The reference argument - 3

I have this question

If  the text of the second amendment was part of something other than the constitution would the word "being" be taken with more probability that it refers to that time ?

If so, then it is something that I, at least currently, cant understand.

The same thing shouldn't be interpreted differently based on its source except by how much being part of that source had an effect on the intention of the originator(s) of that thing. The general applicability of the constitution shouldn't be applied in a way that precedes understanding the intention to modify it. The fact that the applicability domain of the constitution is all time doesn't mean   that everything in it was necessarily  directed to apply in a general unlimited way (and even more so not with things that lack that feature only in their direct application as is the case when the word "being" in the second amendment is taken to refer to the status of things at that time).         

The reference argument - 2

I wonder about what mindset would look at the "being necessary to the security of a free State" and can easily conclude that an intention to reason with the reader instead of directly imposing it as a fact is not THE substantial probability here or at least a substantial one. In fact, even if the second amendment came in the form:

Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

which I don't see it as always equivalent to the original because it omits the potential significance of using "being" , One still cant avoid seeing that as a probable intention if not the main probable intention. What if you tell a friend:

Because A has the best degree and experience in heart surgery, I advice you to choose him to perform the heart operation on you.

Is it your intention that your friend should take the first part as an always true absolute fact and let A do the operation on him even if real world outside clearly shows your friend that A don't even have a medical degree? So why would you assume less from those who made the second amendment?

It is not unusual if not the most usual for things like the beginning of the statement above to be intended to remain under the control of what reality outside proves to be the case. That probability is even increased more with the potential intention behind the word "being" to refer to current status of things at that time. Also why would those who made the amendment need to impose thing as a fact in this way when they can do that with the direct clear cut form they generally used in the constitution using the power writing a constitution gives? If they wanted to impose the "being necessary to the security of a free State" as an absolute fact that always remain true no matter what changes in the outside world and what the outside world shows indicating otherwise, why would they bother themselves to take that long path to reach the same end result? They could have directly stated only that "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". So why take this longer path? Just to reason a rule they made using another thing that itself should be taken as always an absolute fact independent of reasoning related to the world outside? Even worse, imposing some notion to be taken as true regardless of reality outside is much less mentally digestible than a rule without any explanatory reasoning.

If there is a place in the constitution for something that is to be taken as always true regardless of what is in the outside world then certinely it should be of the kind of those listed on their own like much of what is in the other amendment rather than being part of the reasoning for other things. What prevented making the amendment in this form:

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or if they wanted to emphasis more the connection they could have also added something similar to this to the beginning of the second sentence

For a well regulated Militia,..

(clearly this just a simple example and those native speakers at that time are much more capable in expressing things than the one with English as a second language writing this) :

Couldn't they find a space for that in the already too short bill of rights?

One more thing, if everyone was agreeing on the right to keep and bare arms and that right was so widely accepted as the court pictured things in the District of Columbia v. Heller case then for whom it was thought that the reasoning in the first part of the amendment? Doesn't that suggest that future people were more the target audience in mind for that reasoning? If so, then wouldn't that reduce the probability of taking the risk to use the word "being" despite the possibility that it could be understood to refer to the status of things at that time unless it was intended?

Notice that there could also be a strong argument against taking that part as an absolute always true notion regardless of the intention behind it because of the dependence of those who made it on things that have gone through a path of huge changes to our time making them far beyond the reasonable capability to be predicted or accounted for at that time.

The reference argument

I may expand more on this argument later but I want to make this version of it first. I am interested to see how the opposing side answers it.

First the text of the second amendment

"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"

Those who think that the second amendment still lead to same application result on our time need to do one of the two options below:

1- Sufficiently prove that " being necessary to the security of a free State" part was meant as a fact to be taken always as true instead of being intended to support itself as a reference to the status of things in the world.

In other words how can they prove that part was intended to directly create a rule for the reader to follow and not passively communicating the status of the need for militia from the outer world and referring it to the judgment and reasoning of that reader? Why is it taken as a forced fact instead of an invitation to look at the world and apply the correct judgement? After all, that part belonged to the reasoning section of the amendment.

There are many situations where a speaker intends only to reference what is outside and use it as a judge or measurement instead of himself imposing it on the listener . For example if you tell a friend who cant afford a plane ticket and wants to travel to a city thousands of miles away:

A car, being your best option, I think you should travel using your car.

Are you in this case suggesting to your friend to refuse a plane ticket even if given to him at a price he can easily afford? Clearly NO. By stating that a car being the best option you were simply referring to the status of things in the outside world and using it as the measurement or the judge to determine the correct path without any intention to claim it as a fact that stands on its own without support from the outside world. In other words, it was a statement intended to be dependant on support from the outside world to be correct.

It is not unusual for the word "being" to be used in similar statements to replace a subjective representation of the speaker with a pass through representation for the outside world by the speaker. In fact, examples of this kind seems to be much easier to find than the other alternative.

 

2-Sufficiently convince with reasoning that the militia is at the level of necessity meant in that amendment for our time for the purpose mentioned (the security of a free State).  

Going back to #1, notice how the interpretation mentioned seems stronger and fits much better in the whole picture.

A possible argument that "being necessary to the security of a free State" should be understood to have been intended to be subjectively imposed as fact regardless of its conformity with the outside world because it should always apply since it is part of the constitution which was not written for a limited time is wrong because:

First, the general applicability of the constitution cannot supersedes the intention of those who made that part of the constitution in question if they intended to limit it .

Second, this seems to be a crude way to take the general applicability of the constitution since the amendment would still have a general applicability with this interpretation. General applicability does not imply always leading to same result. With this interpretation the second amendment would still apply every time except that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" would act like a conditional factor that may lead to different end results.

