Should Gun Ownership Be A Global Right?

[Just a guy]

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

My point exactly - contrary to the article-writer.

 

[Said1]

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]

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.

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.

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

My point exactly - contrary to the article-writer.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Just a guy]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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

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

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."

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

And I will argue there is no specific weapon necessary to an individual's defense.

Again, what you consider to be "basic human rights" is not necessarily a universally held concept. As a human being, you have the right to survive only so long as you can enforce it. Any other "human right" is artificially enforced by the culture that enforces it, but is not inherent.

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.

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.

l

 

[LOki]

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.

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?"

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]

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]

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]

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.

What you are suggesting requires involvement of someone's military. And we know Who's military. Carrying and using a weapon is the easy part. The logisitics to support carrying the weapons is not.

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?

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.