Should Gun Ownership Be A Global Right?

[Said1]

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]

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]

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.

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".

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:

(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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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:

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.

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

...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?

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

Fair enogh but the resolution gets bad.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

Who wouldn't?

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

 

[Annie]

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]

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.