Comment: different moral concepts?

(See in situ)


different moral concepts?

First: A just war is state of mind striving to eliminate adversary trying to impose corrupted morals by force. The last big war was called "world war" not because it was fought all over the world, but because it was decisive for morality of its future.
You cannot win a war if you haven't moral to win it. And for everybody is better to die fighting just cause than die enslaved with all others. This "all" is particularly true in this case we talk about as I'll try to explain.

You talk about particular ways of establishment war against own citizens which are considered capital war crimes and against humanity and should result in immediate field court martial death penalty for all the military command involved. Which you maybe think somehow will not happen and the attempt of thirsting to death of own women and children to coerce surrender to such a military terror regime will be tolerated and successful - even - as I believe - there's no both practical and moral reason for it to be tolerated and successful, because there's a whole row of decisively superior powers to US military in the world which could in their own interest not tolerate it and let it be successful.

First in row of this powers in my opinion is the American armed population which shouldn't tolerate it in the first place - like you know the US citizens have the legal right even duty not to tolerate any attempts of thirsting to death of own women, children and sick people in hospitals for purpose of surrender coercion to a terror regime and they are armed for the purpose of fulfilling such duty and to secure free state by the well regulated militia. - That was the purpose why the right to keep and bear arms was adopted from the English Bill of Rights, at the time of the adoption it was quite uncontroversial, I don't see anything making it controversial in moral sense now and the point is of course to return lawfull authority in right hands if the rogue entities usurp it by force. Purely technically (except the obvious morals and psychological phenomenas importance) I also personally believe that what is more important than the types of guns in a "modern civil war" is the type of ammunition used. It looks to me like the US govt. recently purchased way too much of particular types apparently for domestic use to take it lightly and I would think to get prepared more than the "1% of 1% of 1%" looks like a task which should be quickly done...

I also believe that if this "first line" despite its sheer superiority in numbers and other decisive advantages will fail its duty, there are other powers in the row which have own interests, both good and sinister reasons why not tolerate it and the decisive powers allowing them not to tolerate it. In such a case they decide not to, then of course many if not most of then likely former US citizens will die or suffer considerably and in any case get disarmed. The nations who after decades of tolerating illegal wars of their own military abroad or even supporting it would not even defend themselves against such illegal war at home although armed explicitely for such purpose - and such ends would significantly profound the dangers for others to the point the life-death decisions should be immediately seriously considered - can even cease to exist and of course could be disarmed, because it would come out they didn't deserve to be armed. This possible although at the time just "imagined" possibility would be even way much worse than the possibility you're talking about - not just for Americans but whole the world, because the long built global power equilibrium US citizens share the benefits from and the exceptional responsibility for -by having the uninfringeable right to be armed- would be lost. And that's the way it is -as Cronkite used to say.