[(Added 12/11/2013) Based on the possibility that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" references the reader to the outside world to make the required judgment instead of supplying that reader with that judgment as a fact, the text of the second amendment applicable to our time is equivalent to:

(When/if/as long as ) a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How then those who made the second amendment did not use (when,if..) instead of "being"?

Because, adding more direct emphasizing on their current time does not harm the general applicability of the statement. In addition  that direct emphasizing on their current time using the "being" word served as an indirect indicator that they are not claiming that a militia may be "necessary to the security of a free State" outside the time of that "being". In other words the statement still apply to all time either directly as in the time of that "being" or indirectly through contrast by omission although it may lead to different results.   
 
Notice that in the earlier part  I missed to add to the argument needed to be proved by the opposing side in #1 that the timing intended  by the intention it claims  should have been permanent or at least sufficient to include our time. Otherwise, one could assume, while still not satisfying the opposing argument requirement in #1, that "being necessary to the security of a free State" was intended to be imposed as a fact not dependent on judging the outside world for that time while the use of  the word "being" also signify dependency on the outside world for the future implementation. It would be as if  they were saying:
The future will depend on seeing and judging the outside world but we saw and judged our current world and because of that we establish it as a fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free State in our/current time]
  
  

District of Columbia v. Heller - 4

The court says:

"The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution"

This actually seems to stand against the court position instead of with it or even being neutral. That is because if all "agreed" while at the same time differed on whether it needed to be included in the constitution then it clearly suggests having the view of not wanting it to be taken and applied on a generality of times and situations like the other amendments and the restriction of not mentioning it by itself but only as part of another purpose seems to complete the picture here as an extension from that view.

It doesn't matter much that the court says that the same debate happened with other guarantees in the bill of rights. For those rights ended mentioned as unqualified or unrestricted stand alone rights unlike the keeping and bearing of arms and how that fits with the view mentioned above.

In addition it seems that two reasons comes to mind for agreeing to something but not wanting to include it in the Constitution. Either it is seen as too basic or it is not seen as sufficiently apply or needed for current and/or future times and situations. While the argument of being too basic can still be made for not wanting to include other things that came in the bill of rights in the constitution like freedom of speech or due process it cannot be made for the keeping and bearing of arms. That is not only because the right for that later thing seems to be clearly at high level not sufficient for that claim ,no matter how significant is this argument, but more importantly because the constitution itself significantly weakened or entirely abolished the capability for making that claim. That is because mentioning the right to keep and bear arms reasoned for [(Added 12/2/2013) by] the existence of a necessary militia stands very strongly against that the view for not wanting to include it in the constitution was because it was seen as too basic. For that claim it make things much worse than not mentioning that "right" altogether.

Going back to the beginning, otherwise without the view that a right to keep and bear arms may not apply to or be needed for the future as it did for that time what could have prevented them from declaring it as a basic right on its own the way they did with things like the freedom of speech or the right of the people to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures?

There are things in the bill of rights that clearly cant give the same power of excuse for a government to take them away than that of keeping and bearing of arms, yet, unlike them it was not mentioned as a basic right on its own. It was only mentioned as part of a statement about the militia being necessary. In fact, all the pre bill of rights historical examples cited by the court about how firearms were taken by rulers and governments as part of an effort to control people to establish tyranny and their suggested effect on those who made the second amendment (and the bill of rights in general) also support more the argument here and back fire on the position of the court itself because the keeping and bearing of arms was not mentioned as a stand alone basic right like others in the bill of rights.

Notice how those who made the amendments of the bill of rights did not shy away from dealing with things that do not seem necessarily worthy of mentioning for future restrictions or regulations as other things in that bill. One seems to be ready example of that is the quartering of soldiers of the third amendment. They also do not seem to have been always shy from extending a rule taking what was at their period as a base as seems to be the case with the jury trial right for a value of more than $20 in the seventh amendment. Yet despite all that, the same people who accepted that the value of $20 dollars be also the measurement for future times (or were more concerned about fitting their time and counting on future people to do the same) when it came to the issue of keeping and baring of arms they acted as if they said:
Oh, wait a minute, we are not going to mention that on its own as a stand alone right like other things in this bill.

That clearly shows a different picture from that the court wanted to show.

Again, as much as the court try to strengthen its position by speaking about the significance of history examples of taking away firearms on those who made the bill of rights as much as it is weakening its application of the second amendment on our time because the keeping and bearing of arms was not mentioned as a stand alone right like other things in the bill of rights. [(Added 12/2/2013) In other words, as much as taking away firearms in the history had its effect on those who made the second amendment but they still did not accept to give a right to keep and bear arms on its own without serving another purpose then as much as that suggests even stronger intention and determination on avoiding imposing that right where and when it does not fit various situations and future times

[(Added 12/3/2013) One could also say that as much as taking away firearms in the history had its effect on those who made the second amendment but they still did not give a right to keep and bear arms like other rights in the bill of rights without assigning and restricting it to the purpose for which they declared it as a right as much as that suggests even stronger intention and determination on avoiding taking it as a basic right applicable to various situations and future time]

Now lets take a more detailed look at the picture to which I referred in the first paragraph here as it relates to the argument that a desire to have a right for keeping and bearing arms while at the same time differ on whether it should be included in the constitution suggests having a view suspicious of how that right may fit future times with varied situations.

What would you do when you feel you are making a decision based on some special environment and circumstances and you worry that others may try to apply your decision on situations for which it is not suitable? One path that seems to come first to mind is to tell your story when you mention your decision. Those who made the second amendment did something very similar to that. The second amendment is the only one I know of that intentionally shows not only the end result but the process through which that end result was reached.  It was the equivalent of saying we don't know about your situation; this is what we have in our time and because of which we gave that right. See how that fits with the view just mentioned?

