"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!
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!