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]
No comments:
Post a Comment