# Should Gun Ownership Be A Global Right?



## Annie (Mar 20, 2006)

I think there is something to this. My view of the 2nd amendment, it keeps the government aware that they shouldn't take us less than seriously, when aroused:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/glenn_reynolds/2006/03/a_new_international_human_righ.html




> Armed against genocide
> 
> In the light of international inactivity over Darfur, many people are looking at the prospects of self-help for groups targeted for mass killings.
> Glenn Reynolds
> ...


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 20, 2006)

It ought to be.  Arm the world and Islamic terrorists might find themselves being shot at in the middle of their suicide bombings.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 21, 2006)

The solution to future genocide is to promote the American right to carry fire arms to a human right? And nations with gun control laws would then be violating human rights? And being such an evil nation... they will be placed on the axis of terrorists and subject to immidiate liberation (Which would be easy, since they haven't armed all their citizens to their teeth).
 :clap1: Great idea. 
Something is wrong with you. 



			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> I think there is something to this. My view of the 2nd amendment, it keeps the government aware that they shouldn't take us less than seriously, when aroused


So you actually spend your hard earned money to buy guns, - in case of your own government get the idea to genocide you?!?  



			
				gop_jeff said:
			
		

> It ought to be.  Arm the world and Islamic terrorists might find themselves being shot at in the middle of their suicide bombings.


And suddenly suicide bombers will have the legal - human - right to be carrying guns instead? Brilliant! They don't need to kill themselves anymore! 

You don't think this kind of legislation should be something every country might decide for it self?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 21, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> The solution to future genocide is to promote the American right to carry fire arms to a human right? And nations with gun control laws would then be violating human rights? And being such an evil nation... they will be placed on the axis of terrorists and subject to immidiate liberation (Which would be easy, since they haven't armed all their citizens to their teeth).
> :clap1: Great idea.
> Something is wrong with you.
> 
> ...



It's not the suicide bombers who need guns.  It's the innocents they attempt to kill who need guns, who are currently banned from having guns.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 22, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> It's not the suicide bombers who need guns.  It's the innocents they attempt to kill who need guns, who are currently banned from having guns.



I know what you meant... but of all examples you could come up with! 
Look: Suicide bombers run in to heavily armed military positions without the fear of _their_ guns! 
If you had suggested that suicide bombing would render death penalty it would have been fun too. So that they would think twice before doing their deed...


----------



## Annie (Mar 22, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> The solution to future genocide is to promote the American right to carry fire arms to a human right? And nations with gun control laws would then be violating human rights? And being such an evil nation... they will be placed on the axis of terrorists and subject to immidiate liberation (Which would be easy, since they haven't armed all their citizens to their teeth).
> :clap1: Great idea.
> Something is wrong with you.


 No dear, but it's not nice of you to say such a thing.





> So you actually spend your hard earned money to buy guns, - in case of your own government get the idea to genocide you?!?


 No, I've already stated such.





> And suddenly suicide bombers will have the legal - human - right to be carrying guns instead? Brilliant! They don't need to kill themselves anymore!
> 
> You don't think this kind of legislation should be something every country might decide for it self?


  Yeah, they can't carry guns, so they carry bombs? They are law abiding, other than the bombs.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

Seems like gun ownership is universal in parts of Africa, and look what a cheeful place that is!


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> Seems like gun ownership is universal in parts of Africa, and look what a cheeful place that is!



Actually, I think gun ownership is one-sided in the places you're thinking of.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 22, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> I know what you meant... but of all examples you could come up with!
> Look: Suicide bombers run in to heavily armed military positions without the fear of _their_ guns!
> If you had suggested that suicide bombing would render death penalty it would have been fun too. So that they would think twice before doing their deed...



OK, maybe that was a bad example.  But the principle still holds.  Guns allow the law-abiding to protect themselves from the criminal.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 22, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> I know what you meant... but of all examples you could come up with!
> Look: Suicide bombers run in to heavily armed military positions without the fear of _their_ guns!
> If you had suggested that suicide bombing would render death penalty it would have been fun too. So that they would think twice before doing their deed...



Suicide bombers do not generally attack heavily-armed positions.  Note, I said "generally."  That would be to preclude one instance being given as evidence that they do.

When they even attack the military, it is usually vehicle convoys (lightly armed) and or roadblocks/checkpoints; which, are also lightly armed.

Attacking people that are trained to and will fight back is not conducive to their goal -- to terrorize the populace.  In short, they murder defenseless noncombatants.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 23, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> No, I've already stated such.





			
				justaguy said:
			
		

> I guess i missed that, somehow... maybe in another thread? Anyhow, you said you read the article with your 2:nd amendment in mind, and the article concerned genocide on unarmed population. But somehow I get the impression that it's not a usual concern in America?





			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> No dear, but it's not nice of you to say such a thing.


I always thought I was just a _nice_ guy!

If you seriously think that handing out guns to everyone in a county under constant threat of civil war is a good idea... well, in my mind... something is wrong with you. The world doesn't lack guns. But hey, lets test this litte idea in Iraq, give everyone a weapon to get them started with their new country the right way!


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 23, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> OK, maybe that was a bad example.  But the principle still holds.  Guns allow the law-abiding to protect themselves from the criminal.



I agree with you. That works fine in your democracy too, but where the law is dictated by oppressors and dictators that thinking leads nowhere. It would just be considered criminal to be huttu or whatever. That's the reason for the writer of the article to talk about human rights, not a judgement made by the government.


----------



## Annie (Mar 23, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> I always thought I was just a _nice_ guy!
> 
> If you seriously think that handing out guns to everyone in a county under constant threat of civil war is a good idea... well, in my mind... something is wrong with you. The world doesn't lack guns. But hey, lets test this litte idea in Iraq, give everyone a weapon to get them started with their new country the right way!



If the Iraqis had been armed, prior to Saddam's taking power, he may never have taken power. With Kelo, failure to address the ongoing problems with Social Security, Medicare, other entitlements, our own government may well have cause for concern in the future. Governments are supposed to work for the people, ours traditionally has, with glitches for sure, but now? When a town can condemn homes for no more reason that the land is more profitable tax wise to hold a Chuck E Cheese or Walmart, than residential, the government has lost site of the reason for their existance.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 23, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> I always thought I was just a _nice_ guy!
> 
> If you seriously think that handing out guns to everyone in a county under constant threat of civil war is a good idea... well, in my mind... something is wrong with you. The world doesn't lack guns. But hey, lets test this litte idea in Iraq, give everyone a weapon to get them started with their new country the right way!



I seriously think that it's rather logical and sefl-explanatory that only law-abiding citizens are going to adhere to the law, leaving the guns in the hands of those who already aren't abiding the law.  What's violating one more law to someone who sets out to break the law to begin with?

Difference is, you just disarmed the victims with a backwards-assed argument.  Armed citizens make would-be attackers think twice when more is on the line than possibly being caught and doing a couple of years.  That's just common sense.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 24, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> If the Iraqis had been armed, prior to Saddam's taking power, he may never have taken power.


Maybe not, and maybe the situation would have been reversed. But that wasn't my point. If owning a gun would be considered a human right the people of Iraq should be armed right now. Neverminding what side - party or belief they have. 
If the muslims in Bosnia would have been armed up to the standards of the serbs, we would have had two genocides - not one in Balkan.



			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> With Kelo, failure to address the ongoing problems with Social Security, Medicare, other entitlements, our own government may well have cause for concern in the future. Governments are supposed to work for the people, ours traditionally has, with glitches for sure, but now? When a town can condemn homes for no more reason that the land is more profitable tax wise to hold a Chuck E Cheese or Walmart, than residential, the government has lost site of the reason for their existance.


You live in a democracy, founded and built around freedom and you are the incarnation of human rights in many eyes. Sure you must have a little more faith than that? It's quite a big step to start firing the guns anyway?




			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> I seriously think that it's rather logical and sefl-explanatory that only law-abiding citizens are going to adhere to the law, leaving the guns in the hands of those who already aren't abiding the law.  What's violating one more law to someone who sets out to break the law to begin with? Difference is, you just disarmed the victims with a backwards-assed argument.  Armed citizens make would-be attackers think twice when more is on the line than possibly being caught and doing a couple of years.  That's just common sense.



This wasn't exactly the discussion I think. These are arguments from the domestic debate of gun control. 

Think of it this way:

- A country with a religously divided population.

- Lets make Christians be at power.

- Numerous small attacks or voilent demonstrations are carried out by the muslim part of the population. (Maybe outraged by pictures of Allah in a foreign newspaper)

- Now, lets arm those muslims, give them the right to carry guns openly everywhere. I would think that might be a stupid idea.

ALSO

The right to be armed must come with some additional rights too. You would have to have the right of good training. The guns must be affordable (In places with high poverty guns must be supplied) otherwise only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns.

The right to arm yourself personaly in what way you like can't be considered a human right. It must be decided on a national level according to every nations society, laws and history.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Maybe not, and maybe the situation would have been reversed. But that wasn't my point. If owning a gun would be considered a human right the people of Iraq should be armed right now. Neverminding what side - party or belief they have.
> If the muslims in Bosnia would have been armed up to the standards of the serbs, we would have had two genocides - not one in Balkan.
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think the discussion was compulsory gun ownership, either.  The question is "Should gun ownership be a global right?"  

