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?