If you want to expand the picture to the whole bill of rights you  may see a similar statement stated through things like that of giving the right for jury trial for a value of more than $20 in the seventh amendment .

While that seems to apply on also how the court seems to take the relationship between the process part and the result part of that amendment, you can even fit things deeper and see more details of that picture if you think about how the use of the word "being" may reflect an attempt to tell about what was being found and understood at that time rather than an attempt to impose a notion (that a militia is necessary) on the reader.

Those who made the second amendment and the bill of rights in general not only intentionally showed a process and end result for the second amendment but also showed that they did not care to apply the same thing on any other amendment in that bill]

 

District of Columbia v. Heller

My record keeping system

Unless I worry about some moral wrong, I try to restrict myself with this record keeping system when I post. When I make a post I give myself  the freedom to change it how I want and as much as I want including deleting it completely as long as that happen within up to 24 hours after I post. After that period I can only add things clearly marked with the date of that addition. 

District of Columbia v. Heller - 3

I posted a little time ago that there seems to be more to the court's position in answering the relative power argument I talked about in post 2 of this series about the case and here it is.

Based on what I currently see ,and I intend to continue checking on what I could have missed, it seems that the court started by accepting that the " being necessary to the security of a free state" clause as if it could be mainly a description rather than a condition or a qualifying thing. Then before you can argue how that could then fit with the purpose of giving the right to bear and keep arms in the second amendment you see what currently appears to me as some kind of acrobatic reasoning. It seems as if the court accepted the probability that the direct purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the government from dismantling militia creation and that the keeping and bearing of arms was stated as a right as some kind of a higher level attempt to prevent the government from doing that.

First, that understanding seems to be weakened by exchanging what generally understood as the main purpose (Having sufficient power to face a military or army of that time) with what seems to be secondary ( just a way to make it more difficult for the government to dismantle a militia).

Second, that understanding is also weekend by the starting justification of the second amendment. It doesn't seem very reasonable that those who made that amendment accepted the risk on civilian life for just that gain which could have been reasonably satisfied without involving firearms ownership.

Third, because of the relative primitiveness of weapons used at that time, the purpose of just preventing dismantling of the militia by the government also satisfy the creation of a militia with reasonably sufficient power to face a military or army of that time.

In other words, in our current time few persons using military machinery can wipe out entire areas and kill thousands and thousands of people easily (including those with guns or even military machinery that is less developed than the other side ). So, number is not a big thing. At that time, on the other hand, because of the relative primitiveness of the weapons used in battles the number of fighters was a big reasonable factor to win a battle. That means creating a sufficiently big militia imply creating a sufficiently powered militia. Or let me express that using the terms of the argument to which I am trying to respond: at the time of the second amendment preventing the dismantling of a militia implied preventing  weakening the militia. [(Added 11/18/2013) change the last part of the previous sentence from "preventing  weakening the militia"  to  "preventing having a militia with less than the reasonably sufficient power".Therefore it is not reasonable to recognize a separate intention between those two united purposes unless the speaker himself put an effort to declare his intention with regard to that separation. That is even more true when the separator try to flip and use the intended right to carry and bare firearms which is essentially an empowerment thing and use it for his claim separating those two united intention.

Forth, the purpose of the prevention of the dismantling of militia itself is allowing the creation of militia. Since the constitution is not a fairy tale story the "being necessary to the security of a free state" should apply as a condition if not on the current militia then at least on the target future militia. In other words, there should be a reasonable path for the militia to be "necessary to the security of a free state" and therefore arguments I made in post 2 of this series still apply.

Now, consider how that the type of militia to which the court refers would have been powerless in front of even the military machinery of second world war or even earlier. The same militia at our current time would still be powerless in front of the same machinery of the second world war and even much more powerless in front of the modern military machinery. Is that a reasonable path for a militia to have sufficient power satisfying to " being necessary to the security of a free state"? This is dreaming and imagination because the development of weapons between then and now completely changed every thing.

Note that I could be still missing significant things about the related positions of the court in the arguments I am trying to answer. Nevertheless, it is not a bad thing to build a stronger base by responding to other possibilities while zeroing in more closely on the position of the court so that it can be better understood and responded to.

District of Columbia v. Heller
 

Description or condition?

It seems to me that support for my interpretation of the " being necessary for the security of free state" in the second amendment  as a condition rather than just a general description for any "well regulated militia" is the missing link that many of my writings that depended on that part need. This is the only way I can make sense of the difference between what I wrote and the court opinion (mentioned in the previous post) I am reading.

[(Added 11/17/2013) On a second thought, while more support is certinly better, that link could be less missing than I described because that clause should be understood as a condition if not for the current militia then at least for what is the target for it to be]   

District of Columbia v. Heller - 2

This response to a second selection of the supreme court case in the title is related more closely to a main argument front of mine. 

 

"...as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right"

 

First, clearly I would like to agree with some part in the quoted text above and emphasize that guns have no power in fighting the machinery of a modern (and it doesn't even have to be very modern) military. But how does the quoted text and court opinion in general responds to this fact?Based on my current understanding, it seems the court thinks that fact does not change their interpretation because (1) a "militia" at that time meant merely people with lawful arms and/or (2) allowing gun ownership is part of the process for building a militia reasonably equipped to fight a modern military.