Since any "global organization" of law and law enforcement has no teeth with which to enforce any of its "laws," and has shown quite a reluctance to attempt to do so thus far, I'd say the question is moot.


----------



## Annie (Mar 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I don't think the discussion was compulsory gun ownership, either.  The question is "Should gun ownership be a global right?"
> 
> Since any "global organization" of law and law enforcement has no teeth with which to enforce any of its "laws," and has shown quite a reluctance to attempt to do so thus far, I'd say the question is moot.


Question to masses: Should you have the right to 'bear arms?' Simple.


----------



## Doc Holiday (Mar 25, 2006)

Unarmed people are subjects.  Armed people are citizens.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I don't think the discussion was compulsory gun ownership, either.  The question is "Should gun ownership be a global right?"
> 
> Since any "global organization" of law and law enforcement has no teeth with which to enforce any of its "laws," and has shown quite a reluctance to attempt to do so thus far, I'd say the question is moot.





			
				From the article said:
			
		

> This led me to speculate a few years ago that the right of people to be armed to resist genocide should perhaps be regarded as the next international human right.



I don't think human rights are anything _but_ compulsory. I think that the article simplifies and the writer draws some populistic conclusions on the matter. But it is sure appealing to you because it rhymes well with the 2:nd amendment, just as Kathy said:



			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> I think there is something to this. My view of the 2nd amendment, it keeps the government aware that they shouldn't take us less than seriously, when aroused



But this thinking doesn't apply to _every_ human society, if it was - the right to have a gun would have been right up there along with the rest of the international human rights.



			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Question to masses: Should you have the right to 'bear arms?' Simple.



There are thousands of buts and ifs whithin that question and you know it. 

First of all there is nothing fundamental about a gun. It is an invention that is about 2 or 3 hundered years old. The sole purpus of a gun is to be an advantage in an armed conflict. Either as a threat or for practical use. The 2:nd amendment was written in a time where traditional guns was ultimate hightech. There is no upper definition of what being "armed" is. You are not armed against your government, they have jet fighters, attack helicopters, tanks, nuclear submarines and thomahawk missiles. You have only the right to have some basic level of small firearms. 

Secondly this way of thinking clearly spawns beyond personal human rights. We know every nation shouldn't have nuclear weapons and we try to stop them. We don't want them armed up to a level!

As for being a delaying factor in an ongoing genocide - fair enough, but I'd say that is aiming a bit too low in the ambition of the human race.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 26, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> I don't think human rights are anything _but_ compulsory. I think that the article simplifies and the writer draws some populistic conclusions on the matter. But it is sure appealing to you because it rhymes well with the 2:nd amendment, just as Kathy said:
> 
> Assumption on your part.  I have not stated that it does or does not appeal to me as a "global right."
> 
> ...



mm


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 27, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I don't consider gun ownership to be a basic human right.


My point exactly - contrary to the article-writer.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> As for being a delaying factor in an ongoing genocide - fair enough, but I'd say that is aiming a bit too low in the ambition of the human race.




I like this. Guns to defend yourself, family and community from those who wish to anihilate you is a bit too "low" in your opinion? I mean low ambition, for the human race. Well, excuse me.  Would you prefer a a reinactment of " King Lear" by a camp fire for both the killers and the killees. Maybe they can get to know one another, experince some culture and become buds.


In case you didn't know, those committing genocide under the guise of the greater good are already THE lowest possible level of humanity, wgf. They are not necessary part of the human race.


----------



## LOki (Mar 27, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> The right to be armed must come with some additional rights too. You would have to have the right of good training. The guns must be affordable (In places with high poverty guns must be supplied) otherwise only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns.


None of these assertions seem to follow from argument.  For instance: the right to free speech does not come with the right to an affordable broadcast station, or the expertise to run one.



			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> The right to arm yourself personaly in what way you like can't be considered a human right. It must be decided on a national level according to every nations society, laws and history.


This assertion is inconsistent with your "only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns" assertion.  If governments (or popularity polls, or just your neigfhbors) decide for you what you need, then those with the power _will decide_ what you get.



			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> GunnyL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yet self defense is _THE_ basic human right.  The right of individuals to keep and bear arms to accomodate a national defense, AND the security of a free state, AND individual self defense, neccessarily requires, in this day and age, the arms of this day and age--namely guns.  I think it was rather thoughtful of those who crafted the 2nd amendment to use language that foresaw the needs of defending liberty with those tools that future technologies would provide.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 27, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> Yet self defense is _THE_ basic human right.  The right of individuals to keep and bear arms to accomodate a national defense, AND the security of a free state, AND individual self defense, neccessarily requires, in this day and age, the arms of this day and age--namely guns.  I think it was rather thoughtful of those who crafted the 2nd amendment to use language that foresaw the needs of defending liberty with those tools that future technologies would provide.



Good first post Loki.  Welcome!


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> None of these assertions seem to follow from argument.  For instance: the right to free speech does not come with the right to an affordable broadcast station, or the expertise to run one.
> 
> This assertion is inconsistent with your "only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns" assertion.  If governments (or popularity polls, or just your neigfhbors) decide for you what you need, then those with the power _will decide_ what you get.
> 
> Yet self defense is _THE_ basic human right.  The right of individuals to keep and bear arms to accomodate a national defense, AND the security of a free state, AND individual self defense, neccessarily requires, in this day and age, the arms of this day and age--namely guns.  I think it was rather thoughtful of those who crafted the 2nd amendment to use language that foresaw the needs of defending liberty with those tools that future technologies would provide.



I did not address the right to self defense.  That is a common sense right of survival.  One either exercises it or becomes extinct.

The right to keep and bear arms is an exclusive National right as defined in the US Constitution.  I am a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and a major participant in said right.

The basic human need of survival does not necessarily include nor exclude any specific weapons.  Weapons are merely a means to that end.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 27, 2006)

Tyranny cannot thrive in an armed populace.  If you want to eliminate tyranny, you make sure everyone is allowed to own a gun.  Just think of it this way.  In L.A. and D.C., gun control laws are so strict that more guns than not are purchased illegally.  In Georgia, where I live, there are more guns than people, and most of them are perfectly legal.  If an invading army or an oppressive government starts to take over the nation, who do you think they'll go after first?  Where is their fight more likely to end?

And as far as civil war, you're not thinking in a deterrant mindset.  If all sides have guns, all sides, out of fear of pain and death, will be more eager to negotiate.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2006)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> Tyranny cannot thrive in an armed populace.  If you want to eliminate tyranny, you make sure everyone is allowed to own a gun.  Just think of it this way.  In L.A. and D.C., gun control laws are so strict that more guns than not are purchased illegally.  In Georgia, where I live, there are more guns than people, and most of them are perfectly legal.  If an invading army or an oppressive government starts to take over the nation, who do you think they'll go after first?  Where is their fight more likely to end?
> 
> And as far as civil war, you're not thinking in a deterrant mindset.  If all sides have guns, all sides, out of fear of pain and death, will be more eager to negotiate.



Tyranny cannot, but anarchy can.  All things being equal in such a scenario, the predators will ALWAYS have the advantage.  They are more willing to use violence to achieve their ends, and they have the advantage being the attackers.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 27, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I like this. Guns to defend yourself, family and community from those who wish to anihilate you is a bit too "low" in your opinion? I mean low ambition, for the human race. Well, excuse me.  Would you prefer a a reinactment of " King Lear" by a camp fire for both the killers and the killees. Maybe they can get to know one another, experince some culture and become buds.
> 
> 
> In case you didn't know, those committing genocide under the guise of the greater good are already THE lowest possible level of humanity, wgf. They are not necessary part of the human race.



Do you really think arming a bunch of ignorant, hut-dwelling people is going to save them?  It isn't that I disagree with you that they are victims of predators, just the solution to the problem.

Arbitrarily handing out firearms is NOT my idea of responsible gun ownership.

Turning a carrier strike force loose on the government's pitiful little army IS however a responsible and suitable response, and moer importantly, an effective one.

The sheep deserve the protection of the sheepdogs from the wolves.  It is our lot in life to bear that burden.  Currently, we have been shamefully inadequate in fulfilling our role.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Do you really think arming a bunch of ignorant, hut-dwelling people is going to save them?  It isn't that I disagree with you that they are victims of predators, just the solution to the problem.
> 
> Arbitrarily handing out firearms is NOT my idea of responsible gun ownership.
> 
> ...



It took too long for the sheepdogs in Bosnia. It is way past time in Darfur.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 28, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I like this. Guns to defend yourself, family and community from those who wish to anihilate you is a bit too "low" in your opinion? I mean low ambition, for the human race. Well, excuse me.


Yes, you're excused. It would be a pitipful ambition to hand out guns and then step back. The government of U.S.A. has clearly shown that their ambitions exceeds your personal ambition on the matter. Else, they would just sent some guns to Bosnia, for instance.




			
				LOki said:
			
		

> None of these assertions seem to follow from argument.  For instance: the right to free speech does not come with the right to an affordable broadcast station, or the expertise to run one.


Who said it was? "Speech" isn't a broadcast station per se, but owning a gun is still owning a gun, right? Bad example.



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> This assertion is inconsistent with your "only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns" assertion.  If governments (or popularity polls, or just your neigfhbors) decide for you what you need, then those with the power _will decide_ what you get.


