Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Right of Gun Possession

Laci explains it quite clearly. What I've often noticed is illustrated by that quote from Dave Kopel. Gun people base their argument on the presumption that guns are necessary for self-defense. Then they conflate that idea with the very popular misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Sometimes they bring God into it, and they become a tough crowd to argue with.

What's your opinion?  Does Laci's quote from the United Nations make sense?
The principle of self-defence has an important place in international human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession.

To me it does. Please leave a comment.

23 comments:

  1. Since when has Laci's pet explained anything clearly?

    The premise that human rights originate in law is nonsensical. Even if it were a valid argument, armed/unamred self-defense doesn't even come to distinction in the oldest written record of self-defense law we have: Exodus 22.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Given the earliest depiction of a firearm is that of a bombard from the 12th Century that comes from Szechuan, China, trying to cite a several thousand year old text to back your assertion is a stretch.

    Also, you have several problems with this, but you are so smart, VD< I'll let you figure out what they are.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like Laci said, "people can claim whatever bizarre right they wish" as he has done with a bizarre claim that gun control is a human right.

    Of course Laci's "clearly" written explanation ignores the fact that the United Nations is irrelevant and has no authority over us. They can write whatever bullshit they wish and it has no effect on me or any other U.S. citizen. Not only can the UN never claim dominion over the U.S. Constitution, they exist solely at our pleasure.

    "Additionally, there is no legal authority for making this claim that armed self-defence is a human right. Anyone who questions this article MUST provide their legal authority for such a claim."

    There is no need of a citation from some lawyer's book. Self defense is a natural right that is inalienable and it need not be enumerated anywhere. We are born with the right to self defense and it is our first instinct. Next he'll claim we have no right to breathe or drink water because some dipshit lawyer didn't write it down somewhere.

    Laci's folly is believing that for something to be right, it has to be determined and codifed by some superlawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FWM, I have the right to a seven figure income per the Sixth Amendment.

    Please refute.

    You can't since using your logic: I DO HAVE A RIGHT TO A SEVEN FIGURE INCOME.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  5. You certainly do have a right to whatever income you can acquire. Is somebody saying that making $X should be illegal?

    Maybe in some of the European nations you pretend to be from...but not here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I guess you can claim whatever the hell you want to even when it doesn't make any sense--you usually do.

    You are not born with a right to an income level but you are born with the right to defend yourself. Any reasonable human being would agree.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Isn't the UN position that the right of self defense need not require guns? Isn't that the point?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Laci: “You can't since using your logic: I DO HAVE A RIGHT TO A SEVEN FIGURE INCOME.”

    Based on the government bailouts, it would seem that the government believes there is a right for certain people to get their seven figures no matter what.

    The government should not stand in the way of the pursuit of happiness. If someone wants to pay you seven figures for what you do, more power to you. I think you are trying to imply a FREE seven figure salary for doing nothing, which might be relevant if 2nd amendment supports were arguing that the right to bear arms means the government should provide free firearms to the people. I haven’t seen anyone take that stance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. mikeb, yes, you are correct.

    FWM, the US is a signatory of the UN Charter (1945) per Article 6 of the US Constitution, that treaty is US Law:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  10. The entire idea that rights are dependent on government recognition of those rights would be amusing in its stupidity, if not for the horror that there are actually American citizens who are such abject cud-chewers as to hold the view that we have only those rights the government tells us we have.

    Even when SCOTUS ruled, in Cruikshank, against a Second Amendment argument (based on the now obsolete premise that the Second Amendment was not incorporated against the states), it acknowledged that the right guaranteed by that amendment was not dependent on the Constitution (or any other document, presumably):

    The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

    Even in a "democratic" society, in which the will of the majority determines what one's rights are, this is a monstrous notion.

    Why teach kids right and wrong, if right and wrong are mutable, and subject to a vote? Why not just teach them the Bloomberg approach, in which you buy a poll conducted by a polling company that advertises not its ability to accurately gauge opinions, but to get the desired results?

    ReplyDelete
  11. VD once again appeals to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as authority. The beauty of doing so is that one can claim anything is sanctioned by the FSM.

    For example, NRA hero David Koresh claimed it was right to molest children because he had insight into the FSM.

    VD certainly likes his Bible cafeteria-style; after all, if he's going to cite Exodus--will he also stone his unruly children to death or sell his daughter into slavery or not eat shellfish or kill those who dare work on the Sabbath?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Isn't the UN position that the right of self defense need not require guns? Isn't that the point?"

