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.
No you can't. Arms ownership is a right because one has a natural right to self-defense. Arms are the basic tools of war one uses to defend oneself. One does not use weapons of destruction for self-defense purposes.
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?
Where did I say that laws should never change?
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?
Most of the "other interpretations" are from people who have read the amendment without knowing anything about it. In terms of scholarly interpretations, from what I've read, most scholars on the subject are in agreement regarding how it was written.
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.
There probably is no exact way to know if a majority support a cause or not, but one can generally gauge it I'd think by the number of people protesting. If it's a small group of yahoos, then most probably do not support them. If on the other hand, you end up with thousands in every major city and also in smaller cities and towns, then that is different.
"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?
Hussein was a known tyrant for many years, who tried to acquire nuclear weapons and had used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. Plus his government was modeled off of Nazi Germany (in a way, he was like a Middle Eastern Hitler). Your asking how does one "know" he was a tyrant is kind of like saying how does anyone "know" Vladimir Putin is oppressive or that Hitler was a tyrant or what have you.
As for calling the other countries against the war "silly," considering that Hussein was a tyrant and the U.S. was seeking to liberate the people in Iraq from said tyrant, yes it was pretty silly to be complaining so much as so many were. It wasn't like the U.S. was going in to conquer the area or something. The U.S. should not be the jury and justice provider solely on its own.
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?
Where did the United States profit from invading Iraq? All it did was cost a bunch of money and soldiers.
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 don't know about the Canadian imports, but I think you are reading too much into some perceived U.S. media attention to Australia and the United Kingdom. The media was mostly against invading Iraq and was not at all friendly to the Bush administration.
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.
1) It was America's duty because it was only America that had the ability to stand up to the Soviet Union.
2) Most of the countries the United States selected was to directly counter the Soviets and other communists. A whole lot of the "crap," if you will, that happened in the second half of the 20th century around the world, was because of the communists, primarily via the Soviets and the Chinese, wanting to oppress everybody and the U.S. just seeking to counter this.
3) America's creation is different in that it wasn't to extract resources and exploit the people for some "American empire" but rather to counter communists. This isn't to say certain American business interests didn't seek to exploit the situation at certain times.
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.
Yes, but in a liberal democracy, the system must protect the majority from the elite minority and the minority from the majority that seeks to oppress their rights. Also, groups that form to resist the government by force if the government suspended the democratic process I think could be superior to a tyranny. It would depend on the group.