Now you totally twisted what I acctually said. 
1. I said that gun laws should be based on laws on a national level.
2. I said that making ownership of guns a human right would still lead to a tyrannt not supplying opposition with guns.
Where is the inconsistency? I said the idea was stupid _and_ that it wouldn't work.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> Currently, we have been shamefully inadequate in fulfilling our role.


"We" as in humanity - yes, but U.S.A. is currently spending alot of resources in this ambition. That's admirable.


----------



## Annie (Mar 28, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Yes, you're excused. It would be a pitipful ambition to hand out guns and then step back. The government of U.S.A. has clearly shown that their ambitions exceeds your personal ambition on the matter. Else, they would just sent some guns to Bosnia, for instance.


Ignoring this, "It took too long for the sheepdogs in Bosnia. It is way past time in Darfur."A hole...


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 28, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Ignoring this, "It took too long for the sheepdogs in Bosnia. It is way past time in Darfur."A hole...



Oh, you must not be ignored...? 

Yes, there are problems with how the world response to crises like that. _That _ is something to be worked on. 

Exactly how would you suggest the muslim population should have armed themselves againt the Serbian army? NATO knocked their tanks out and bombed their infrastructure to put an end to hostilities, - remember?
Also, bands of Serb militia had to be disarmed. (KathyGunlogic: Their human rights violated?)
It's only in your mind handing out guns to everyone riddence the world of genocide.

What would the situation be like in Iraq do you think, if everyone could freely walk around with guns? Would nationbuilding speed up? Or did the human rights of all Iraqies cease to exist when they where invaded? And if so, in your eyes, is U.S.A. violating human rights in Iraq now?

Or maybe you define the "human rights" as the "rights of the humans that Kathygun approve of"?

Don't you get it? These rights are always in effect. There is no consideration made of political climate or how well the 2:nd amendment works in U.S.A. They form a base of the standard we set for *all* humans. It's is they way we define what being a human is all about. And having a gun isn't where we strive.

Here is a link to the 30 articles of the universal declaration of human rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 

*Kathygun's Article 31.*
_Everyone should have the right to have a gun. Not *too * big, like RPG's but an assultrifle is okay (Without grenade launcher attached) On questions - check with current U.S. law to see what a suitable gun is, for the time being. Also, you don't get to have a gun if you might be thinking of protecting yourself form U.S. military personel or if you somehow belong to a group of people not approved of by Kathyanne._

Get this - the world don't lack guns. That is not the problem we face. 

Seeing your way of arguing I might add that I also disapprove of geniocide. A-hole.


----------



## LOki (Mar 28, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I did not address the right to self defense. That is a common sense right of survival. One either exercises it or becomes extinct.
> 
> The basic human need of survival does not necessarily include nor exclude any specific weapons. Weapons are merely a means to that end.


I think I'll argue that if a specific weapon is required to excercise your basic human right to self defense, then the basic human need of survival necessarily includes that weapon.

Furthermore, I think I'll argue that should a government, excersizing its coercive power, exclude from the people, a weapon necessary to an individual's self defense, then that government is violating the human right of human beings--the human beings they govern--to protect themselves, and are in fact irreverent of all individual rights entirely.



			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> Who said it was? "Speech" isn't a broadcast station per se, but owning a gun is still owning a gun, right? Bad example.


When I said _"None of these assertions seem to follow from argument. For instance: the right to free speech does not come with the right to an affordable broadcast station, or the expertise to run one."_, I was responding to your assertion that:





			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> The right to be armed must come with some additional rights too.


Which does not follow from argument; and as you continued with:





			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> You would have to have the right of good training. The guns must be affordable (In places with high poverty guns must be supplied) otherwise only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns.


 I followed with, _"For instance: the right to free speech does not come with the right to an affordable broadcast station, or the expertise to run one."_ to illustrate that the protection of rights does not lead to _providing_ "additional rights."



			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> Now you totally twisted what I acctually said.


I think not.

If you really mean "gun laws should be based on laws on a national level", then my assertion that those who decide for you what you need are the ones who decide what you get--in this case guns--is an accurate rephrasing of you own assertion.  After all, those who are empowered to decide for others what their needs are, are by default, if not in actuality, making laws--most certainly so if they are deciding for others their needs on a "national level."

So, it seems rather clear to me that asserting "gun laws should be based on laws on a national level" is inconsistent with your concerns that "only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns." Yes?

Now if you _meant_ to assert that "making ownership of guns a human right would still lead to a tyrannt not supplying opposition with guns", then I would say you're only right in that a tyrant would not respect any such right for his subjects because that is just the nature of tyrants.  Respecting and asserting the right to keep and bear firearms is indicative of a free populace, and is a strong deterrent to a tryranny where rights are not respected or protected--let alone asserted.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 28, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> I think I'll argue that if a specific weapon is required to excercise your basic human right to self defense, then the basic human need of survival necessarily includes that weapon.


Okay, well there isn't one so stop dreaming.




			
				LOki said:
			
		

> When I said _"None of these assertions seem to follow from argument. For instance: the right to free speech does not come with the right to an affordable broadcast station, or the expertise to run one."_, I was responding to your assertion that:Which does not follow from argument; and as you continued with: I followed with, _"For instance: the right to free speech does not come with the right to an affordable broadcast station, or the expertise to run one."_ to illustrate that the protection of rights does not lead to _providing_ "additional rights."
> 
> I think not.




No, maybe you were not. Perhaps this was sort of a misunderstanding...
What I was trying to say was this:
Human rights that exists we also pursue. We build schools in the third world, step in where atrocities are made and we give money to feed starving people. *If * _(which I don't think is a good idea)_ owning guns would be a human right we would have to pursue it the same way. Namley as I said. Your example of free speech however I found bad (as an example) because this right doesn't require anything else. It is not about broadcasting, but to be able to express your opinion without getting in trouble. We probably agree here.



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> If you really mean "gun laws should be based on laws on a national level", then my assertion that those who decide for you what you need are the ones who decide what you get--in this case guns--is an accurate rephrasing of you own assertion.  After all, those who are empowered to decide for others what their needs are, are by default, if not in actuality, making laws--most certainly so if they are deciding for others their needs on a "national level."
> 
> So, it seems rather clear to me that asserting "gun laws should be based on laws on a national level" is inconsistent with your concerns that "only the in-control tyrant's people will have guns." Yes?


Eh... well maybe. I don't know exactly what the point is that you are trying to make, but the context of that last quote is to be that we need to control the guns anyway. Criminals and terrorists should never have access to guns. An evil government can make that ruling and then effectivley by-pass the human right. But I agree, that isn't exactly a good argument.



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> Now if you _meant_ to assert that "making ownership of guns a human right would still lead to a tyrannt not supplying opposition with guns", then I would say you're only right in that a tyrant would not respect any such right for his subjects because that is just the nature of tyrants.  Respecting and asserting the right to keep and bear firearms is indicative of a free populace, and is a strong deterrent to a tryranny where rights are not respected or protected--let alone asserted.


Yeah... your'e right about this in a way. Tyrants don't nessecarily care about human rights. But promoting owning guns to be a human right still don't help the situation of the oppressed by much. If anything the voilence may very well take a great leap forward and heavy weapons would be brought in sooner. 

Suggestion: Read the articles of the human rights through. (It isn't long) Then think about how they are formed - and then draw the conclusion that even it was an intresting experiment for the mind; the idea of combining owning of a guns with the ambition of the human rights doesn't seem to be very good.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 28, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Ignoring this, "It took too long for the sheepdogs in Bosnia. It is way past time in Darfur."A hole...



Oh, by the way, that "whatever" stuff you did seems to sum all your reasoning in this question quite good. Thanks!


----------



## Gunny (Mar 28, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> I think I'll argue that if a specific weapon is required to excercise your basic human right to self defense, then the basic human need of survival necessarily includes that weapon.
> 
> Furthermore, I think I'll argue that should a government, excersizing its coercive power, exclude from the people, a weapon necessary to an individual's self defense, then that government is violating the human right of human beings--the human beings they govern--to protect themselves, and are in fact irreverent of all individual rights entirely.
> 
> ...



l


----------



## LOki (Mar 28, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you are suggesting that weapons (_some_ weapon) and the right ot keep and bear them, is *never* necessary for self defense, then I will ask you, "what color is the sky in your own dreamworld?" 


			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> Human rights that exists we also pursue. We build schools in the third world, step in where atrocities are made and we give money to feed starving people.


Please clarify "persue." I understand that rights are recognized, they are excersized and they are protected, but since we all already possess rights, I can't figure the need to persue them.  And it's not just an academic question, because i think this "persue" notion has some bearing on the schools, atrocities, and starvation you mention later.

I actually think you are going to try to assert that people have a right to food and education.



> Just a guy]Suggestion: Read the articles of the human rights through. (It isn't long) Then think about how they are formed - and then draw the conclusion that even it was an intresting experiment for the mind; the idea of combining owning of a guns with the ambition of the human rights doesn't seem to be very good.


If you mean read the article that started this thread, then that is done.  If there is some other articles of human rights you are suggesting, then direct me to them, but I want to assure you beforehand that I am pretty well aware of what constitutes "rights" already.  I'm not terribly confident that there is something that I haven't read that will cause some major paradigm shift in my understanding of them.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 28, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Do you really think arming a bunch of ignorant, hut-dwelling people is going to save them?  It isn't that I disagree with you that they are victims of predators, just the solution to the problem.



