I really don't want to talk about politics happening in another country, but what is happening in the U.S. now just seems to go against all notions of humane behaviour that I cannot help but feel like wanting to voice my own views on this.
At a time when the nation was young, with threats from all sides, a well-regulated militia was necessary for the nation to survive, to deter would-be aggressors and fight against actual ones. Yet today, the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, and neighbours of the U.S. either lack the will or the means to defeat the U.S. in such combat. The only real threat to the U.S., separated by vast oceans on two sides, would be intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads, and the federal government has devised means to counter such threats. There is no sense in arming people with guns against ballistic missiles. In a way, the concept of having a militia armed with guns to defend the U.S. is an obsolete one.
If you look at self-defence, we all know that self-defence needs to be timely and proportionate. When you apply this principle to individual defence, then if the aggressor is using a gun, yes, having a gun to fire back is self-defence. But if no one has the right to bear arms, there are no guns, then you do not need guns for self-defence. The right to self-defence is still guaranteed; the only thing is the damage factor, which can be reduced by taking guns totally out of the equation. In fact, many countries are able to keep homicide rates, and crime rates in general, at very low levels without having to arm their citizens with guns. While you can never say 100% that outlawing guns in these countries was the factor that resulted in such low crime rates, you can be certain it was one of the major contributing factors. Especially when you compare it to crime rates before these countries outlawed guns.
From an outsider, it is very clear that the gun issue in the U.S. is not an issue about protecting lives. It is an issue used by certain groups to push through their own agendas by using this issue to divide people. A people divided cannot stand up against the real threats. And that is what these groups know. They know that their power will be threatened if the people unite against them. So they need to find issues to divide the people so that they can continue to keep their power. If the people cannot look beyond the manipulation to see this, they will only continue to remain divided at their own expense, and give joy to those who benefit from such division.
My take? Ban the guns from daily lives. If you still want to keep the right to militias, go ahead, have them, but store the guns in the town armory. When an aggressor appears (if one ever does), you can go to the armory, take out the guns, and defend your town. Even if you are living miles away from civilization, modern times with telecommunications and cars mean you are no longer like the settler on the frontier who needs a gun to defend him or herself.
The constitution may be the core of a nation, but like all things, if it does not evolve with the times, it will become obsolete.
At a time when the nation was young, with threats from all sides, a well-regulated militia was necessary for the nation to survive, to deter would-be aggressors and fight against actual ones. Yet today, the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, and neighbours of the U.S. either lack the will or the means to defeat the U.S. in such combat. The only real threat to the U.S., separated by vast oceans on two sides, would be intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads, and the federal government has devised means to counter such threats. There is no sense in arming people with guns against ballistic missiles. In a way, the concept of having a militia armed with guns to defend the U.S. is an obsolete one.
If you look at self-defence, we all know that self-defence needs to be timely and proportionate. When you apply this principle to individual defence, then if the aggressor is using a gun, yes, having a gun to fire back is self-defence. But if no one has the right to bear arms, there are no guns, then you do not need guns for self-defence. The right to self-defence is still guaranteed; the only thing is the damage factor, which can be reduced by taking guns totally out of the equation. In fact, many countries are able to keep homicide rates, and crime rates in general, at very low levels without having to arm their citizens with guns. While you can never say 100% that outlawing guns in these countries was the factor that resulted in such low crime rates, you can be certain it was one of the major contributing factors. Especially when you compare it to crime rates before these countries outlawed guns.
From an outsider, it is very clear that the gun issue in the U.S. is not an issue about protecting lives. It is an issue used by certain groups to push through their own agendas by using this issue to divide people. A people divided cannot stand up against the real threats. And that is what these groups know. They know that their power will be threatened if the people unite against them. So they need to find issues to divide the people so that they can continue to keep their power. If the people cannot look beyond the manipulation to see this, they will only continue to remain divided at their own expense, and give joy to those who benefit from such division.
My take? Ban the guns from daily lives. If you still want to keep the right to militias, go ahead, have them, but store the guns in the town armory. When an aggressor appears (if one ever does), you can go to the armory, take out the guns, and defend your town. Even if you are living miles away from civilization, modern times with telecommunications and cars mean you are no longer like the settler on the frontier who needs a gun to defend him or herself.
The constitution may be the core of a nation, but like all things, if it does not evolve with the times, it will become obsolete.
