Should Gun Ownership Be A Global Right?

[Annie]

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

Articles

* Latest
* Show all

Profile
Webfeed
All Glenn Reynolds articles
About Webfeeds
March 20, 2006 05:45 PM

It's genocide in Darfur - Brian Brivati is correct to call it a "slow-motion Rwanda" - and as usual, the "international community" is doing nothing. That's no surprise, really, as the international community didn't act over Rwanda, or Cambodia, or any number of other genocides since the second world war. (Even Bosnia elicited little more than tongue-clucking until the US got involved.)

Given that we were supposed to be ensuring that things like the Holocaust would never happen again, this is a pretty damning indictment of the United Nations-centred postwar international order. Some people are talking about structural reform to make the international establishment more responsive in cases of genocide, as a result. I wish them well, but I hold out little hope for their success. The UN is looking as useless in the face of genocide as the League Of Nations was when confronted with Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia.

Instead, I note that many people are looking at the prospect of self-help for victims of genocide. Writing in the Washington University Law Quarterly, human rights lawyer Don Kates and law school dean Daniel Polsby note that genocides are generally perpetrated against disarmed populations:

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people." Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered - one does not usually lead to the other - but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the 20th century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.

Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenceless. This is not to say that the plans of a government resolved to eradicate an ethnic or political minority would necessarily be precluded by armed resistance. As elsewhere in life, raising the cost of a behaviour, whether genocide, smoking cigarettes or anything in between, merely makes that behaviour more unusual than it would otherwise be, not impossible for those willing and able to pay the price. No specific form of social organisation will ever make genocide or any other evil literally impossible. Nevertheless, because most important questions are matters of degree, it is still worth inquiring into the connection between the virulence of a government and the degree of its effective monopoly on deadly force. And it is especially timely to do so now, in the wake of Oklahoma City, the "Republic of Texas" incident and the increased public attention these have brought to the enigmatic civic denominations from which these plots evidently emerged, because now the philosophical and historical context that links genocide with the state of civilian arms has tended to become obscured.


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.

An article forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review takes a much deeper look (pdf) at that very question, with particular emphasis on Darfur, and notes that the victims of the genocide are effectively disarmed by law and international embargo while the perpetrating janjaweed militias are armed and financed (as is common in genocides) by the Sudanese government. For the people of Darfur, relying on the government to protect them is absurd, as the government is behind their murder. Relying on the international community, on the other hand, is absurd because the international community is - at the most charitable - absurd. In fact, as is also the case with most genocides, much of the international community is complicit, at least to the extent of turning a blind eye to conduct that would otherwise imperil important government contracts, or oil ventures.

Given that this sort of behaviour is par for the course when genocides occur, who would dare to say that the inhabitants of Darfur do not have a right to arm themselves and resist their killers with force?

 

[5stringJeff]

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]

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.

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?!?

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[5stringJeff]

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]

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]

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]

No, I've already stated such.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.


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?




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.

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]

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]

Unarmed people are subjects. Armed people are citizens.

 

[Just a guy]

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.

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:

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.

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]

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."

I DID state my opinion as a member of a democratic society where the law guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms.

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.

I don't consider gun ownership to be a basic human right. At the same time, the basic human rights you believe in are not universally-held beliefs. Your idea of human rights are artifical parameters as defined by your Western beliefs.

Actual human "rights" boils down to your having the right to exist only so long as you can maintain than existence, by whatever means necessary.
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.

mm