What's this got to do with anything? This is true of any constitution for most countries on Earth. The question I proposed to you was why you cannot use the regular non-constitutional laws that are changeable in the everyday business of politicians to deal with guns rather than keep it in as a fixed law in the Constitution?
Because arms ownership is a fundamental human right, and as such is protected in the Constitution. If removed, local and state governments would be free to infringe on it as they please (not that many still don't do this to a good degree anyhow).
How is arms ownership a
fundamental human right? I can equally claim that it should be a personal human right to have any weapon of destruction, even massively powerful ones that can harm more than one person as it serves my interest to protect my life regardless of other people's personal disposition towards me.
Where are you getting this strange logic from? If it is set in stone that Constitutional laws cannot be detracted from, then there is actually no such thing as an amendment process.
You can remove things from the Constitution, but to "update" it, you're going to have to add a lot more to it than detract from it, is what I am saying. That is why it is best to leave constitutions to just cover the big, timeless things. If you try to cover all "modern" things, then you get bogged down into length and detail, and then you end up with a constitution that gets outdated fairly quickly.
Please read how I demonstrated the irrationality of this in my first post. If it is rational to create perpetual laws to posterity that must be enforced and never change, why should we not obey one from an ancient proclamation to all of mankind, like the Bible, for instance?
If it was not ambiguous to anyone, then its interpretation would never be brought up or questioned by anyone. Yet it continues to be so in nearly every debate. The problem isn't that it has one unique correct interpretation from its originators. The problem is to the practical reality that people disagree to its functional meaning in today's context and have no way to call the original writers to the stand to see how they would fix this discrepancy considering today's society.
A lot of people bring up its interpretation due to their own lack of knowledge of the scholarship on it. I see journalists do this all the time. Regarding how to apply it in modern times, much of that has to do with a lack of understanding of guns period, IMO.
It is irrelevant that you
think there is only one unique interpretation to a law. Everyone who believes in any particular interpretation sincerely believes that there's is the only true one. What matters is that there
exists differences of interpretation. Even if you were correct to assume other people's misinterpretation due to some lack of knowledge, do you have grounds to assure that the whole collective of all invested scholars have an absolute consensus on the issue?
You agree that at least sometimes groups of insurrection can be evil as well as good. So how is anyone supposed to determine this? The insurrectors are certain to always maintain that they are the good guys. Reality isn't like Batman where the villains purposely dress to look evil.
It isn't an exact science, but I'd say most insurrections against the existing government would either have to be very stupid or evil, because there is no reason to try to overthrow a government that you can elect out of office. Now if a particular group is being oppressed and the majority of voters are okay with it, such as when extreme racism was occurring against blacks, that is different, but even then, peaceful civil resistance is always best to try first (and for the blacks population it worked in the end).
But then you are given just reason to agree to NOT having the population be voluntarily armed for the capability of overthrowing government. How would you determine that the majority of people sincerely support a cause if you have a potential evil government that is capable of distorting that status? That government would have to be absurdly stupid to announce that they are a simple minority imposing their force on the population. That was my point regarding villains in comic stories. In reality, no villain will actually believe that they are a villain or at least would not want others to think so and so will not purposely 'dress' to appear evil. If they did, they would have a hard time even maintaining the support of even their own people let alone others.
It's a mere technicality that Bush represents the head of a group's decision-making process. The fact is, his group, represented by him (that's why you have a Republic and not a Monarchy -- the President represents an elected politician and the Head of Government). The excuse for invasion was pushed by the President & company in advance of 9/11 and the relevance of Sadam had zero relations to that event for which they sincerely knew. They purposely were deceptive and actually pretty bad at it too. It was transparent that they were wanting to find any hint of WMDs for an excuse to invade. And when they couldn't find any, it was all too obvious that they weren't concerned about truth when a supposedly lone individual claimed to have witnessed them for himself and all of a sudden, all the expertise of such a highly intelligent agency like the C.I.A. and government did not care to check his credibility. Duh!! And claiming afterthefact that, "oh...well, Saddam was a bad guy anyways" is not even grounds in your own courts to justify conviction. I could spread a rumor of how bad someone is without actual evidence, and if he or she turns out to be charged for something else for which a court acts to convict but then discovers errors in the evidence, doesn't mean that my original rumor should replace the justification for keeping this person locked up. They didn't get a trial on the rumor.
