So I am going to try and edit the second ammendment in an attempt to make it more objective and less prone to interpretation. This stuff is not an easy task at all, which is why I am only tackling one of them! There are others that could use some touchups as well, but I should go to bed now.
----
Amendment II
Well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free society, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A militia is any group or groups of armed people willing to defend themselves and others from violent aggression and is not necessarily a government agency.
A clear assertion followed by a rule for government to follow. Less awkward sounding by adding "therefore". I took out the word "state" and replaced it with "society" Both words are abstract concepts, but society is less menacing than state in my opinion. "Country" might be good too. I added the militia definition because people always think militia means a government force like the US Army etc. An armed population is always going to be potentially larger than any formal government army, decentralized and better equipped to fight back invasions where they occur.
...Even though it is merely wishful thinking at this point I must draw the line of weapon\defense rights at nuclear weapons. I don't feel anyone has a right to own a nuclear weapon. Well no, more accurately nobody can possibly justify the use of a nuclear weapon to inflict megadeath! This is of course a silly idea, they exist, the cat's out of the bag. So therefore it is hypocritical for any government with nukes to disallow others from having them. I would love to see every last one of them gone, but it just isn't going to happen. Humanity made the mistake of creating government and creating atomic bombs, and one day government may destroy humanity using such weapons. Let me clarify; if humanity is destroyed at all, it will be at the hands of governments. That much I am certain of. Hopefully neither will happen.
The problem is that unlike everything else, a nuclear weapon is far too powerful to only kill the people who have attacked you. The bigger the bang the more innocent people will be involved and the less legitimate the weapon becomes in principle. A nuclear weapon continutes violating human rights long after the first explosion. It kills more than just the two or more armies fighting a war. When you can blow up entire cities at a time, that degree of force has no legitimacy. How can an entire city of people be that guility? With a gun you can aim it and only kill the asshole trying to kill you. With a nuke you've truly fucked things up big time. Oh boy radiation poisoning, what a lovely thing. We are talking true evil here.
Whiny gun control people want to magically unmake guns, personally I'd rather unmake nukes. *sigh* Everybody likes to fantasize I guess.
2 comments:
Interesting point about government being the one likely to drop the bomb. Interesting because they (the people responsible for launching the things) will likely be holed up in some bunker somewhere waiting it out. Dr. Strangelove comes to mind. A mine shaft gap. So far - even though it may not seem like it sometimes - we are a government of the people elected by the people. I am not ready to draw arms.
I also think there is a distinct difference between being armed to fight off your own country and being armed to shoot your neighbor who let his dog crap in your yard.
Representative government SEEMS nice, but I think it's bizarre to think that anyone can point to another person and have them act as their avatar. "Yes, that man over there, he represents me, let him make decisions for me." Fundamentally I think that's ridiculous. Democratic elections should not be a means with which to endorse everything done in their name. Elected or not, endorsed by people either passionately or tacitly these politicians are men are operating within a coercive system and are not culpable for their actions. They write laws they don't read, take the money and labor of others, and demand that you to know what the laws are and follow them or face fines and imprisonment. I think that's a flawed system.
With weapons of any kind, the burden of proof is on the person who is initiating force. Killing the dog owner because the dog violated your property rights is not right in my view. There are degrees of force which can be justified. In this sense I think the system of juries is a good one since it isn't always black and white. A jury would likely find a vengeful act like that to be dispicable whereas if a man broke into your house and you shot him dead they might think it justified. The degree of force used in defense should be comparable to that used by the aggressor. Also, if your neighbor is maliciously trying to harm you or your property there are many means of retalliation available before resorting to violence, but it's important that option not be banned. It isn't a perfect system yes, people can go overboard, but I still feel strongly that property rights are fundamentally important and the means to defend these rights should not be infringed by government. That is what the ammendment is all about, that you have a right to defend yourself from attack no matter where or who it comes from.
Post a Comment