    It doesn't really matter what the UN thinks. They are irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Zorro, then my right to a seven figure income as a criminal defence attorney under the Sixth Amendment is not dependent upon the Constitution either. It is a god given right that is an extension of my right "to pursue happiness" since one cannot pursue happiness without oodles of cash.

    One can claim a right, but it is meaningless to do so unless there is an authority to back that right.

    A human right is an ethical construction used to justify a harmful act against another person, by claiming that undergoing the harmful act is an absolute moral entitlement, and that accordingly the harmful action can not be judged morally wrong. For instance, a man who wants to rape a woman would say, that women have a 'right to sex', and that his action was beyond moral judgment, because in raping the woman he was respecting a universal right. Rights are not intended to improve the conditions of the person who gets the rights, but to legitimise the actions of the person who declares them. In practice, it is not individuals but states which declare rights, and they are used to justify state policy.

    Some people in history have indeed claimed rights - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They are not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person must accept all rights declared for them, clearly contradicts the idea of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of consent. It is these aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for oppression. Generally, rights have the following characteristics...

    * a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another person
    * usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all human beings
    * the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the right to be declared
    * there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which constitute 'respect' of the right
    * these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
    * there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or restrain from certain action)
    * the person with the 'right' has no moral grounds to oppose this action of respecting - even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
    * therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a right, and these actions do not constitute a harm
    * since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not wrong, even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person affected considers them a harm

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is a vast difference between having the right to something, and having the right to impose an obligation on others to provide it for you. I fully agree with your right to a seven figure income (or seven thousand figure, for that matter)--have at it. What I wouldn't agree with, of course, is forcing anyone to pay you such an exorbitant sum.

    Similarly, while I resolutely claim my right to keep and bear arms, I make no claim that anyone must provide me those arms. If I were to make such a claim, then it would be quite true that the "right" I claimed was "an ethical construction used to justify a harmful act against another person," because I would be, in effect, stealing from that person (or those people) the cost of those arms. Since I do not claim that, my acquisition (and bearing) of arms harms exactly no one.

    Exercise of the right to self-defense, of course, often does result in harm to the assailant, but that's kinda the downside of being an assailant--in becoming one, you grant your would-be victim the right (via self-preservation) to harm you as much as necessary to thwart the assault.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    Isn't the UN position that the right of self defense need not require guns?

    So does the U.N. formulate policies like you do, by watching silly TV shows, thus determining that people don't need to be armed to adequately defend themselves? Is that their suggestion for everyone? Women, the elderly, the disabled, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Regardless of where rights come from, be it God, a flying spaghetti monster, mother nature, the UN, The United States Government, or a 200 year old piece of paper… any way you cut it- we have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and we have a right to self-defense. Gun controllers will have to work under that constraint.

    ReplyDelete
  17. TS:

    Gun controllers will have to work under that constraint.

    Ooh--they ain't gonna like that. Too bad for them that their likes and dislikes matter so little.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jade, why don't you find out more about the web site of my citation source before you assume I hold Exodus as Absolute Truth.

    Otherwise, you just look like a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, don't worry about that, Van Dyke. Jade is quite used to looking like a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Does Laci make sense?

    No.

    He would not know how to present a cogent, well-researched argument if his life depended on it.

    At the very least he shows an astonishing ignorance of the views of our founders.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    Isn't the UN position that the right of self defense need not require guns? Isn't that the point?

    Actually, look at Page 9:

    Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation.

    So they're going beyond saying that it would be fine to ban guns, and tell people to defend themselves with kung-fu--they're coming out and saying it's just fine and dandy to outlaw self-defense altogether.

    Without a right to self-defense, there is, of course, no right to live.

    Then we have you, with your apparent belief in a fundamental human right to meticulous records at gun shops.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zorro, It's probably silly of me to question your argument, but are you not muddying the waters a bit with this one?

    "Why teach kids right and wrong, if right and wrong are mutable, and subject to a vote?"

    We were talking about "rights."

    Also, you said this about your owning guns:

    "my acquisition (and bearing) of arms harms exactly no one."

    Well, that may be true so far. But unfortunately, over the course of your lifetime it's more likely that your guns will be involved in some form of misuse rather than for a life-saving DGU. As soon as that happens, your weapons will have done harm to someone, perhaps very serious harm.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Well, that may be true so far. But unfortunately, over the course of your lifetime it's more likely that your guns will be involved in some form of misuse rather than for a life-saving DGU."

    What do you base that on? Did Jade tell you that?

    ReplyDelete