 

[(Added 11/17/2013) What I wrote above seems not to be complete regarding the court's position and that would be explained in some post(s) I intend to write probably today]

With regard to "(1)" ,and assuming it is true, it still doesn't apply on or justify the creation of similar militia at our time which, in fact, wont be really similar. It wont be similar because that structure of a militia empowered by the second amendment to carry arms equivalent to those held by armies or militraies at that time creates a militia force very reasonably capable of fighting those forces. In fact even without the second amendment it is not very unreasonable for a mass of people to fight those one bullet firearms at that time with swords ,knives or even tree branches. It is not even close to fighting fighter jets or tanks with your gun. In fact even with modern firearms against disarmed nations, standing of dictatorships depends on the machinery of their military not the power of these firearms which a revolting mass seeking freedom may not even count them as a real impediment despite being disarmed. In other words, even if  a militia at that time meant what the court says it meant that still wouldn't imply disregarding its relative power because it would still have created a militia with a reasonably sufficient power to fight armies and militaries of that time. So how can that be used as a justification for creating a militia this far from sufficient power at our current time?
In addition, if having sufficient power by the militia was not of a concern at that time why make this second amendment  in the first place? Instead of its current form, the second amendment could have been about allowing the creation of a militia without going through firearms ownership. But no, the second amendment itself did not accept not to balance the power even to the level of giving the militia the right to have firearms and make it in an equal footing with  a military or army of that time despite the relative primitiveness of  firearms of that time. So how can the current big difference of power between a militia and any modern military not be counted as an argument against militia creation as intended by the second amendment?

 

With regard to "(2)" in allowing gun ownership because it is part of the process of building a militia that somehow someday will have sufficient power in comparison with a modern military, it is like the action of a regular person who think it is acceptable to put car seats in an area designated for a car parking only because it is part of a car building process he somehow someday will figure how to do.

That objection is also empowered by the "necessary" word in the second amendment which imply readiness. The "necessary" word as used by the second amendment also imply sufficiency. It would not make much sense for someone to tell a stranger that shows are the necessary thing for him to travel the distance to Mexico City. Such a statement would probably be immediately corrected by a third person saying: No a car or plane ticket is what you need to travel that distance.

That last example may lead us to answer both "(1)" and "(2)" above by just paying more attention to what the second amendment says. The second amendment used the description of "being necessary for the security of a free state" as the reason or justification for what it allowed as rights. Unlike the travel to Mexico City example above were wearing shoes is still necessary to do the main requirement of driving a car or riding a plane to the destination, there is no half way or implied way for a militia to satisfy the condition of "being necessary for the security of a free state".It either has  a reasonably sufficient power to face armies and militaries of its time and therefore may be seen as satisfying that necessary condition or it does not and therefore it doesn't satisfy that necessary condition. The mere existence of what can create the kind of militia suggested by the court without knowing how it would have reasonably sufficient power to fight the machinery of a modern military does not satisfy that necessary condition in the second amendment of "being necessary for the security of a free state" because such militia has no reasonable path to have sufficient power for that purpose.               

 

Add to the arguments related to the sufficiency and readiness above the existence of the  justification mentioned at the beginning of the second amendment. That justification suggests a compromised decision through which those who made the amendment gave something (accepting the risk of firearms on civilian life) and took  in exchange of that the making of a militia reasonably equipped to fight armies or militaries of that time. So it is not a case of something is better than nothing and it  is very important what is being gained in exchange for the price being paid. The current compromise creates a militia that  reasonably does not have the sufficient power to stand to the machinery of any modern military while at the same time accepts paying much higher price than that at the second amendment time because of the much bigger danger of modern firearms on civilian life. 

 

 District of Columbia v. Heller

 

District of Columbia v. Heller

Every now and then I intend to respond or comment on some part of second amendment court cases. This post deal with my first selection from the case titled above at the supreme court.

 

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, 2792*2792 prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

 

First, it is not necessary to take the argument to which the text above responds in the form suggested of  "only those arms in existence in the 18th century" but it can also be understood to mean excluding current arms that are not reasonably expected to be part of the vision and expectations at that time.

In any case, I personally prefer to concentrate on the vision and foreseeability (or lack of it) for the type of weapons held by a military in our time and that is related to another part to which I intend to respond at some later time.    

 

Nevertheless, no matter how one may see the validity of the argument to which the quoted text responds that response is wrong. it is wrong because it compares the generality of the meanings of words related to actions with those related to objects and things. If for example a person promises another something if that other person comes the next day then it is generally very reasonable to see that the promising person would be required to fulfill his promise no matter how much it was unexpected the way that other person  used to achieve that. On the other hand, if the instructions for some collage exam, for example, states that "No computer allowed" then that it is not unreasonable to see that not being interpreted to mean a basic calculator cannot be used in the exam although it is also used for computing things. I think that is clearly how meanings related to objects in comparison to those related to actions are  generally understood everywhere.    

 

One may also be able to say that the quoted text above incorrectly treated things that are conceptual only with things that also exist as objects then followed that by equating the different forms through which the same conceptual thing may come with different things on which the same name of an object may apply. [(Added 11/15/2013) Those who refer to conceptual only things (for example the freedom of speech) recognize their free attachment capability and therefore expect the different forms of its implementations. The same thing does not apply on physical objects.Also since "Speech" and "Search" ,for example, do not exist on their own they may therefore ,like a fluid, take the shape of the medium or form through which it is conveyed or implemented]  

 

 The "No computer allowed" if intended to prevent using even a calculator could have been stated as "No computing device allowed". In the case of "arms" in the second amendment ,and for it to be similar in clarity to the examples in the quoted text, it could had been expressed ,for example, using the definition of what arms are. On the other hand when someone just use the word "arms" then it is much less clear whether he is referring to all things on which the definition of that word apply or just what is being called as "arms" at his time. Ignoring the other possibility despite the fact that generally its use could be by far much more than the first doesn't seem very convincing or at least won't make it equivalent to the examples mentioned in the quoted text . Anyone can think with himself about how many times he used object names to refer to currently existing objects in comparison with how many times he used them to refer to all things on which the definitions of those names apply.

