entry, the reason for owning a gun in America is so that you can kill your government if it tries to take your property. You know, “Git offa mah land!”
Except that there’s no way individual property owners would be able to organize without shooting too many of each other to actually take on their government, in which they invest so much authority, should it choose to take over their land.
And since oil and gas companies, or any other private mining operation, can expropriate privately-owned land – legally – both in the U.S. and here in Canada, and elect politicians willing to give up public land for private profit, too, and it’s all legal, owning a gun to protect your property from the clutches of the government just doesn’t make any sense.
So why all the guns? Well, I guess if everybody on my street had a gun, I’d want a gun, too. I like my neighbours, but if it came down to food and water for me or food and water for them, well, they’re old, so I want the food and water for me and mine.
Still, our neighbours know a lot more about how stuff works than me or mine do. And one of them is quite a gardener. My guess is he could figure out a way to keep a garden going, dig a well – some means of keeping us alive so that my beau could continue to crank out those urban affairs columns once a week, a little civilization for a thirsty and starving country.
We’d cooperate, in other words, find a way to work together to maintain our property value – in a real sense – eventually electing representatives to help keep us organized and spread the wealth around the neighbourhood to ensure the survival of more and more of us.
And since it’s a fact that we don’t need to eat meat to live long and healthy lives – I mean it’s a fact – what the hell would we need guns for even then?
So why are Americans looking to their President to solve the problem of gun ownership instead of just saying no to buying guns?