The point is that all the hoopla from so many other countries about overthrowing Hussein was silly. The man was a brutal tyrant. We know that for a fact. It wasn't like invading Iraq cost the other countries of the world anything serious (except money for some of them that did business with Hussein). As for WMDs, if the evidence to that really had been so flimsy, the Congress would have exposed it. As it was, numerous politicians going back to the Clinton years (including Clinton himself) had claimed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat.
"Silly"? You're claiming the concern from others as merely trivial complaints without addressing their particular claims or justifying yourself. What evidence do you understand was the cause(s) for war? What reason(s) do you claim to know that Hussein was a tyrant and from which sources? Certainly, you cannot presume that the very people who want to overthrow another government for whatever reason is going to credit such governments and their leaders with good or even ambiguously good qualities. It creates indecisiveness to act. So just blindly trusting your authority when they label another as a "tyrant" is not evidence of being one. And even presuming he was bad and did bad things, how is the United States of America the jury and justice provider for the rest of the whole world?
Also, if it was merely about justice, then there should be NO evidence of external gain to the United States personal economic interests. If I volunteer to be a good Samaritan by saving someone out of a bad circumstance, who am I if I serve to profit from them?
And to your last comment, Bush did punish other people through sanctions to countries that wouldn't support him and favored those that did. Does it not make you wonder why all of a sudden after he threatened the world with, "you are either for us or against us," that Britain's appearance in the American social and economic arena grew so suddenly. Also, Australia, with a smaller population than Canada, also become predominantly a bigger part of the American mindset with Canada given more public attention to criticism.
Not sure what you are talking about here with regards to Britain growing in the American social and economic arena. Also, what sanctions on countries do you mean? I know President Bush enacted sanctions on Iran.
This is just plain arrogance and purposeful ignorance of other countries political and economic concerns. Your country gave economic interests to Brittan through favorable media attention and more exposure to them than any time in history. As a clearer cut case, you also gave Australia, who supported you this same exceptional attention. Considering that Australia has a smaller population than Canada and is on the other side of the globe, did you not notice their growth in the American mindset with an increase in Australian presence in things like the arts (movies and musicians)?
An example of a punishment to Canadians for
not supporting Bush was that your industries banned imported finished products from Canada by creating extensive border fees to such products and services contrary to the prior free trade agreements that was encouraged to stop this.
I was pointing out this fact with the understanding that you were aware of the United States' past involvements in overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries of the world to be replaced by particular dictators that they want (It's easier for America to deal with one person in control than a whole population represented by democracies.)
To the extent that the U.S. did that, it was not because it is "easier" to deal with dictators, it was because the democratically-elected governments were either communist or radical Islamists. Remember, democracy does not mean liberal democracy (democratic system that protects human rights and freedoms).
Again, (1) why would it be America's duty over and above all other countries to act in such a way? (2) If this was true, what reasons make the United States select only such specific countries to do this over other ones that have more just reasons to help on similar grounds? (3) How is the support of the creation of dictatorship for another population regardless of their population's personal democratic choices superior to the American's population preferences? American democratic vote isn't open to those country's election process. So American governments imposing change on another population is worse than the taxation without representation that the British imposed on American origins.
Well, I can't picture you discouraging America from imperialising the rest of the world. But you're only concerned should those in power not favor your particular sub-population for which you would then acceptably call, tyranny.
My particular sub-population? And I have no interest in America trying to "imperialize" the rest of the world.
I'm referring to your assumption that there could be a group of Americans (The whole minus those who govern) would always represent something anything superior to a tyranny. The problem is is that the definition of a democracy implies that the government IS the people by some means. When any group perceives themselves as separate from the government itself in a democracy, they are less than the majority.