I don't recall saying it was the "solution", although supposed ignorant people have been know to use a shot gun quite successfully here and there, hut dwellers aside.
I can't vouche for their intelligence, but I would gather they could organize and do something if shown how. Not that I'm suggesting they do it all on their own, that would be crazy.  



> Arbitrarily handing out firearms is NOT my idea of responsible gun ownership.
> 
> Turning a carrier strike force loose on the government's pitiful little army IS however a responsible and suitable response, and moer importantly, an effective one.
> 
> The sheep deserve the protection of the sheepdogs from the wolves.  It is our lot in life to bear that burden.  Currently, we have been shamefully inadequate in fulfilling our role.



In any case, I happen to think in cases like Darfur, it's NOT the worst possible thing you could do. In light of everything else that has been done to date. Citizens have armed themselves in the past and at least _tried_ to put up a fight with some type of dignity and honour. But again, I'm just assuming they can figure out how to load and shoot a gun. Maybe guns are a little too optimistic, how about bows & arrows?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 28, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> It took too long for the sheepdogs in Bosnia. It is way past time in Darfur.



The "sheepdogs" in both instances would be the UN.  France has threatened to veto ANY military action in Sudan.   They ahve too much time, money and exploitation invested in the gov't that's doing all the killing.  Sound familiar?

Be that as it may, arbitrarily handing out modern weapons to people that still live in grass huts is not the answer, and will solve nothing.  

With the weapons you have to have the proverbial supply train.  Armorers to repair them, ammunition to fire in them, and instructors to teach people to use them.

Don't get me wrong .... I'm for a unilateral airstrike YESTERDAY.  We protected Saddam's enemies for 13 years creating void zones and destroying anything unfriendly that entered.  We could just as easily do it in Sudan.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 28, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I don't recall saying it was the "solution", although supposed ignorant people have been know to use a shot gun quite successfully here and there, hut dwellers aside.
> I can't vouche for their intelligence, but I would gather they could organize and do something if shown how. Not that I'm suggesting they do it all on their own, that would be crazy.
> 
> Using a shotgun once in desparation is a far cry from carrying an assault rifle on a daily basis, and employing it in combat situation.
> ...



You may be poking fun, but you aren't too far off with the "bows and arrow."  I'd give them a better chance with those than weapons they cannot operate.

And again, in the case of Darfur, I'm all for intervention and kicking some French-backed, Gov't of Sudan ass, so don't get me wrong.  I jsut don't think arbitrarily arming the masses is the way to go.

When the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan, we clandestinely armed the _Muhajadeen_.  The enemy of our enemy is our friend was OBL and we hooked him up quite nicely.  Look what we created in the longrun.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 28, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> You may be poking fun, but you aren't too far off with the "bows and arrow."  I'd give them a better chance with those than weapons they cannot operate.
> 
> And again, in the case of Darfur, I'm all for intervention and kicking some French-backed, Gov't of Sudan ass, so don't get me wrong.  I jsut don't think arbitrarily arming the masses is the way to go.
> 
> When the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan, we clandestinely armed the _Muhajadeen_.  The enemy of our enemy is our friend was OBL and we hooked him up quite nicely.  Look what we created in the longrun.



I understand your point more than you probably think, although I think you might underestiimate the intelligence of hut dwellers. The Janjaweed has recruited largely from the hut-dweller population.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 28, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I understand your point more than you probably think, although I think you might underestiimate the intelligence of hut dwellers. The Janjaweed has recruited largely from the hut-dweller population.



I don't underestimate their intelligence at all.  I said _ignorant_, not _stupid_.  My only point in that regard is that they are not inherently trained to operate and employ weapons (presumably assault rifles). 

Most people can be trained to operate them, but then, that changes the parameters here a bit.  We're going from a "global right to own firearms" to "a global right to own firearms," AND arming and training those whom we deem worthy.  

In order to do THAT, we would have to provide a "safe area" anyway in which to do so.  Basic training is required prior to practical application.  

Seems a lot easier if we just blow the bad guys up ourselves.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 29, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> If you are suggesting that weapons (_some_ weapon) and the right ot keep and bear them, is *never* necessary for self defense, then I will ask you, "what color is the sky in your own dreamworld?"


Specific. You said "...if a specific weapon is required to excercise your basic human right..."
There is no specific weapon - they vary with situation and time. To effectively protect yourself from tanks you would need at-weapons for instance.



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> Please clarify "persue." I understand that rights are recognized, they are excersized and they are protected, but since we all already possess rights, I can't figure the need to persue them.  And it's not just an academic question, because i think this "persue" notion has some bearing on the schools, atrocities, and starvation you mention later.


Is persue the wrong word? I'm not sure. The human rights are not followed fully, not by us and not by any other either. They are ambitions, and as such we try to... "make them real". 



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> I actually think you are going to try to assert that people have a right to food and education.


That wouldn't be nessecary? Everyone must already know that? Again, I'm not sure what you are after. Article 26:


			
				Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
			
		

> (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> If you mean read the article that started this thread, then that is done.  If there is some other articles of human rights you are suggesting [That was funny!], then direct me to them, but I want to assure you beforehand that I am pretty well aware of what constitutes "rights" already.  I'm not terribly confident that there is something that I haven't read that will cause some major paradigm shift in my understanding of them.



This here are the 30 articles that makes up the concept of human rights. Here is where the author of the article would like to add the right of owning guns.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html  

Give me a proposition of Article 31? Or peherhaps som text added to Article 3:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."


----------



## Said1 (Mar 29, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I don't underestimate their intelligence at all.  I said _ignorant_, not _stupid_.  My only point in that regard is that they are not inherently trained to operate and employ weapons (presumably assault rifles).
> 
> Most people can be trained to operate them, but then, that changes the parameters here a bit.  We're going from a "global right to own firearms" to "a global right to own firearms," AND arming and training those whom we deem worthy.
> 
> ...



I know you said "ignorant hut-dwellers" not impling they were stupid. I also know the difference between both, but thanks just the same.

Anyway, I simply pointed out that the Janjaweed recruits largely from the "hut-dwelling" population. Meaning that they are probably cabale although lacking in several areas, IF someone decided it was a good idea to train them, which the Janjaweed has, that's all.

And again, let me state, I did not say this is the "solution" but is not a terrible idea. On the other hand, I forget if I said give them guns - as in the international community, or they should be allowed to have them for their defense, irregardless of the donar? Either way, I wasn't saying hand them out randomly to anyone who wants one and send them on their way. Probably sounded like that at first, though.


----------



## Annie (Mar 29, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> The "sheepdogs" in both instances would be the UN.  France has threatened to veto ANY military action in Sudan.   They ahve too much time, money and exploitation invested in the gov't that's doing all the killing.  Sound familiar?
> 
> Be that as it may, arbitrarily handing out modern weapons to people that still live in grass huts is not the answer, and will solve nothing.
> 
> ...



I think my original point has gotten lost, you are addressing a secondary argument made later. IF the citizens are protected by _the mere possibility_ of possessing arms, ala the 2nd amendment, it tends to keep both criminals and government wary of tipping too far. On another thread I believe Mr. P has posted links to the correlations between liberal carrying laws/more draconian gun control laws and the crime rate increase or decrease. 

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


----------



## LOki (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> This here are the 30 articles that makes up the concept of human rights. Here is where the author of the article would like to add the right of owning guns.
> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


Ah, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I see the problem now.

Most of the authors of this document had/have little understanding of (or just ignore) what rights actually are, thus they often do not make any distiction between primary rights, secondary rights, benefits, and privileges.

Rights are non-contradictory entitlements, contracts, or agreements regarding mutual existence between individuals--IOW, a right is not a right if it violates another's rights, and the recogintion/validity must be reciprocal.  In the case of human rights, those agreements are between humans.  The only real qualifier for claiming possession of human rights is the ability to claim you are human. For humans, being human is a condition of existence; when a right is conditional only upon existence, that right is a primary right.  

Example: The right to defend your life is a primary human right, conditional only upon being alive. It meets the non-contradictory requirement because defending one's life does not necessitate that another defends their own.  Regardless, attempting to murder a fellow human is a breach of the agreement, and in self defense one is not obligated to abide by the agreement by sparing, or caring for, a would be murderer's life.

As a human right, the right to defend your life implies that the life defended is a human life.  Since this right is contingent only upon existence (and not another right) the human right to defend your life as a human is a primary right.

Secondary rights are those contingent (at least) upon a primary right.  Most (if not all) politcal rights are such rights.

Example: The right to vote is a secondary right.  Voting is conditional upon the right to defend your life--it is difficult to argue that you have a "right" to vote, if you get shot dead for excersizing that right.

Similarly, (since this is what the tread is really about) the right to firearms is a secondary right because it is contingent upon the right to defend yourself, AND the existence of firearms as a means of infringing upon the human right to self defense, and their effective potential for defending against said infringement.  Nobody's right to firearms was being violated in the stone-age.

Benefits are those things made possible by the state of human existence, which is very much affected by the recognition and protection of rights, and also the possession of privileges.