 

[(Added 11/15/2013) One very important difference between the examples given and the argument to which the quoted text is responding that can make that argument sound much less "bordering on the frivolous" is the justification or explanation mentioned at the beginning of the first amendment and the lack of something similar to it in the other examples (and probably the entire constitution). That justification suggests an effort to compromise between the danger of arms on civilian life and the protection of a democratic system at its infancy during that time. So it is clearly not outrageous to think that unlike other things in the constitution there is no limitless domain here and that one doing a critical compromising or balancing of things like those related to the second amendment may make decisions that are more tied to the status of things at that time which clearly can include the kind and capabilities of arms used at that time]  
   

District of Columbia v. Heller

 

The " twenty dollars " Argument

Even if we assume that the current interpretation of the second amendment is correct there is still a very strong argument against trying to fit it on our time despite the huge difference between then and now. That argument is very strong and very sufficient by itself and may not need additional support from an external thing. However, strengthening it even more with something from the constitution itself is even better.

The seventh amendment gives the right to a jury trial for any amount exceeding "twenty dollars" . Apparently following the unreasonableness of applying the second amendment on our time and causing all the gun mess blood sheds here was easier for some to choose than just following something that may sound silly because of its low value. As a result it seems that was never implemented.

Anyway, implementing that twenty dollars clause or not is not the point here. The point is what the mentioning of that amount signifies. Was the reason is that those who made that amendment failed to see that eventually such amount may become trivial and unreasonably low? If that is the case then how do you count on their extension of the vision behind the second amendment from then to our current time despite the huge difference in the advancement of weaponry? Which thing is easier to anticipate or predict at that time that the $20 dollars value may diminish or that there will be fighter jets or even any kind of airplane?

Or was the reason for the use and mentioning of the "twenty dollars" clause is that it was written for that time and those who made it were not concerned about how the future may change the significance of that amount? In that case it shows you how much you could be wrong by exaggerating in following the constitution by implementing the second amendment (as the way you currently interpret it) on the current day and age? What support your current position in treating the second amendment as if it was written with even what seems to be the very unreasonable expectation of a scope of vision sufficient to accommodate and contain the modern changes in weaponry even despite such a signal by the twenty dollar clause of the seven amendment? That is especially true when you think about how the second amendment is ,to the best of my knowledge, the only one that started with a justification or explanation. Who knows? May be that clause in the seventh amendment was an intentional signal to the future people to pay attention to what is at their time and follow intelligently.

Both the "arms" in the second amendment and the "twenty dollars" in the seventh amendment are related to things that change in relative significance to its own type with the passing of time , devices and money ,respectively, but you chose to treat them very differently in following your constitution. [(Added 11/11/213) If you think that changes in the way people live made that twenty dollar a trivial amount between then and now then the advancement in science and technology and their effect on the making of weapons between then and now made guns even more trivial in comparison to the kind weapons held by a military.

In addition, the twenty dollars value in that seventh amendment was not justified by a reason for its necessity or importance and you yourself chose to measure its value in today's world. The right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment, on the other hand, was justified by the purpose of militia creation. In other words, those who made that amendment gave you that reason as a measurement target so the amendment itself is calling on you to think about the effectiveness of that right for the purpose for which it was intended even if you do not want to choose to do that on your own.

[(Added 11/12/2013) One very important difference which I cant skip pointing it out directly between the right to keep and bear arms of the second amendment and the right to a jury trial for a value of more than $20 in the seventh is the strong sense of compromise the second amendment showed in creating that right despite the primitiveness of these arms at that time . That right is now being transferred for arms ,although much weaker and ineffective to face weapons of forces that are used in today's world to invade or establish dictatorships (militaries), are much more dangerous on the civilian life. There is clearly nothing anywhere close or similar to this compromise stated or can be seen in the case of the seventh amendment ]

[(Added 11/13/2013) " strong sense of compromise " in the paragraph above should be "struggle to reach that compromise"]
 Also, the view that money could change value was clearly out there and is not that hard to be reasoned at that time. The huge field of advancement in technology and science and in turn its effect on the making of modern weapons, on the other hand, was not even close to be seen or something reasoning at that time can reach. You may underestimate these changes because you are accustomed to it but imagine asking someone at that time how foreseeable these changes were to him. That is why it is considered an interesting thing if we find someone who predicted some of the devices we currently use even if it is in a general manner.

I think that it is hard to ask for a better sign from the time the constitution was made telling you that you are exaggerating your dependence on the intention of those who wrote the constitution to have their vision fit changes beyond their time like that of the changes in the technology and science of weapon creation between then and now than that twenty dollars clause]

By the way, according to some source I read even if you adjust the "twenty dollars" for inflation it would lead to ,according to what I remember, less than $7000 and that is still very far from the current requirement of $75000 for federal diversity jurisdiction.

[(Added 11/12/2013) Also, it was decided that the seventh amendment does not apply on the states while, on the other hand, the second amendment was applied on both the federal and state level despite using the state unit in the reasoning contained in it]   

Let me try to express more clearly what I meant in the first part of the previous post with this example. If you notice , from far away, that a toddler just fell in a pool and you shout to its parent who was busy with something else to notice that then in a normal reaction no matter how much that parent appreciate your notice that appreciation would not take any part from the seriousness of  his/her effort to correcting the situation.

I don't feel the same balanced reaction here. I don't feel that the main matter here is far enough from being taken as a game where even things that are of the notice kind of this example are not themselves being used to at least partly eclipse the gravity of that main matter and that the view to the human value of the victims in comparison with those talking about or dealing with this matter is not reduced to be closer to that of a thing making the occasion.      

