Supreme Court to rule on right to keep handguns at home
Supreme Court to rule on right to keep handguns at home
The Supreme Court announced that it would decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices headlong into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.
This is clearly going to be one of the biggest ... cases decided this year," said
Clearly, it is one of the most important decisions by court, on the other hand this decision shall change the relations between peoples and government as a security organization.
There are two different views exist about Firearms rights as one of the most controversial and intractable issues in American politics:
The first view may be found among proponents of gun rights. The idea considers "individual rights advocates” which argue that individual rights are more important than social control. It tends to increase civil rights. This is traditionally associated with liberalism. From this point of view Freedom means people should have fewer laws restricting whatever they want to do. Then people should have their own guns to defend their homes, because they feel they need them, people should be free to own an effective weapon to defend their homes against dangers. According to this opinion, this decision limits government and increases personal rights.
As an instant I can refer to Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, who said: "I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home. The police can't be everywhere, and they can't protect everyone all the time".
On the other hand, individual rights can be described as rights which government should protect for citizens and it is the duty of the government to prepare security for people and made them safe against crimes. They believe the second amendment of the Constitution of the
While there is no doubt on this statement which said "individual rights are commonly assumed to be inversely related to social control" but the subject is still open to argue that how protection of individual rights actually makes social control by the government more effective
http://news.google.com/?ned=us&topic=n. (2007/nov/21)
http://news.yahoo.com/i/718;_ylt=At_fj0.P.IAa4Z24UDM7DvKs0NUE (2007/nov/21)
A symbol of peace
A symbol of peace?
Iranian and American beach soccer captains have exchanged gifts as a symbol of peace before their encounter at Beach Soccer World Cup.
"We'd seen news stories on the game that mentioned the political situation and that gave me the idea of buying white flowers as a symbol of peace…The exchange of gifts was a show of interest in peace for the entire world…The Iranian captain was moved by the gesture and they returned the compliment by giving us a memento."
The American beach soccer captains,Francis Farberoff,said after Sunday match with
On the other hand, Iran national beach soccer team captain, Abbas Hashem-pour said, "The exchange of gifts showed that it is possible for our two nations to remain at peace with each other. In sport, peace is stronger than any divisions."
This alliance as a symbol of peace could be analyzed from the idealists' point of view. This approach emphasizes that peace is an achievable phenomena and violence could be deleted among humans' and nations' relationships
Also, cultural peace theory as an idealistic theory believes that humans are able to be in the permanent peace, because tension has built by humans' thoughts, thus, tentionmakers- humans- are able to solve all violences calmy.
Then, it is possible that humans become close to peace, to real peace. In contrast, realists believe that governments are violent reals which are greedy to increase their own profit
Now, according to these notes I can analyze the news sport match of "Iranian and American beach soccer captains have exchanged gifts". Such an uncommon event had occurred in 1988 during Soccer World Cup as well. Evidently, it was a non-political occurrence showing different believes between nations and goverments. Nations could be in peace and may have nice relationships socially and culturally, while their states are in unfriendly relations at the same time.
Presumably, it is not incorrect if is said that nations's approach is idealistic; where as, state's viewpoint is realistic. Such an idea implies that , regardless of the political situation, their nations could be in peace as exchanged- gift event indicates that people are eager to be in amicable relations like the relation which exists between two sides scientists.
American vursus Iranian audiences:
The news has extensively and broadly published in American media as well. The feedback from the news shows that Americans found it as a noticeable matter which is a move in order to establish better relations regardless of political terms. However, it is not easy to judge Iranian's view in such circumstances. One reason is the fact that such events are not covered and exhibited via mass media broadly. Moreover, public is not interested in following such news and reports.
As a conclusion, the symbolic action of" Iranian and American beach soccer captains" indicates different attitude between Iranian and American political and apolitical terms.
Of course, these kinds of friendly relations which existis in apolitical terms should be reflected via mass media as symbols of worldly peace.
Refrences:
http://www.fifa.com/beachsoccerworldcup/news/index.html (2007/nov/5)
http://www.farsnews.com/newsv.php?srv=4&title=1 (2007/nov/5)
http://www.irandiplomacy.ir/modules/news/article.php?storyid=244 (2007/nov/6)
http://www.presstv.ir/defalt.aspx (2007/nov/5)