Oh… forgot to mention… I think Night Shyamalan is implying that America is governed by fear in his newest movie “The Village”
This is offered more in the way of social commentary than serious analysis, but I sometimes feel surprise at how pampered middle class Americans appear to have become. Thus, on The Amazing Race, whenever couples have to travel on crowded trains (in India, for example), the women vocalise their fears about being touched by the locals. Now, although I don’t say this touching is a good thing, the fact is that the woman in question is in no serious danger of experiencing anythign much worse than having her bottom pinched, what with her boyfriend, a cameraman and a sound recordist all at hand. But the fact remains that every time you get one of these occasions, you’ll hear the same fears expressed.
There’s also a fear of calling a spade a spade among middle class Americans, which in my view is a bit weird and possibly unhealthy. Latest example came on Queer Eye, when the toiletries guy had to contend with a filthy toilet, He bought this super-duper electric bog brush, and then proceeded to show the low lifes how to use it by demonstrating in the basin of the loo, not in the loo itself. I was doubled up with laughter at the prudery of it all.
Probably entirely unrelated to any putative growing fear, but this “softness” might be correlated somehow.
I think our government is more governed by fear than everyday Americans are. I have very little fear motivating me.
I recently got rid of all my guns. When I did have them, it wasn’t because of fear, but because of logical processes which caused me to reach the decision that it was in my best interest to have them.
Similarly, every hurricaine season, I stock up on water. Not out of fear, just smart planning.
Americans are more fear-driven, in general, then they were, and I think the government and the media are inducing hysteria, like the current anti-gun hysteria. Shoot a few politicians and everyone goes nuts. It wasn’t like that in the 1800’s though. Did we have less fear then? Or just smaller, less-controlling government and no mass media, to speak of.
More and more, I think Americans are becoming controlled by their government and their media. I’m not afraid of it, though.
[highjack]What’s with everyone putting “fear” in quotations in this thread? Everybody’s using the word in a perfectly genuine manner. It’s really weird.[/highjack]
SnakeSpirit, can I ask you why you got rid of your guns? It’s the one issue that seems to unite people of every political and social hue in the USA against me(!), a Brit to whom the idea of owning a gun is foreign.
The idea of owning a gun is not foreign to me. I have owned guns since I was about 16 yrs., having bought my first pistol in my hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut, before the fanatics descended upon the state.
I still believe in my right to own guns, but I also did not want to just own guns for the sake of owning guns, or to do a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to find out what it was like to not own guns, to not depend on that ‘security blanket.’
At first I was a bit (understandably) nervous, and if I lived in a more threatening environment I may not have done it.
Likely, some day I will own guns again. I had too many anyway. But now, having been on both sides of the argument, I feel more qualified to make A REASONABLE decision, based on logic rather than emotion.
So far, I still think it makes more sense for a trained citizen (as I am) to own guns and keep them safely in case of need; just as I stock up on extra water before hurricaine season or keep a fire extinguisher handy in critical spots in the house. None of them cause any harm (but all conceivably could), and the good they could do, if necessary, erases the minor threat they may cause.
If a government wants to take away my guns, as yours has done to you, my first question would be “why?”
In America, it’s MY choice.
I think their suggestion is prudent no matter what country you’re in. People often suffer picked pockets, stolen purses, and even muggings and kidnappings in broad daylight and in full view of onlookers — here and elsewhere.
Thanks for that - a very lucid and compelling reply.
Though technically you may be correct to say that the British government took away my (right to own) a gun (speaking as a British national), I don’t see it that way. I think most of my fellow citizens would feel the same way. We would probably ask the question “Why?” if the govt. let others own guns.
Gun ownership issues define the difference between the USA and the UK (two otherwise very similar countries) in a way that I find fascinating. What 90% of the population in one place finds bizarre for one reason, the 90% in the other place finds bizarre for another (almost opposite) reason.
I think that our British friends might have a better understanding of the second amendment by examining the third.
Johny L.A., that was an excellent presentation. Indeed, what we seem to be experiencing is something of a problem with understanding what is and is not acceptable risk.
I’d like to add my admiration of Johnny’s post. It jibes with my own experience as well.
Regarding fear and urban areas. Recently, I was in Florida. My wife and sisten in law were with me, and we were returning to Ft. Lauderdale from Miami. We stopped at an exit off RT 95 to ge gas, and after fueling the car, we stopped to make a phone call. Within 2-3 minutes, an unmarked police car pulled up, and the policeman at the wheel hailed us…he told me that this was a very dangerous area and that we should leave at once! There was nobdy around, and the area actually looked deserted. WE immediately thanked the officer, got into the car, and left…is this being paranoid? I think it would be foolish to ignore the word of a local cop!
Sure they do–so should I have an escort everywhere I go then, even in broad daylight in full view of onlookers? This seems to me to be unreasonably fearful. 
I think an adult on a well-lit, busy street can walk a few blocks alone and not be “imprudent”.
People often suffer kidnappings in broad daylight in full view of onlookers? Where?
Now, now, brat, don’t be overcome by unreasonable fear.
The ‘often’ was applied to all those occurances, not just kidnappings. "Even’ was applied to kidnappings, indicating it happens less often.
Me too. Good one, Johnny.
Thanks JRDelirious, Liberal and SnakeSpirit. I fear I was not as articulate as I wanted to be. There seem to be so many things that have contribute to the current state of affairs that it’s difficult to put it all down in one coherent post. I’m glad the idea came across despite the shortcomings in my post.
ralph124c: A similar thing happened to me about a year ago. I’d visited a cousin in Puyallup, and – being rather fagged from a very busy day – got lost on the way back to my hotel. I found myself in an area that looked for all the world like South Central L.A. or East L.A. There were two squad cars at an intersection, so I flashed my lights and pulled over to ask directions. The cop’s mouth was agape and his eyes were wide open. He couldn’t believe a well-dressed white guy was driving in the area at that hour. “Go to [street name]. Turn left. It will take you to the freeway. Do not get out of the car! Keep your doors locked, and the windows closed!” He lightened up when I told him I was from L.A. Needless to say, I found the freeway and the hotel without incident.
Thanks, Lib, for the link. The relevant bits read as follows:
Article (Amendment) II - 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.
Article (Amendment) III - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Well, point out my errors if I interpret these sentences wrong, but, according to the wording of the Second, equates the people (citizens) with the militia, i.e. the people are one and the same as the militia. Or is a distinction intended between soldiers on the one hand (who might get too powerful) and common folk on the other? The sentence can be read both ways.
Is your point re the Third that, since soldiers are not allowed (in peacetime) to lodge in your house and fire rounds from the roof at intruders, you and your fellow citizens have a right to carry guns?
To bring the issue up to date, today I heard Kerry on the radio supporting a continued ban on ‘assault weapons’. In support of his position he cited the fact that police chiefs were against citizens carrying such weapons.
Am I right that one of the reasons that people support the right to own guns is that they don’t trust the police and the army? (The other main reason as I understand things is that people want to protect their family in the home (and in their cars?) and guns are deemed to be the most effective way to do that.)
Haven’t things got to a pretty pass if the armed forces (originally conceived as being not only protectors of the people but as synonymous with them - if my understanding of the Second is correct) are now seen as some kind of enemy within?
Bring it on…
Well, it seems that some Republicans are in fear of the Democrats