Example: The existence of ice cream is a benefit derived from the free time created when humans no longer need to worry about protecting their lives from the predations of other humans.  But ice cream is not a right.  The condition of existence, or being human is not contingent upon ice cream.  Thus ice cream cannot be the subject of agreement regarding mutual existence.

Privileges are access to benefits.  They are not rights, because they are not entitlements, contracts, or agreements regarding existence, nor do they have to be reciprocal, nor do they have to be non-contradictory.  Other than the presumption of the existence of benefits, no presumptions are made regarding qualification for possession of privileges.

Example:  Owning a car is a privilege.  It is presumed that cars exist which is a benefit derived from some notion of rights, yet actually owning, or at least using, a car is a priviledge contingent upon such things as earnings, training, licensing, etc... which are themselves contingent upon other qualifications, but not necessarily the result of reciprocal, non-contradictory agreements.  You don't have to give everyone a Mercedes Benz to own one yourself, there is nothing wrong with buying every Mercedes Benz on the planet so that no-one else may have one, and nobody else has to like it--mainly because owning a Mercedes Benz is not a right for anyone else either.

To summarize, there is an enormous difference between what is "rights," and what _derives from_ rights.  Just because benefit X, is made possible by right Z, it does not follow that privilege Y (which is access to benefit X) is the same as right Z.

The above in mind, let's take a look at the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

_*Article 1*_
This is not really a right at all, but a recognition of the human condition and that human rights are inherently associated with that condition, and that in-so-far as humans are humans, they are equally so. 

_*Article 2*_
This not really a right either.  This is an affirmation of the logical precept that the differences of individuals within a group do not make those individuals within that group outside that group.

_*Article 3*_
Clearly a right--a primary right as discussed above.

_*Article 4*_
Expansion on article 3--if liberty is indissocialble from the human condition, then slavery is neccessarily an infringement upon the right to liberty.

_*Article 5*_
Further expansion on article 3.

_*Article 6*_
A secondary right contingent upon the premise of Article 3 and the existence of Law.

_*Article 7*_
Affirmation of Articles 3 and 6.

_*Article 8*_
Not a right.  No effective remedy may exist--for instance, you are executed in violation of Article 3.  Where's your remedy?

If there is an effective remedy, that remedy is at least partially the benefit of the recogintion of rights; and access to that benefit (read: priviledge) is contingent upon qualification--i.e., having one's rights infringed upon.

Finally, if that "effective remedy" infringes upon the rights of others who were not party to the initial infringement, then said "remedy" is itself a violation of rights, and cannot be a right itself. 

_*Article 9*_
Affirmation of Articles 3 and 6.

_*Article 10*_
Affirmation and expansion of Aricle 6.

_*Article 11*_
Further expansion on Article 6.

_*Article 12*_
Affirmation and expansion of Articles 3 and 6.

_*Article 13*_
Expansion on Article 3.

_*Article 14*_
Affirmation and expansion of Articles 3 and 6 with the special caveat regarding "acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"--whatever those may wind up being.

_*Article 15*_
Not a right.  Nationality is a privilege.

_*Article 16*_
Affirmation and expansion on Article 3 in-so-far as "marriage" consitutes the foundation of "the natural and fundamental group unit of society" insuring the continuance of humans, and Article 6 in so far as marriage is an institution recognized by law.

_*Article 17*_
Affirmation of Article 1, Article 3, and Article 6.

_*Article 18*_
Affirmation of Article 1.

_*Article 19*_
Expansion on Article 18.

_*Article 20*_
A secondary right derived from Article 3, the benefit of which is the subject of Article 15.

_*Article 21*_
Clause (1): A secondary right derived from Article 3 and an affirmation and expansion upon Article 20.

Clause (2): A (secondary) right contingient upon the provision that  "public service" is not a benefit derived from the infringement of Articles 3 - 5.

Clause (3): A secondary right based on Articles 3, 6, and 20.

_*Article 22*_
Not a right, as it violates Article 4.

_*Article 23*_
Clause (1): Is a benefit of Articles 3 and 6.

Clause (2): Is a benefit of Articles 1 and 6, but potentially a violation of Articles 4 and 20.

Clause (3): Is an expansion upon Article 23(1) that potentially violates Articles 4 and 20.

Clause (4): Affirms Article 20.

_*Article 24*_
A possible benefit of rights, but not a right.

_*Article 25*_
Clause (1): A possible benefit of rights, but not a right because it violates Article 17(2).

Clause (2): "Special care and assistance" is not a right because it violates Articles 1 and 17(2); and "All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection" affirms Article 1.



			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_*Article 26:*<blockquote>(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children._</blockquote>Clause (1): Is not a right (the way it's presented here) because it violates Articles 3, 4, 9, 13(1), 17(2) and 20(2).  Take awy those provisions that violate rights, and what you end up with is education being a privilege.

Clause (2): Is a benefit of an education being good (except for the Pro-UN propaganda requirement), not a right.

Clause (3): Is a secondary right based on Article 6.

_*Article 27*_
Clause (1): Affirms and expands upon Article 20 while potentially violating Article 17(2).

Clause (2): Affirms Article 17.

_*Article 28*_
Affirms Article 2.

_*Article 29*_
Clause (1): Not a right.

Clause (2): Is not a right, but establishes that rights cannot derive from the infringement of rights. (see where I mention non-contradictory above)

Clause (3): Oh, yeah--not even remotely a right. 

_*Article 30*_
Expansion on Article 2.



			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> Give me a proposition of Article 31? Or peherhaps som text added to Article 3:
> "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."


Interesting assignment.  I think rather than creating a separate Article, I'd take your suggestion of adding a clause to Article 3, that follows the vein of Article 30 which places limitations upon the powers of government (in the forms of a State, group or person) to restrict access to those means necessary for the protection of life, liberty and security of person.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 29, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> Ah, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I see the problem now.



I think you read this document with the wrong mindset. Why you would do that, - I don't know, you seem smart enough to acctually understand what this document pictures.

And sorry, your little show in grammar and definitions don't impress me a whole lot. (Well actually it did, good work, in a way!).

The right of a human being isn't defined by a set of small independent rules. This whole document are the human rights (as of 1998). it is like reading paragraphs in the law, each little paragraph adds up to a system of justice. The only thing you have done is that you've broken down the human rights declaration into sentences.
 But since you have read it through I also think you realize that guns can't be adressed in that document. (the document usually referred to as the "human rights")

I will think about this a bit, though!


----------



## Annie (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> I think you read this document with the wrong mindset. Why you would do that, - I don't know, you seem smart enough to acctually understand what this document pictures.
> 
> And sorry, your little show in grammar and definitions don't impress me a whole lot. (Well actually it did, good work, in a way!).
> 
> ...


Many of us do not subscribe to the whole idea of 'international law.' Like the UN, even the Geneva Conventions may have been 'subsumed' by lesser powers.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 29, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Many of us do not subscribe to the whole idea of 'international law.' Like the UN, even the Geneva Conventions may have been 'subsumed' by lesser powers.



Listen, whatever you think of it, it's there. We work our way forward, and maybe things will change - for better or worse. In my opinion I seriously think you generally overrate guns. There is a huge black picture that you are painting. Myself - beeing just a good guy - I'm trying to look beyond the barrel of the gun!

I can't say I respect your opnion either... (I really would have liked to) but I only hear you talk about voilence, - and voilence only. 
(Is that the effect of 9/11?!? If so, those terrorists have succeeded. There will be *no * peace in the world if U.S.A. gets isolated or isolates itself - ever) And let me tell you this, I love your country, for many reasons and someday when I'm rich, I'm going to move there. 

Well, maybe Kathygun just shoots me on sight.


----------



## LOki (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> And sorry, your little show in grammar and definitions don't impress me a whole lot. (Well actually it did, good work, in a way!).


I endeavor to know what I'm saying, so I can say what I mean, thus mean what I say.

I provide you with definitions as I understand them so we can discuss on some sensible common ground.  I didn't intend to impress, but I'm gratified that the effort was appreciated.


			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> The right of a human being isn't defined by a set of small independent rules.


Correct, but they can be _described_ by a set of small independent rules.  The rights of human beings are intrinsic to being human beings, thus cannot be defined, or limited by rules.


			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> This whole document are the human rights (as of 1998). it is like reading paragraphs in the law, each little paragraph adds up to a system of justice. The only thing you have done is that you've broken down the human rights declaration into sentences.


I actually understand how laws are written and read. If you suspect that I'm attempting to invalidate the entire document on the grounds that it is inseverable, then you're mistaken.

My point was to demonstrate that:
a) I read it. 
b) I understand it. And,
c) It's often intenally self-contradictory, but it also misappropriates the concept of rights.


			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> But since you have read it through I also think you realize that guns can't be adressed in that document. (the document usually referred to as the "human rights")


If I am to accept your "each little paragraph adds up to a system of justice" validation of the document as human rights on the whole, then invoking Article 17, under the provisions of Article 29, in defense of Article 3 could be interpreted as meaning, "Individuals have the right to the means (being property in the form of a gun) of securing their person, liberty and life within the laws whose intent is to protect the person, liberty and life of individuals."

Right?