Taking this like playing a game

It seems to me as if this subject is not being take seriously even by those who may appear closer than others to what I say here. It seems to me as if even many if not most of those closer than others to my position here are taking this like a game where the gravity of the situation as it relates to the victims are abandoned and replaced by positive feelings toward those who point out this deadly gun mess in this country. What is secondary should never eclipse and used to avoid the main thing and the death of the victims should never be used as an occasion where these secondary things become the main thing.That may show that while outside they appear against what is going on, inside they still take this as a game just like those on the opposite side.

Another thing that may support this view is taking the standing against gun violence against the innocent in this country as a humanitarian thing. This could imply that either gun ownership is a natural thing in reality and not something superimposed on reality in this country. And/or this could also imply that being a victim of gun violence is a consequence of being less fortunate in something from nature or failing in what others had succeeded but they care, like a philanthropist rich man looking after some poor people, and not that in many situations with gun violence the difference between being and not being a victim is just pure luck and not because of any nature or natural reasons.

Also, another big difference is that, except for acknowledging the guilt and injustice suffered by those who were the victims, those who are still living and not yet victims of gun violence are actually doing things for themselves not the victims when they work on correcting this mess.As for the victims, the guilt is already established and may belong to all those who support the continuation of this mess in  this country.
    

Some states would gain, the rest would lose nothing.

Remember that not forcing the second amendment ,as it is currently understood, won't prevent any state from allowing ,or continuing to allow, ownership of firearms. It would only give states which do not want that the option to choose what they want. Currently there are fifty states for those who want to live with guns but no state for those who want the safety of no guns to live in .

Some states would gain, others would lose nothing

Remember that not forcing the second amendment ,as it is currently understood, won't prevent any state from allowing ,or continuing to allow, ownership of firearms. It would only give states which do not want that the option to choose what they want. Currently there are fifty states where those who want to live with guns can choose to live but absolutely no state where those who want to live in the safety of no guns can choose to live. 

Better result alternative path

I have just noticed yesterday night that there is an alternative path to the sufficiency argument I made in the earlier post that could lead to better result. I noticed that instead of questioning the current interpretation for the second amendment regarding the type of arms allowed to the public,I can build on it with that sufficiency argument.What could help even more in that regard is that those two arguments (limitations on arm types and my sufficiency argument )are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can be independent of each other. If the view for the currently allowed arms to the public is based on their being common or descendants of arms that were common at the time of the second amendment then that still wouldn't contradict the argument that the intention was to allow the creation of a militia that is equipped to fight on the same scale open to others and the government. That is because at that time wars can be fought and won in a big part depending on these types of arms. Like I said earlier "necessary" in the second amendment imply sufficiency.So if the second amendment was about arms that were commonly held by the public during that time then it follows from that that based on the second amendment itself the second amendment has been no longer applicable for a long time because these arms are very far away from empowering the creation of a militia that is sufficiently equipped to stand to any military with explosives, tanks, missiles ,airplanes and other military weapons. In other words, if the intention behind the second amendment was to prevent any law making common public arms that can make a public militia sufficiently equipped for a military battle illegal then it came with its own time limit which had expired a long time ago.

It was a mistake from me in the preceding post if I made the inability of legislators to deal with the issue of applicability of the second amendment on our time sounds less significant than it is. My point was that if the supreme court believe that the second amendment still apply on our time then I don't see what makes their interpretation of limiting the type of arms sounds to them as stronger than that of giving the right to obtain military kind of arms. Since allowing such capability seemed out of question to me my point was that if you are not interpreting the second amendment correctly anyway then why not choose the path that is less harmful to people?

 

But what if that highest court says:

You people want us to interpret the second amendment according to what we truly believe and do our job of being only the interpretation entity correctly without assuming the power of the legislation body? How about if we interpret that according to what we truly believe it meant not caring about the mess that could happen and without encroaching on the legislation field in order to cover for the sever shortcomings of your legislators, so we can show you how undependable they are in that respect?

 

I don't understand how could any sane legislator accept taking the risk of keeping such a statement like that of the second amendment the way it is despite the extreme difference of type of arms and their capabilities between then and ,starting from ,probably, a century and half later or earlier.  

It turned out that I was wrong

Or at least that I cannot find a convincing support that dealing with the second amendment issue in this country is a legislation not an interpretation problem. Of course legislators can resolve the problem very easily if they have the will to do such a thing. Nevertheless, even without that I cannot find anything that would support the current interpretation of the second amendment more than its opposite.

 

The second amendment was written at a time when guns were at the top of kind of weapons that can be used in what we in present day may classify as military combat. That is why the word "necessary" in the second amendment should be interpreted in a way that meant to lead to sufficiency. Otherwise, so many other things are also "necessary to the security of a free State" but they were not mentioned or paid the same attention. So, the kind of  "well regulated Militia" that is "necessary" is the "well regulated Militia" that is sufficient to combat the top kind of weapons available at the time. Since this is no longer the case in our time (or even since much longer before ) it follows from that that the second amendment no longer apply.  So  unless you want to allow civilians to have access to the same kind of weapons available to the military, stop playing games that can lead to only victimizing people without any choice they made with your gun mess because you are only kidding yourselves while giving away the price of innocent blood.  

 

Many people here need to open their minds enough to see that when it comes to advancement in weaponry ,just like in other parts of science and technology, this is not the eighteenth century any more. Your guns are only effective on civilians but when it comes to combating the machinery of any military in the current world they are less than a joke. Things like ,for example, the situation in Syria shouldn't be allowed to delude away from seeing that clear fact. If there are still some cities that are controlled by the resistance there then the dictator, for whatever reason, despite his criminality, seems still not doing indiscriminate attacks at the level Saddam had done to Iraqis in the uprising of 1991. In three days the province in which I was living fall and the revolting people,without guns, defeated the police and other security agencies . But then Saddam brought his army and they started shelling and attacking the cities with earth to earth missiles and our guns did not make much of a difference. As a sampling, I had the wife of an uncle of mine and a daughter of his died in the shelling. I did not have any relative civilian died in the American air attacks during the war. (By the way, I was not there when Saddam's army entered the cities, but what happened there  was at a level of war criminality that is beyond what many may imagine and the American army disgracely allowed that to happen. Anyway, it turned out that the wickedness of just stopping short of removing saddam from power was also bad for the wicked side in comparison to removing that dictator later). 

