"The Right to Bear Explosives"

"The Right to Bear Explosives"

Can I go in "QuickyMart" and buy a stick of Acme TNT?
Er. NOPE.
Not usually!

1) If I can prove I work for a building firm doing demolitions.
Then - MAYBE!

2) If I can prove I believe the government is now a tyranny and therefore have a legitimate right under the constitution to oppose it.
Then in that case - NOPE!

Timothy McVeigh - for example - did not do what I have just described to perpetrate the terrible mass murder of 168 people with explosives - which he invoked the US Constitution to justify!
He decided that the A.T.F. was a "government tyranny". Or something along those lines.
There was no debate following this deed about "EXPLOSIVES CONTROL", was there?
On this point, Charlton and the moralist are perhaps vindicated slightly again.

But if explosives are controlled - why aren't guns?

"EXPLOSIVES CONTROL" was not and is not an issue. If someone really wants to do such a thing they will procure the means to do so. McVeigh obtained his explosives by criminal means. Maybe he even synthesized himself in a home lab!

But the point is, explosives are indeed controlled. Guns should be too.

Did Charlton Heston do a routine with him weilding a stick of TNT and saying -
"From my cold blown away charred white bones where my hand used to be!"

Love and logic

I am not a Christian. But I do believe that we can transform the world by LOVE. And that justice is love in action!

Think logically. Anyone can do this. Try and think logically about anything and everything. Try to. I admit it is tricky. But my belief is that anyone can do so.
Logic is also something we all have and can try and use - I believe. All of us.

I also believe very strongly in forgiveness.
A great shining example of it was shown by Gordon Wilson after the Enniskillen Bombing in 1987.

Ramblings on Moses and Michael Moore

"War is killing" and of course the "right to bear arms"' in origin is "the right to wage war" on the government, in breach of the moral prescription not to kill.

Do Americans have to right to wage war on each other?

The justification for the right to bear arms is that the State was founded by armed insurrection by the people against a tyranny (at the time this was the British Empire).

Hence the American People enshrined the right to "do it again."
If their government were to become a tyranny for whatever reason, they had the right to overthrow it with arms.

The interesting point is that the government was from the first days of the U.S.A. supposed to be the people. They are supposed to be the same thing. It's a democracy!
The government is explicitly supposed to be government by, for and of the people already.

Does this mean that a constitutional right to arms should no longer be needed? Maybe.

The constitution was maybe right the first time. And is hence perhaps correct.
Charlton Heston is perhaps to some extent vindicated. For there is not necessarily a contradiction.

There is perhaps the right of the people to overthrow the government with whatever means - if - for whatever reason - it becomes a tyranny.

But as Moses in a movie, Charlton told people - rightly - "THOU SHALT NOT KILL!".
Guns DON'T KILL PEOPLE - PEOPLE DO.
Candlesticks DON'T KILL PEOPLE - PEOPLE DO.
Ropes DON'T KILL PEOPLE - PEOPLE DO.
Daggers DON'T KILL PEOPLE - PEOPLE DO.
Cars DON'T KILL PEOPLE - PEOPLE DO.

Are the guns held in the name of the constitutional right to bear arms held for the purpose of
overthrowing the government if necessary? Not really.

In the U.S.A. - in your society - in any society -
what can you as an individual citizen legally be allowed to do or purchase?

Can you go into a shop and buy a gun? YES

A Candlestick? YES

A  rope? YES

A dagger? SOMETIMES! In other words - is it easier to get a gun than a dagger?....

Alcohol? SOMETIMES very difficult.

HEROIN? NO. But in the 1950s in England all a citizen had to do was ask a G.P.

CARS? NO - Several layers of CONTROL and BUREAUCRACY need to be gone throo before a US Citizen can LEGITIMATELY PURCHASE a car. Any citizen can buy one.
But their purchase and use is to some extent REGULATED and CONTROLLED.

And that is perhaps the simple truth that proponents of gun control are making.
We do not necessarily deny the "right to bear arms", nor its historical truth, nor its need, nor its relevance!

We simply say that it clearly needs more state regulation!

Guns and the US Constitution

Gun control does not have to be against a single word of the US Constitution!

The right to bear arms is not necessarily an individual right - but possible a collective right.



Putting aside the question of rights, it is simply too easy to own guns in the USA - regardless of rights!
Do children have the right to bear arms? (If Americans nowadays aren't all children?)

Please refer to "BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE" by Michael Moore.

Given the way the U.S. gun laws stand, it could appear that in 2018, Americans have something like a constitutional right to murder.
But not the right to commit adultery if it's paid for i.e. prostitution is not legal.
This is using the language of the Christian 10 Commandments - which is very similar to most ethical systems anyway.

This is upside down and very wrong. For no one really wants to murder (as it often means one's own demise) - and one simply does not have the right to murder!

And - yet many people occasionally want to commit adultery.
They probably think better of it a few seconds later!
And perhaps sometimes one does have the right to!