AdityaMookerjee
Member
I saw a movie called 'A Mighty Heart', that is very relevant. President George W. Bush, had a situation before the 9/11 attack, where he was aware that many small groups with no previous identity, and individuals also, were attacking U. S. interests, military, and diplomatic, and saying 'Al Qaeda' are behind the attacks. It seems, that local issues were being attributed to a connection to the U. S., having a local presence, and people were associating themselves with Al Qaeda, a group they didn't know existed a short while before, and were being the cause of death and destruction to American life and property.
When the twin tower airliner bombings happened, the then President had this state of affairs in mind. He didn't know, what was going to happen, in the short, medium and long notice. In India, the 26/11 attacks took place in Mumbai, where people came to the shores of Mumbai, on a fishing boat, and carried out a terrible carnage. It appears, that anyone in the world, either individually or as a group, can avail of military grade training, because it is available. I mean, one can learn shooting a gun, in a firing range, and one can learn about physical agility and fitness relevant to the military, in a fitness gym, perhaps. In India, two school persons have made the distinction of climbing Mt. Everest, being the first school twins to do so.
The Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution has tried to remedy the bad occurrence that might be, in plain terms, where the elected representatives might not be in a position to protect themselves or their electorate. Also, the military is a legal control of the elected representatives. In the movie, the general scenario is of a high sense of personal insecurity among the journalists, U. S. govt. representatives and diplomats, the Pakistani ministers, and even among the terrorists. Daniel Pearl seems to embody this personal insecurity to everyone, and some are very grieved and concerned, while others might feel the issue an everyday occurrence.
Would Daniel Pearl have wanted to be in a situation, in the U. S., where people might see him violating their Second Amendment clause to their self detriment? What if people say, that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct in the U. S., but people don't regard the amendment overseas, being U. S. citizens, because the constitution doesn't respect their privacy or related concerns overseas? If the twin tower bombings hadn't happened, the bombers had a right to the Second Amendment, or a version of it, where they might protect their persons or property.
Please contribute to this discussion.
When the twin tower airliner bombings happened, the then President had this state of affairs in mind. He didn't know, what was going to happen, in the short, medium and long notice. In India, the 26/11 attacks took place in Mumbai, where people came to the shores of Mumbai, on a fishing boat, and carried out a terrible carnage. It appears, that anyone in the world, either individually or as a group, can avail of military grade training, because it is available. I mean, one can learn shooting a gun, in a firing range, and one can learn about physical agility and fitness relevant to the military, in a fitness gym, perhaps. In India, two school persons have made the distinction of climbing Mt. Everest, being the first school twins to do so.
The Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution has tried to remedy the bad occurrence that might be, in plain terms, where the elected representatives might not be in a position to protect themselves or their electorate. Also, the military is a legal control of the elected representatives. In the movie, the general scenario is of a high sense of personal insecurity among the journalists, U. S. govt. representatives and diplomats, the Pakistani ministers, and even among the terrorists. Daniel Pearl seems to embody this personal insecurity to everyone, and some are very grieved and concerned, while others might feel the issue an everyday occurrence.
Would Daniel Pearl have wanted to be in a situation, in the U. S., where people might see him violating their Second Amendment clause to their self detriment? What if people say, that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct in the U. S., but people don't regard the amendment overseas, being U. S. citizens, because the constitution doesn't respect their privacy or related concerns overseas? If the twin tower bombings hadn't happened, the bombers had a right to the Second Amendment, or a version of it, where they might protect their persons or property.
Please contribute to this discussion.