 

 It is astonishing that in the place with a contribution to world science and technology like this, when it comes to the subject of the applicability of the second amendment many choose to live in a delusional mentality of still being in the eighteenth century.

 

[(Added 10/2/2013) But   I would also say ,Regarding the part in parenthesise above, that I was among the people who fled to a city near the border with Saudi Arabia and stayed there until news came that country had opened its border to Iraqis. Nevertheless, I doubt very much,and that is also based on signs I think I have,the acceptance of that country to us was without the calling and/or the pressure from this country . The US army kept us for about two weeks under their protection but still inside Iraq while they prepared a place for us to camp inside that bordering country]         

A Civilized Nation?

Does proceeding through life while accepting that others die because of an empowerment we allow that made killing them very easy without availing themselves in any way to the aggressor sounds to any one as an action of a civilized nation?   

As if never existed

Yesterday there was a news story about someone who shot a neighbor family and a person outside for no reason. This of course could be one example of others I did not hear about. Today you live like nothing happened and as if those killed never existed. I personally, still need to learn to be like you and accept the gun murdering of those who did not avail themselves to the aggressor in any way and treat it as if it is not only something under our control to prevent but also something we empowered to happen.

The title of this blog

In case anyone wonder why didn't I title this blog as "addicted to guns" instead of "drugged on guns" here is the answer. While not being a native speaker makes me often miss clear things related to the use of the language this was not one of those situations. I used "drugged" instead of  "addicted" because it better represents my position in calling for us to mature into a gun free society. For that purpose the word "drugged" sounded to me as a better choice since the word "addicted" seems to be more suitable for things that could be a problem only if over used which is not my position toward guns in this country. 

Due process and gun victims

If you want to sue someone in a different state the constitutional due process is interpreted in a way that requires the defendant to have made or agreed to make a contact with your state through which that defendant "availed" himself to your state. Otherwise, it is seen as unfair to bring that defendant to the courts of that state and make him the subject of a ruling from these courts.

This is very similar to why I criticize gun ownership. No other weapon empowers the killing and mass murdering of persons who did not avail themselves in any way to the attacker as much as a gun does.
　

Empowering killing and disabling suing

If you want to sue someone in this country you may have to bring the complaint to the defendant close enough to poke his eye with it. If you want to kill someone ,on the other hand, the law here empowers you to own a device that can make you do that easily and without getting close to the victim or having his attention.

Safeguarding my freedom of expression

 In order to protect my freedom of expression I reserved an address on the web I can use if I want to.

That address is: www.uemcs.com
It is currently empty.

20 weeks abortion? You must be kidding?

It is some times needed to have an external view. I heard in where I came from some people say that after or from 40 days of pregnancy it is religiously forbidden. Remember that is at a time and/or area where pregnancy tests were far from being available as they are here in these days.

In any case why would any woman needs 20 weeks to discover that she is pregnant and make that decision? In comparison, when a man does an act that may lead to creating a life he has made his choice and do not have even one second of additional time to undo his choice not to mention days or weeks.

To those gun enthusiastic legislators working against such thing I say If I was in your place I wouldn't even accept being one second with the side that allow such thing to happen but I also want to ask you this. So you think that you need to protect a potential victim despite the mother-child general emotional connection but you accept empowering the taking of lives of potential victims by those who generally do not have any emotional connection with them through your gun ownership and the wide spread of that killing device?  

Ask anybody

I have recently deleted two posts about a different subject. The reason for deleting those posts is that I felt confused about what I wrote but did not feel like I want to put
more thinking into the subject at this time.

In any case in those posts I stated a view that is different from the view usually comes or expected from those speaking against the spread of guns in this country. That shows how my opinion about the subject of guns here comes from the inside and is not a consequence of belonging to any group or an attempt to join any group. But I am not alone in that. In fact, my position against gun ownership is only a sample showing general or wide spread attitude toward guns in an expanded view to where I came from. I heard people stating, in comparison with the situation there, how good it is to be able to express your opinion and criticize the government in countries like this. I have never heard anyone there stating how good it is to be able to buy a gun here or expresses any desire to have a country where gun ownership is allowed. Guns are always viewed as a dangerous thing that shouldn't be allowed and a big negative of this country. Remember, that also comes despite the big impression that things here and in the west generally should be good things. Nevertheless, that impression still couldn't pull up or affect the view toward gun ownership. That shows how strongly the refusal of guns was coming from the inside.

You may find varying stands regarding various issues there that could assign a person more to any political entity here but the lack of feeling of a need for a government that allows gun ownership is a common thing.

I have had a view critical of the gun situation from the first time I stepped a foot in this country more than two decades ago. I started or had a renewed thinking about the subject after I noticed the level of involvement guns have in everyday committed crimes. At the beginning a person new to a place may feel something is not supposed to be as it is but may counter that with the thought that there could be something special preventing the potential of bad consequences of that thing. But then reality may awaken that person and he would realize that while there could be differences in technology and other things, when it comes to anger, hate, jealousy and other emotional feelings all people are similar. He may realize that when something is honestly judged at some place as very dangerous to be allowed because of potential misuse resulted from a human emotion and desire then that probably also applies at the other place because all people have emotions and desires. Coincidentally I was thinking about the subject of gun violence just before when the Colorado attack of 2012 happened which was not even one of the kind of things I had in mind when thinking about the subject.

