Wednesday, September 10, 2014

More on Natural and Civil rights and firearms in the US.

Let's start off with the founders were very familiar with the work of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, since it would cause human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract.

In short, too many rights can create chaos.  The founders did not want anarchy (or what they would call "democracy").  In fact, they saw republican systems as being somewhat more restrained, although the French revolution would prove that to be a fallacious belief.

On the other hand, one of the things tied in with natural rights is a right to life, which unlike the current one which ends at birth, this one BEGINS with birth.  Natural rights begin with existence. The Declaration of Independence says that:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

John Locke stated the right to life as being that everyone has a right to life once created. The fundamental law of nature is that human life, as much as possible, should be preserved.   We could have a longer discussion of Locke, but his ideas are not supportive of a belief that natural law or natural rights would allow for the ownership of weapons.  In fact, I would assert they seriously contradict that belief.

Contemporary statements at the time of the US's nascence show that the doctrine of self-defence required that force was used as a last resort and only allowed for as much force as was reasonably necessary to stop any threat.  If one exceeded that level of force, then the person who was attacked became the aggressor [1]

The Constitution provides the right not to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".  While one can argue that acts of "self-defence" are not governmental actions, the way that the government addresses the use of that doctrine ARE.

The real issue when one claims a right, is what authority backs up that assertion?  In the case of life, there are many international treaties that say killing without extraordinary justification is wrong.  Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US is a signatory, states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Recently, the United Nations human rights committees overseeing the United States' obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Convention to End all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) meeting in Geneva Switzerland both cited rampant gun violence in the United States as a violation of our government’s duty to effectively protect the right to life. Women, children and minorities were cited as disproportionately affected groups. Both treaties have been ratified by the U.S. Senate binding the US government to act.

Both committees recommended expanded background checks covering all private firearm transfers. Both also expressed concern about the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws stating that these laws are used to “circumvent the limits of legitimate self-defense in violation of [the U.S. government's] duty to protect life”, and requested review of those laws “to remove far-reaching immunity and ensure strict adherence to the principles of necessity and proportionality when deadly force is used for self-defense.”

Albert Camus said "bloodthirsty laws, make bloodthirsty customs."  While he was speaking specifically about state-sponsored executions, the tendency goes like this: once the citizens of the state allow their government to discipline its citizens by killing them, then killing citizens becomes a custom; the punishment becomes, then, customary, in Camus' sense of the word. The laws rise from the consent of the governed, and once in place, they start to do their job: determine the culture of the country. The state's custom then becomes a little more bloodthirsty because the state's laws allow us to slake our thirst for blood.

The real issue here is that rather than "gun rights", any proper appeal to natural law or fundamental law would more likely hold that the right to life is far more important than someone's need to own a gun.  In fact, US law in recent times has perverted many concepts held in civilised nations regarding self-defence, right to life, and even the rule of law.

[1]  Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the Third, Chapter the First: Of the Redress of Private Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties p.3

22 comments:

  1. Laci,
    While I don't expect a reply from you, there are a few things in this post i want to address. One of which is your assertion that the right to life only begins with birth, its problematic because that logic is not applied evenly. Many unborn animals are better protected than unborn humans. Not to mention the fact that if the "clump of cells" were found elsewhere, it would be considered life. Why is it not considered so while in the mothers womb? If they right to life only applies with birth, why not say it? why say creation IE conception? We believe in the tools to protect life from those who would unlawfully take it, You seem to believe that those who would kill indiscriminately are more deserving of life than those who would use guns to protect themselves.Logically if there is a right to life there should be a right to protect life.
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Many unborn animals are better protected than unborn humans."

      Please explain.

      Delete
    2. you face heavy fines and possible imprisonment if you destroy eagle eggs in this country. If you want to kill your unborn child you have some people saying the government should pay for it.

      Delete
    3. So of course every looney left idea must be countered by a looney right idea, or it's unfair. You loons live by the "gotcha" principle which is why things get so looney.

      Delete
    4. So, which side of loony tune world do you live in?

      Delete
  2. Federal law gives a 250k fine for harming a bald eagle egg, which is by pro choice advocates logic not alive, 20k fine for disturbing sea turtle eggs or disturbing their spawning grounds the unborn of any of the animals covered under the endangered species act are all protected by law, so it's a simple question, why are animal lives more worthy of a right to life than humans and why are animals given legal protection prior to being born while humans are not? Why is it a right to kill an unborn child but a felony to kill some unborn animals? There has to be an agreed upon point at which life begins, for all life it can't be dependent on whose agenda it supports.
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. $250,000 for harming an eagle egg????

      You're zeal for the anti-abortion argument is, number one, embarrassing because you're a man and number two, an indication of your deep-set misogyny.