----------



## Annie (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Listen, whatever you think of it, it's there. We work our way forward, and maybe things will change - for better or worse. In my opinion I seriously think you generally overrate guns. There is a huge black picture that you are painting. Myself - beeing just a good guy - I'm trying to look beyond the barrel of the gun!
> 
> I can't say I respect your opnion either... (I really would have liked to) but I only hear you talk about voilence, - and voilence only.
> (Is that the effect of 9/11?!? If so, those terrorists have succeeded. There will be *no * peace in the world if U.S.A. gets isolated or isolates itself - ever) And let me tell you this, I love your country, for many reasons and someday when I'm rich, I'm going to move there.
> ...


No, we do not have to deal with 'what's there.' As for your respecting my opinion, like I care? Nope. There has been nothing in your points that would engender my take on your stances.

Good luck in coming to the US 'rich.' Wanna be rich? Come now.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 29, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> ...nion, like I care? Nope. There has been nothing in your points that would enge...


Look! Not ignoring you - don't call me an a-hole?



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> Correct, but they can be _described_ by a set of small independent rules.



Fair enogh but the resolution gets bad.



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> If I am to accept your "each little paragraph adds up to a system of justice" validation of the document as human rights on the whole, then invoking Article 17, under the provisions of Article 29, in defense of Article 3 could be interpreted as meaning, "Individuals have the right to the means (being property in the form of a gun) of securing their person, liberty and life within the laws whose intent is to protect the person, liberty and life of individuals."
> 
> Right?


Absolutley. One might say it's already in there to the standards permitted by you national law, - it's not excluded by any case - but not limited either. 
"Guns" are not an absolute (Not in my eyes). Where is the boundry of "guns"? Lets put nukes on one end of the scale and sticks with pieces of rock mounted on top on the other.


Also doesn't the owning of a gun fall even further from being a secondary right since it needs some sort of training and economical standard? Owning a gun gets reduced to a privelige, doesn't it? (Thinking _your_ way is *not * easy, but it's quite intresting)


----------



## Said1 (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Absolutley. One might say it's already in there to the standards permitted by you national law, - it's not excluded by any case - but not limited either.
> "Guns" are not an absolute (Not in my eyes). Where is the boundry of "guns"? Lets put nukes on one end of the scale and sticks with pieces of rock mounted on top on the other.
> 
> 
> Also doesn't the owning of a gun fall even further from being a secondary right since it needs some sort of training and economical standard? Owning a gun gets reduced to a privelige, doesn't it? (Thinking _your_ way is *not * easy, but it's quite intresting)



The reality of is that they aren't really laws in the first place, just a norms that they hope nations will  aspire too, one day. The General Assembly can not act on it's own accord, only make recommendations based on their investigations, stemming from other recommendations referred to them from the Economic and Social Council and other committees.


----------



## LOki (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Where is the boundry of "guns"? Lets put nukes on one end of the scale and sticks with pieces of rock mounted on top on the other.


Since nukes are really only offensive weapons (even if nukes are used first against you), it's pretty safe to eliminate them from the category of weapons of self defense--and since the right to self defense is the right we ar attempting to facilitate, it also fair to exclude them.

If you'd like to introduce tanks, and howtizers, and aircraft carriers, etc...then I'd say they're fair game for ownership unless you can demonstrate those weapons cannot be used by a state, group or individual to violate one's life liberty and security of person.



			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> Also doesn't the owning of a gun fall even further from being a secondary right since it needs some sort of training and economical standard? Owning a gun gets reduced to a privelige, doesn't it? (Thinking _your_ way is *not * easy, but it's quite intresting)


It depends on wether or not you accept that ownership of a gun must be qualified by "some sort of training and economical standard," and the precise nature and definition of that training and economic standard.

And yes, it requres a great deal of concentration and energy for me to abide by my own standards of reasoning--I like to think I take it seriously.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 29, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> The reality of is that they aren't really laws in the first place, just a norms that they hope nations will  aspire too, one day. The General Assembly can not act on it's own accord, only make recommendations based on their investigations, stemming from other recommendations referred to them from the Economic and Social Council and other committees.



God knows they can't act. Hardly functioning at all. But if you interprete the declaration that way you still find it suitable to add owning a specific sort of gun into it? Is that what we aspire too? I mean, I see the rules a bit more practical than you do. (Emphasis on a bit) We _can _ build schools, send aid and military force. This we can do today. 

If we reduce its significance too much it becomes a dream. I can't say the dream of a world in utter peace is wrong. It's beautiful. So if I thought of this declaration as pure dream I would say, abolish famine, guns, voilence, nightmares and toothace.


----------



## Annie (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> God knows they can't act. Hardly functioning at all. But if you interprete the declaration that way you still find it suitable to add owning a specific sort of gun into it? Is that what we aspire too? I mean, I see the rules a bit more practical than you do. (Emphasis on a bit) We _can _ build schools, send aid and military force. This we can do today.
> 
> If we reduce its significance too much it becomes a dream. I can't say the dream of a world in utter peace is wrong. It's beautiful. So if I thought of this declaration as pure dream I would say, abolish famine, guns, voilence, nightmares and toothace.



Who wouldn't?


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 29, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> Since nukes are really only offensive weapons (even if nukes are used first against you), it's pretty safe to eliminate them from the category of weapons of self defense--and since the right to self defense is the right we ar attempting to facilitate, it also fair to exclude them.
> 
> If you'd like to introduce tanks, and howtizers, and aircraft carriers, etc...then I'd say they're fair game for ownership unless you can demonstrate those weapons cannot be used by a state, group or individual to violate one's life liberty and security of person.


Genocide has been carried out with knifes... but wouldn't it be quite fair to divide the world into pieces - like nations, and let the group of people living there decide what sort of guns are appropriate to own? They would have the best knowledge of the capacity and nature of their government and fellow citizens. Thus, som nations may decide - for instance, that knives are enough and others that planting minfields forms an upper limit.



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> It depends on wether or not you accept that ownership of a gun must be qualified by "some sort of training and economical standard," and the precise nature and definition of that training and economic standard.


Well, weilding a stick doesn't, but more complex weapons might... like a machine gun. It takes training to operate, clean, maintain, load and fire with accuracy. It's also expensive and hard to come by. (Or isn't it?). Also you typically want some one else there to feed the bullets (making the team a small group, threatening the libery of others?)
I don't know. My head spins. 



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> And yes, it requres a great deal of concentration and energy for me to abide by my own standards of reasoning--I like to think I take it seriously.


I thought I was a thinker.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 29, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Who wouldn't?



There are sure sick people who doesn't. People comes in all sorts.


----------



## Annie (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> There are sure sick people who doesn't. People comes in all sorts.


Only those you seem to think don't know better. They do, but don't care. I am not amongst them.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> God knows they can't act. Hardly functioning at all. But if you interprete the declaration that way you still find it suitable to add owning a specific sort of gun into it? Is that what we aspire too? I mean, I see the rules a bit more practical than you do. (Emphasis on a bit) We _can _ build schools, send aid and military force. This we can do today.



I think someone already pointed out that those who make up the General Assembly are not really aware of the realities certain parts of the world are facing.  I don't really see them as rules in the first place, just recommendations of how they feel people should live, which isn't alway intune with reality.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 29, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I know you said "ignorant hut-dwellers" not impling they were stupid. I also know the difference between both, but thanks just the same.
> 
> No offense was intended.
> 
> ...



I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.  I have no problem with supplying the weapons.  My main point is it doesn't just end with dropping off a crate of AK-47's and some ammo.  

The logistics and training involved entails hands-on, boots on the ground" trainers.  That's if we want to do it responsibly.

I'm just wondering if those who want to drop the crate of rifles are aware of the latter requirement, and are okay with it.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 29, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I think my original point has gotten lost, you are addressing a secondary argument made later. IF the citizens are protected by _the mere possibility_ of possessing arms, ala the 2nd amendment, it tends to keep both criminals and government wary of tipping too far. On another thread I believe Mr. P has posted links to the correlations between liberal carrying laws/more draconian gun control laws and the crime rate increase or decrease.
> 
> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.



The "ounce of prevention" would be if they had ALREADY owned weapons and knew how to use them.  The only thing that's really going to help them now is "the cure."  We need to kick some ass .... starting about two years ago.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Listen, whatever you think of it, it's there. We work our way forward, and maybe things will change - for better or worse. In my opinion I seriously think you generally overrate guns. There is a huge black picture that you are painting. Myself - beeing just a good guy - I'm trying to look beyond the barrel of the gun!
> 
> I can't say I respect your opnion either... (I really would have liked to) but I only hear you talk about voilence, - and voilence only.
> (Is that the effect of 9/11?!? If so, those terrorists have succeeded. There will be *no * peace in the world if U.S.A. gets isolated or isolates itself - ever) And let me tell you this, I love your country, for many reasons and someday when I'm rich, I'm going to move there.
> ...



I agree with your assessment that gun ownership is not a "human right."

HOWEVER, if you want to talk about our "violence," there comes a time when the talkin's done, bubba.  It's WAY past that time in Darfur, and when you want to point a finger, try pointing a finger at those who instigate the violence, not us for finally calling "bullshit" and fighting fire with fire.

It is NOT however, the effect of 9/11.  It's the righteous indignation of human beings who have watched genocide being committed by a sovereign gov't against its own people and several years worth of talk has accomplished exactly NOTHING.

So no, I wouldn't arbitrarily arm a people not versed in the use of weapons and/or conducting war.

But if up to me, I 'd damned-sure blow the Sudanese Army back to Hell so fast their ancestors would feel it.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 29, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.  I have no problem with supplying the weapons.  My main point is it doesn't just end with dropping off a crate of AK-47's and some ammo.
> 
> The logistics and training involved entails hands-on, boots on the ground" trainers.  That's if we want to do it responsibly.
> 
> I'm just wondering if those who want to drop the crate of rifles are aware of the latter requirement, and are okay with it.



I know what you mean, there's no confusion there.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 30, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> HOWEVER, if you want to talk about our "violence," there comes a time when the talkin's done, bubba.  It's WAY past that time in Darfur, and when you want to point a finger, try pointing a finger at those who instigate the violence, not us for finally calling "bullshit" and fighting fire with fire.
> .
> .
> .
> But if up to me, I 'd damned-sure blow the Sudanese Army back to Hell so fast their ancestors would feel it.


I agree with you, you don't have to argue this point. (Not with me, at least)
I'm no pacifist. Violence can be an effective a tool. Sometimes you fight fire with fire, sometimes with water. However, the use of violence should be used with care and expertice (Not talking about self-defence now). 



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> It is NOT however, the effect of 9/11.


This IS interesting (But probably a subject for another thread).


----------



## LOki (Mar 30, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Genocide has been carried out with knifes... but wouldn't it be quite fair to divide the world into pieces - like nations, and let the group of people living there decide what sort of guns are appropriate to own?


I like this dividing the world into peices business you suggest, but rather than the put the descisions about individual self defense in the hands of "nations," lets divide the descision appropriately--by individual.  Let indiviuals decide what is approriate for their own self defense.

I certainly don't want some nation (even my nation) who controls guns, tanks, howitzers, etc., and liegions of well indoctrinated, highly trained, and unsypmathetic men, deciding for me (a descision, mind you, not made by "the nation," but by some guy in charge) that I can only have a stick or a knife to defend myself with.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.


Of couse not. And I am certainly not advocating irresponsible gun ownership.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> I have no problem with supplying the weapons.


But I do.  I don't think the right to keep and bear arms is equivalent to the right to free guns.





			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> My main point is it doesn't just end with dropping off a crate of AK-47's and some ammo.


I think we agree then.

My point is that cutting off the means to a right is cutting off that right.  Just as governments are not obligated to provide the right to self defense (because we, as humans, already have it), they are not obligated to provide the means either--it's not their resposibility.

But governments _are responsible_ for protecting rights, and that makes them obligated to protecting the means to those rights; and if that means is gun ownership (and I am rather certain it is), then governments are obligated to protecting the right to own guns.  Governments, groups, or indiviuals prohibiting gun ownership is prohibiting the means to self defense, and is thus a violation of the right to self defense.



			
				GunnyL said:
			
		

> I agree with [Just a guy's] assessment that gun ownership is not a "human right."


And I agree with you also, but only on the insignificant technicality that if guns did not exist (for humans to use in the effort to violate the human right to life and/or defend it) then lack of guns would not constitute a violation of anyone's rights.  Human existence is not contingent upon gun ownership where guns cannot be used to snuff out the existence of humans, or where guns cannot be used to protect human existence from other threats--that world is just nowhere to be found.

In so far as guns are an effective means (perhaps the most effective means) of defending human life, protecting their ownership is protecting human rights--it makes gun ownership at least equivalent to a human right.


----------



## Annie (Mar 30, 2006)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> The *"ounce of prevention" would be if they had ALREADY owned weapons and knew how to use them.*  The only thing that's really going to help them now is "the cure."  We need to kick some ass .... starting about two years ago.


Agreed, that was my original point.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 30, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> I like this dividing the world into peices business you suggest, but rather than the put the descisions about individual self defense in the hands of "nations," lets divide the descision appropriately--by individual.  Let indiviuals decide what is approriate for their own self defense.
> 
> I certainly don't want some nation (even my nation) who controls guns, tanks, howitzers, etc., and liegions of well indoctrinated, highly trained, and unsypmathetic men, deciding for me (a descision, mind you, not made by "the nation," but by some guy in charge) that I can only have a stick or a knife to defend myself with.



How about this:

*0*
Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
However, we're not quite there yet. Instead we are at...

*1*
So, people have fears. They want to be able to protect themselves, but they live in a well working democracy where the level of armament can be agreed upon. Thus they avoid any extreems and everyone gets to be fairly satisfied. But all humans are not that fortunate. 

*2*
Here the democracy is not as well functioning. Fractions between the groups  has made agreement over aramament can't be made. Now, finding oneself in the controlling group is fairly okay. No need to be afraid. This is a delicate place to be in though. The oppressed portion of the population might try to arm themselves as they please (*3*). Or (the dilemma of a softening tyrant) if you try to go to *1*, the formerly opressed force everyone into...

*3*
... here everyone arm themselves as they please. Threat to life is imminent and the state is anarchy or civil war. (This state also fits your point of view!). This is an highly unstable place and it won't hold for long. If you are succesful you might get to *2*, but if you fail you will be dead or in...

*4*
No a nice place to be. Just like *2*, but you're on the other end of the barrel now. If you find the strength you might get to *3*. If offered the possibilty of *2* you might not trust it because of the earlier oppresion. This is also where utterly unhappy people of *1* believe themselves to be in, not trusting their fellow countrymen of selecting the leaders.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 30, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> How about this:
> 
> *0*
> Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
> ...



I think what you're getting at is the lack of rule of law in many places.  However, where there is a lack of rule of law, it is all the more important to be able to defend yourself.  See New Orleans post-Katrina for examples, where armed citizens defended themselves against looters and mobs.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 30, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> I think what you're getting at is the lack of rule of law in many places.  However, where there is a lack of rule of law, it is all the more important to be able to defend yourself.  See New Orleans post-Katrina for examples, where armed citizens defended themselves against looters and mobs.



Oh, I'm sorry... I was just trying to test this little logical thred of armament on LOki's talent of logical disection.

Most stuff has been said in this thread?

About Katrina, though, it really brought forward the worst _and _ best in people.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 30, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> How about this:
> 
> *0*
> Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
> ...



How about this. If the right to posess guns is an international human right, monitored by a international body, there could be some critea that needs to be met in order for that to happen? I have no idea what, I'm just throwing it out there.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 30, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> How about this. If the right to posess guns is an international human right, monitored by a international body, there could be some critea that needs to be met in order for that to happen? I have no idea what, I'm just throwing it out there.



Okay, for arguments sake, lets assume the owning of a gun is a human right. My little reasoning actually led to that conclusion didn't it? How strange. (Anyway I'm probably wrong and I maintain my point of view internally)

An international body watching monitoring that all humans has the desired access to weapons? I don't know... wouldn't that be very complex? But if it could be done, we have probably solved alot of the issues we face on the international playfield...?

Maybe it's it! instead on focusing on other matters, maybe if humanity can agree over guns, then peace and understanding comes as a secondary effect!


----------



## Said1 (Mar 30, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> Okay, for arguments sake, lets assume the owning of a gun is a human right. My little reasoning actually led to that conclusion didn't it? How strange. (Anyway I'm probably wrong and I maintain my point of view internally)



You're missing the point, perhaps a less emotional investment, by you is needed to approach this subject.



> An international body watching monitoring that all humans has the desired access to weapons? I don't know... wouldn't that be very complex? But if it could be done, we have probably solved alot of the issues we face on the international playfield...?




I'm not talking about "giving" anyone guns, or making sure everyone has access. The point would is monitering national control of citzens and their global right to posess a gun. I think that's obvious, stop being obtuse. Wow, there are committees devoted to a lot less.

And yes there are a lot of issues, such as countries under arms embargos, if there is such a thing on small fire arms, such as shot guns and hand guns, hence the suggestion of _criteria_. I'm not claiming that it would work, nor do I have any real suggestions as to what that criteria might be. Is there a nation anywhere that doesn't have civil violence or soverignty issues that isn't allowed to posess some type of small fire arm? Maybe, but I can't think of one.




> Maybe it's it! instead on focusing on other matters, maybe if humanity can agree over guns, then peace and understanding comes as a secondary effect!



Yeah. Ok.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 30, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> You're missing the point, perhaps a less emotional investment, by you is needed to approach this subject.


Actually I'm pretty cool about this. But if you really question and reavluate your standings you will get confused sometimes. I still don't see owning guns a part of the universal declaration of human rights. But on the other hand that might not be the issue either.




			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about "giving" anyone guns, or making sure everyone has access. The point would is monitering national control of citzens and their global right to posess a gun. I think that's obvious, stop being obtuse. Wow, there are committees devoted to a lot less.


Okay. But I don't get it. Monitoring all nations control over their citizens and their global right to posess a gun. What is the point of that? Isn't it just to read all nations law texts on the matter? I seriously don't know what you mean. What would you do with this knowlege?



			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> And yes there are a lot of issues, such as countries under arms embargos, if there is such a thing on small fire arms, such as shot guns and hand guns, hence the suggestion of _criteria_. I'm not claiming that it would work, nor do I have any real suggestions as to what that criteria might be.


Ah, now I get this. You mean that emargos should be lifted on certian sort of guns? That would be doable, I guess?



			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> Is there a nation anywhere that doesn't have civil violence or soverignty issues that isn't allowed to posess some type of small fire arm? Maybe, but I can't think of one.


Here you lost me again. My country doesn't allow you to walk the streets with as much as a swiss army knife in yoor pocket. (Well, it takes alot to be sentenced by the knife-law for that, but technically it could be considered a crime). Guns for sports and hunting are allowed after certification and can't be carried around as a functional unit. The whatever-its-name has to be separated from the rest of the weapon.


----------



## LOki (Mar 30, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> How about this:
> 
> *0*
> Paradise, here we all get to choose our level of armament. And we all select to be unarmed. Weapons are useless and violence between humans non-existant. (Works well with your point of view)
> ...


Nicely constructed strawman.

How about functional equivalent to your paradise: Everyone arms themselves as they please. Everyone treats each other with the respect due to an armed person.  Government officials (elected or otherwise) take care to not oppress because the result is likely to be lethal.  Other governments carefully consider the lethal ramifications of attacking a country where every man, woman, and child is armed against them.  Violence between individuals is non-existent because initiating violence is likey to be lethal, and the odds are not likely to pay off when your victim has the same lethal capacity as you do--and because everyone is armed, there is little doubt as wether or not they possess that capacity.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 30, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> Nicely constructed strawman.
> 
> How about functional equivalent to your paradise: Everyone arms themselves as they please. Everyone treats each other with the respect due to an armed person.  Government officials (elected or otherwise) take care to not oppress because the result is likely to be lethal.  Other governments carefully consider the lethal ramifications of attacking a country where every man, woman, and child is armed against them.  Violence between individuals is non-existent because initiating violence is likey to be lethal, and the odds are not likely to pay off when your victim has the same lethal capacity as you do--and because everyone is armed, there is little doubt as wether or not they possess that capacity.



In like two days time I have been called a-hole, troll and now a strawman.

Yeah, my theory doesn't hold. But your doesn't either, it is based on the same naive dream as my paradise:
_"Everyone treats each other with the respect due to an armed person."_Not the rational human behaviour we see everyday now?
_"Violence between individuals is non-existent because initiating violence is likey to be lethal"_
A troublesome fact about guns is that whoever shoots firt generally gets to clearfy what happened. The dead guy can't. So by shooting first you actually gets safer than not shooting at all.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 30, 2006)

> Actually I'm pretty cool about this. But if you really question and reavluate your standings you will get confused sometimes. I still don't see owning guns a part of the universal declaration of human rights. But on the other hand that might not be the issue either



I'm not confused. I think you are. I was under the impresson owning guns being a global right was the issue. I know it was sidestepped a little, for awhile but at this point the thread is on topic.




			
				Just a guy said:
			
		

> Okay. But I don't get it. Monitoring all nations control over their citizens and their global right to posess a gun. What is the point of that? Isn't it just to read all nations law texts on the matter? I seriously don't know what you mean. What would you do with this knowlege?



What's the point of having international human rights if there isn't committies and bodies that monitor any given nations complience? Think about it, if gun ownership was a international human right, it would be written in the same document as all the others. Then a monitoring committee would be set up. Not that I think it would be useful or anything, this is purely rhetorical.  




> Here you lost me again. My country doesn't allow you to walk the streets with as much as a swiss army knife in yoor pocket. (Well, it takes alot to be sentenced by the knife-law for that, but technically it could be considered a crime). Guns for sports and hunting are allowed after certification and can't be carried around as a functional unit. The whatever-its-name has to be separated from the rest of the weapon.




You're still allowed to own a gun, pending permits and stuff. Terms and conditions differ per country, state, province etc. I can't think of any freedom loving nations that doesn't allow citizens some form of gun ownership. Carrying a concealed weapon is one thing, owing one is another. Not so hard, I really don't see how you're unable to keep up.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 30, 2006)

LOki said:
			
		

> I like this dividing the world into peices business you suggest, but rather than the put the descisions about individual self defense in the hands of "nations," lets divide the descision appropriately--by individual.  Let indiviuals decide what is approriate for their own self defense.
> 
> I certainly don't want some nation (even my nation) who controls guns, tanks, howitzers, etc., and liegions of well indoctrinated, highly trained, and unsypmathetic men, deciding for me (a descision, mind you, not made by "the nation," but by some guy in charge) that I can only have a stick or a knife to defend myself with.
> 
> ...



I think we're on the same page, mostly.

I don't think the right to keep and bear arms = the right to free guns either.  I think two separate supbjects have been confused with one another throughout this thread, and I am quite sure I have contributed my fair share to the confusion.

That particular comment was made in the context of not having a problem with arming the victims of a genocidal government, so long as we (the average American ostrich) understand BEFOREHAND the logistics involved and that it is NOT just handing out free guns.  There's hands-on involvement required, and such involvement incurs risk.

I will also point out that when the US tried to hand out free guns in Vietnam, it was an abysmal failure.  The Montangnards and Hmoung warriors aside, the lowland villagers didn't do a very good job of keeping Charlie out no matter how much crap we gave them.

That's not saying S Vietname couldn't be _trained _ to be soldiers.  Obviously they could.  But there's that key word ..._trained_.

That is why, IMO, it would probably be more expedient and efficient if we just did the job for them.  It isn't that I wish to leave a people defenseless -- it is that I think WE should be defending the defenseless because it is the right thing to do.

On the issue of the 2nd Amendment, I support it wholeheartedly.  I do not support it as a universal "right."  While I support any law-abiding citizen in the world who wishes to possess a firearm and is willing to learn how to use it in a responsible manner, I do not support dictating to the people of the world what they need to believe where it does not concern the US.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 30, 2006)

At the end of the day, I don't think it would go  over well in nations like Canada, where the overall banning of hands guns is being taken seriously.


The UN General Assembly enforcing anything is really funny, but I'll give them an E for putting "issues" on their meeting agendas. Forbidding citizens to own fire arms - through reasonable means, isn't right IMHO, and probably a good indication of where that nations government is going.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 30, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, I don't think it would go  over well in nations like Canada, where the overall banning of hands guns is being taken seriously.
> 
> 
> The UN General Assembly enforcing anything is really funny, but I'll give them an E for putting "issues" on their meeting agendas. Forbidding citizens to own fire arms - through reasonable means, isn't right IMHO, and probably a good indication of where that nations government is going.



The UN is an absolute joke, and embarassment.  I'd love to have the power to open those bureaucratic nincompoops' eyes to just what a bunch of fools they are.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 30, 2006)

and a funny one with Steven Harper, PM.


----------



## Just a guy (Mar 30, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm not confused. I think you are. I was under the impresson owning guns being a global right was the issue. I know it was sidestepped a little, for awhile but at this point the thread is on topic.


I am one of those who don't know exactly all there is to be known. So naturally I get confused sometimes. However, the topic is gun as rights, but not nessecarily coupled with U.N.s declaration where I still think it would be out of place.



			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> What's the point of having international human rights if there isn't committies and bodies that monitor any given nations complience? Think about it, if gun ownership was a international human right, it would be written in the same document as all the others. Then a monitoring committee would be set up. Not that I think it would be useful or anything, this is purely rhetorical.


Well what is the point of monitoring compliance if you have no intention about acting upon the information it in any way?



			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> You're still allowed to own a gun, pending permits and stuff. Terms and conditions differ per country, state, province etc. I can't think of any freedom loving nations that doesn't allow citizens some form of gun ownership. Carrying a concealed weapon is one thing, owing one is another. Not so hard, I really don't see how you're unable to keep up.


We come from different places. You assume I _know _ stuff and you get frustrated when I don't. We are using different trees of references.
If you can't own a gun for the _purpose _ of self defence, then it is hardly in compliance of the right to have a gun is it? Here you are _required_ to conceal your weapon whilst in transport. 

To your initial idea, before this confusion started, know read in the (fairly) same context as yours:


			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> How about this. If the right to posess guns is an international human right, monitored by a international body, there could be some critea that needs to be met in order for that to happen? I have no idea what, I'm just throwing it out there.


Well, that critera could be hard to define, weight and range wouldn't cut it. Maybe there should be a weapon only capaple of carrying _one_ bullet?


----------



## Said1 (Mar 31, 2006)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> I am one of those who don't know exactly all there is to be known. So naturally I get confused sometimes. However, the topic is gun as rights, but not nessecarily coupled with U.N.s declaration where I still think it would be out of place.



 I wasn't specific at first, as you pointed out below. I'm not sure who said "UN" first, probably you. Anyway, like I said, this is _rhetorical_, my comment about their effectiveness was just an aside, however grounded in reality.  



> Well what is the point of monitoring compliance if you have no intention about acting upon the information it in any way?



Again, obtuse. No offense.




> We come from different places. You assume I _know _ stuff and you get frustrated when I don't. We are using different trees of references.
> If you can't own a gun for the _purpose _ of self defence, then it is hardly in compliance of the right to have a gun is it? Here you are _required_ to conceal your weapon whilst in transport.



I think I said different countries, states and provinces have different rules, right? Point is ownership, in some form. Get. It? 



> To your initial idea, before this confusion started, know read in the (fairly) same context as yours:
> 
> Well, that critera could be hard to define, weight and range wouldn't cut it. Maybe there should be a weapon only capaple of carrying _one_ bullet?




Yeah. Sure. Something like that.


----------