The availability of gun ownership in this country is not something people in other countries cant reach but something they don't want to reach. Any group can differentiate themselves through bad things if they want.

My first second amendment reading

Although I did not know what the content of the second amendment is until less
than a year ago, I felt strongly about a different interpretation for why gun ownership
was allowed than what seems to be the way it is usually used in gun access related
discussions. I used to think while I hear people here mention the second amendment
that those who wrote the constitution were trying to safeguard against a return of
a tyranny or undemocratic system while some here think or act as if it was for their
enjoyment or gun fascination. Probably because I myself came from a tyranny, I felt
as if I am closer to the intentions of those who wrote parts like this in the constitution than many people here understanding otherwise. I was ready to argue for my interpretation or reasoning even if the second amendment was stating just simply that there is a right for gun ownership and I actually was not expecting something very different than that. Nevertheless, probably less than seven months ago I thought why don't I myself take a look at what this second amendment is actually saying. When I read its beginning "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." it was like a shock to me. I kept wondering did they really say that? Have I failed in understanding it because of a less than sufficient second language skills?After a while I came closer to realizing that this is again just another example of  how those who want to interpret or use something according to their desire may do so with anything.

It is unbelievable that all the gun mess in this country happened despite the existence
of such phrase at the beginning of the second amendment. From the time when
you may be able to do a comparable damage by throwing the firearm itself on someone rather than shooting him with it, those who wrote that amendment put an effort to tell
you that we are not allowing these things for just the fun of having them. Frankly speaking it is hard not to have some admiration for how they cared about adding
such reasoning from a time like that. It was a time where the notion of individual
power in contrast with state power for protection was the dominant and mostly the
only option because of the weakness of the state to do that like it is in our days here.

Even from the view at that time, if they intended for the gun situation to be at the mess
it has been at our time why did they even bother themselves to put such a phrase at the beginning? Why didn't they just state the right to firearms ownership without adding any reasoning to it? Look at it, they are talking in terms of a "state" not "individuals". Based on that part one may think about two reasons for firearm ownership and they are to protect a free state from an inside danger by changing into a tyranny and to protect a free state from invasion by outside. For people who have just made a young system they don't know how long it or the values they care about in it will last, they were in much more need for such safeguard than people in later years. In any case, with building and making a modern army, especially one like that of this country, both of the reasons mentioned above no longer exist. You made your choice by deciding to have an army. You cannot have it both ways. This means the two things that were needed for the reasoning to accept the existence of firearms as a compromise despite the harm they can do to individuals even at the time that amendment was written are no longer here at our time while the level of the harm on individuals these firearms can do is significantly much higher.     

  

It is actually very simple

Imagine yourself with those who were shot in the movie theater
in Colorado. Do you accept that kind of empowerment that makes
taking your life that easy? Are there benefits for such empowerment
that can counterbalance that? No,Not even close. Actually, not only
the combined benefits or need are further than earth to haven from
counterbalancing that but also one cannot easily find any. The, relatively,
most prominent argument one may hear for the existence of guns seems
to be the existence of guns itself, in other words the existence of other guns.

But there should be a point of start to end this vicious cycle.Otherwise
no drug addict could have been treated. We need to start taking guns away.
In addition, even in the field of that argument alone,guns, unlike other civilian weapons, provide far much more power for the bad guy, who is unrestricted
morally to start shooting first and wouldn't care if he shoots unrelated parties
than for the responding good guy. Those who think that there are people who
would have shot them if only it were not for their guns need to watch less action
hero  movies because apparently they are not mature enough to separate that from reality.


 

Justice, Freedom And Dignity Badly Bleeding Gun Wounds

At the root here is the question of justice. It is justice that deals with
the most basic right of a human being, the right to live. That right has
been taken away from gun violence victims by a system that gave
the power to take their lives through ownership of guns.
The question that tortures anyone who believe in the most basic level
of justice is this: How could people here find it morally acceptable that
they live while others with them die based on pure luck related to something
they allow that is neither from nature nor man made and really needed?

Second, how does that fit with the freedom talked about that much in this country?
Freedom means a system that doesn't support making a person face the consequences
of something other than what comes as a result of his own choices .It doesn't
get lower on that scale than the resistance free empowerment with gun ownership
to take lives based on no choice made by the victims.

Beside the questions of justice and freedom, there is a question of dignity. What
self-respecting people accept a system that empowers on them resistance free randomized killing among them like some farm sheep anyone of them could be
picked for the slaughter house for no reason?

The "Freedom" Sacrifice

Just like in fiction or ancient history some sacrificed members of their own because
they thought it was needed to calm a volcano or control a river not to flood or just to
feel a false religious satisfaction,we have in present day real world in this country people sacrificing members of their own through gun ownership because they think it is needed for their "freedom" or just to feel a false "freedom" satisfaction.

Saving vs. Not killing

Some politicians speak about saving people from gun violence but is it really
"saving" people or simply not empowering killing people through gun ownership?
Saving people is, for example, when the government build more places for people in which they can shelter themselves during hurricanes like that which led to the big tragedy recently in Oklahoma .Fighting the gun mess here,on the other hand, qualify much more accurately as undoing a self created mess rather than saving people.

     

Justice vs. Kindness

The thing that astonishes me the most is how people here treat this problem
as a question of kindness in comparison to being a question of justice
(or more precisely a question of not doing injustice). Although both apply
here, justice takes precedence. Would anyone call taking something that
belongs to him as unkind rather than an unjust act? So how about taking the
most basic right, the right to live, through the resistance free absolutely unneeded
gun ownership empowerment that is pretended to be a normal thing here?
   

What this is about

This is about what everyone knows but may refuse to admit despite the huge
immoral consequences involved. In other words, I am publishing here not
to bring something new but to fight the resistance to what is already known.