4. Social Equality

I thank you for respecting mine even though I dun believe that civilians bearing guns is the right way to stop or even to reduce crimes.

America is not under tyranny, so I dun think tyranny and gun violence in USA is really comparing apple with apple, at least not in this context.

I would also categorically disagree with you that banning sales of guns would automatically equalize that country into a socialist state.

And no, I dun believe in fighting tyranny with “love”. But tat topic is too far-fetched from my original meaning.

I believe the keys to reduce crimes are:

1. Good Education
2. Just Laws
3. Proper Law Enforcement

you are talking about people who will abuse it. a man with an intent will go and find a gun or a weapon irregardless of the law.

yes singapore is fairly safe. i am talking in context of america. it is their right to bear arms, i don’t see any wrong with that.

if you are someone about to commit a crime, you would think twice if you know your potential victim is armed. but if you know your potential victim is not armed due to the law, you will not really think twice in that aspect.

i respect that we have different views, i’m one of those who view no guns = no freedom. maybe many people are comfortable living under a socialist or “socialist” state or government, if it is fine with them then it is fine with me.

i’m aware that the united nations are pushing for the ban of arms around the world. if you look at what happened in australia and england, their crime rates actually went UP after the banning of firearms.

you will see what will happen when obama take away the american 2nd amendment rights, he’s pushing for it, and you will see what happen, very soon.

i’m talking about owning a small firearm for protection, not build an amoury of rocket launches.

this is my opinion, banning guns will not stop criminals, but at the same time will leave innocent victims defenseless. i understand that we all want to be peace leaving human being. but i think you’re a fool if you think you can fight tyranny with “peace and love”.

I was with some friends when we boarded the cab. The fare was agreed with the driver before the trip. But the driver asked for more money at the end of the trip.

Of course, we refused to pay higher fare to the driver. But our argument ended abruptly when he showed us his gun.

Have u watch “bowling for columbine”? Massacre is wat will happen when government let ordinary folks bear guns for leisure and “self protection”.

Gun violence is a serious issue with more than 10 thousands deaths per year in USA. This statistic is much higher than any other developed country in the world.

Like many countries that ban public sales of arms, Singapore is safe place to live in.

I dun wanna be shot if I am having a heated argument with someone else. I dun do that when I travelled in USA or Philippines because u never know if the other party has a gun with him.

people have this misconception that the world will be safer without firearms, is that really true? safer for who? safer for tyrannical governments. safer for criminals who do not give up their firearms. when that happen, will the ordinary folks be safer without any firearms to defend themselves against these people?

“Obama… is NOT the person we are dependent on. The persons we are dependent on are the people of the United States of America… It is within this that our solution lies.”

I agree with the general idea that the public opinion in USA must change for its government to tackle the climate change effectively.

But keep in mind that there is this big group of conservatives in central and south USA. These people like to watch Fox News and listen to Glenn Beck. I can tell you that saving Mother Earth is not their top priority right now. Heck, it is not even a priority for majority of americans.

I posted a comment on a US online news journal once to inform the americans about our nationalised healthcare system in Singapore. I can’t believe that some americans told me that it is not their business to take care of the uninsured sicks because universal healthcare is not provided for in their beloved Constitution.

Obama’s ideals are all very noble: anti-nukes, green movement, universal healthcare for all, monetary regulatory to prevent another financial crisis, bababa…

But EVERY SINGLE LEGISLATION of his white house administration had been vigorously opposed by the GOP in the congress and the opposition are gaining momentum due to poor economy outlook and high unemployment in USA.

If Obama decides to enact legislation by a ‘legislative executive agreement’ or by mean of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pollution enforcement, then I hope I can restate my point plainly enough,…it will be a POLITICAL SUICIDE.

This event will be what Michael Steele and his buddies hope for.

I think u hit the bulleye when u said obama’s hand is tied.

“ramp.. bill by… executive order and face… being one term president”.

Theortically speaking, obama can ramp the climate legislation thru if he needs to. But tat will be disastrious for his re-election prospect. Worst still, his democratic party will go down with him in the mid-2010 congress election if obama decides to force his will on his people.

He is now busying convincing his fellow americans to accept his HIGHLY UNPOPULAR health reforms, financial reforms plus his escalation of war in Afghanistan.

I suppose that Eleina should have realised the political cost obama needs to bear if he choose to “act unilaterally through… a ‘legislative executive agreement’”.

To even write article, I can only say that her idea is naive.

i’m not sure what good has he done. if i’m an american i’d be pissed. the healthcare reform? haha of course he’s pushing for that, look up at what he did between 2003-2005.

funny thing is, as obama’s rating in america goes down, his rating around the world, including in singapore, goes up.

On climate change issues in America, the solutions are still too vague and the economy too poor currently to have people want the government to do more regarding unemployment. It is pretty much a vicious cycle (solutions too vague, lack of government funding in eco areas, no change in unemployment rate in that area in short term). But the issue is still important and needs the support of the world right now.

Obama may still be another politician, but including himself, I doubt every single person in Congress is in it for their personal gain. I have no doubt he would deliver on his promise to have in place a long-term place in terms of climate change, and for which I really hope he would, but I would not be surprised if the priority drops because of the economy he has still to fix.

Most important note is that this is an issue the entire world needs to face up to, not make Obama/US the leader to follow. Why depend on Americans to push Obama for change? Why not every single one of us push our own government for it?

I don’t see any difference between him and bush.

One thing he did right was to donate the Nobel prize award of more than 1 million usd. Not all leaders donate like this. Some just want to count the zeroes in his bank.