      Delete
    2. How do you figure that believing in the right to life is a sign of misogyny? Why is it so much to ask to have a standard definition of when life begins and when the right to life should be protected? I post concrete facts and look for logical discussion, and your default is to insult and essentially accuse me of hating women. Do you believe that killing and unborn animal should be a crime but killing and unborn child should a right? Because that's exactly where we are.
      MikeZ

      Delete
    3. I think men railing against abortion is ludicrous. A woman's right to choose trumps the rights of a month-old fetus. If the tables were turned, men would never stand for this, just as women do not.

      Delete
  3. Gun loons prove their bigotry everyday when they claim their right to a deadly weapon is more important than human rights. Like the founders they worship they treat humans as second class citizens, or as just property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, do you believe in the right to life or the right to abortion?
      MikeZ

      Delete
    2. MikeZ, you're such a big right to life guy, I suppose you oppose capital punishment in every case, right? How about the syg and castle doctrine killings that we often discuss. Are you OK with them?

      That's the problem with you right to life men, you're fucking hypocrites as well as misogynists.

      Delete
    3. I believe in both. I don't believe life begins when a sperm and egg meet. The Supreme Court does not either, and have given a time limit when abortion is legal, or not. A good compromise to include both sides. A rational, inclusive decision something you gun loons don't understand.

      Delete
  4. MikeB, it's problematic to compare stand your ground and castle doctrine laws as well as the death penalty for a number of reasons. SYG and Castle doctrine are not the get away with murder laws as you like to claim them to be. People have the right to life and the right to protect life. My belief on abortion, is much like my belief on taking any life. I belief that there are justifiable occasions that nessecitate with action. But I firmly believe the standard for any should be set high. I don't believe abortion should be set high. I believe that unfortunately there are times that it is justifiable to take a life whether it be born or unborn. The key point I was trying to make which it appears that you are ignoring is, as it is now we don't even have a consensus on when life begins or it becomes worthy of protection.
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, MikeZ, that's why you supported the maniac gun owner who shot and killed the Alzheimer's sufferer who had wandered onto his property. That's a real high standard.

      Are you avoiding any comment on the death penalty.

      Delete
    2. I wont. I FULLY support the death penalty for those who has committed an out right murder with undeniable proof.

      You kill us, we will kill you back.

      Delete
    3. I asked MikeZ, but he's hiding. He realizes that there's a big disconnect for a person to rant about abortion and also support the death penalty.

      Delete
  5. MikeB, And where exactly did I say that? I searched my comments and surprise it's not there, but obvious ok the truth doesn't matter to you. Par for the course. As far as the death penalty, much like my view of abortion and deadly force I do believe that there are cases where it is justified. What's your take? You seem, notice I say seem, IE appear, just to be clear so you don't accuser of lying, you appear to believe that the lives of common citizens and gun rights advocates, or unborn children are worthy of protection, but appear to believe that criminals, muggers, robbers are worthy of protection by either denying the right to self defense or deserve to be kept alive by abolishing the death penalty. If I am incorrect in this by all means correct me. I can only speak to how it appears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe in a woman's right to manage her own body without the government interfering or men criticizing her decisions, this trumps the rights of a fetus which POTENTIALLY could become a person. By your logic male masturbation should be illegal.

      You're the hypocrite who preaches rights when it's convenient for your positions. Guns, yes, no restrictions because it's a right. Abortion is wrong because of the non-viable fetus that could potentially become a person, regardless of the basic human rights of the woman to decide. That's misogyny.

      Delete
  6. How am I a hypocrite? I have never said no restrictions on gun rights, the masturbation point you make is foolishness in the extreme. If you are going to use that logic why not make menstruation illegal as well? Hopefully that comparison illustrates the foolishness but I doubt it. Let's adress your point of the woman managing her own body, does the father have no right to have an opinion on abortion? You latch on the right to choose, and that fine but does it not say in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal? And that all are endowed by their creator with the right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness? For purposes of this argument we can forgo the idea of God being the creator and stick with just the parents being the creator, Are they not still endowed with the right to life? If the right to life was ever intended to only exist after birth why not say it? Since you brought up the issue of the non viable fetus, when, to your mind is it considered a human worthy of the right to live?
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's enough, youmisogynist, racist and hypocrite, go to the pro life site of your choice if you want to argue abortion. This blog is about gun control and gun rights.

      Delete
  7. So I call you out on your nonsense, and double standard, and address issues that you yourself have brought up and your response is name calling and a school yard "i don't like you you cant play" attitude. I believe in the right to life and I believe in the right to protect life. I also understand that there are circumstances where taking a life, whether in self defense, the death death penalty or even abortion is an unfortunate but justifiable necessity. I only bring up the right to life issue and the definition of when life is considered worthy of protecting, because the post addresses the definition of when life begins. So if rather than actually getting into a logical discussion you want to just throw insults and call names by all means. if that's what you need to do feel justified.
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete