Should Gun Ownership Be A Global Right?

[Said1]

and a funny one with Steven Harper, PM.

 

[Just a guy]

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.

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?

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:

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]

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.