[Idaho]

Ok, I know what Oleg will say (given his website url), but what do you think? Disregard the 2nd Amendment for the moment - is firearms ownership a universal right?

This question came to mind when I came across this today:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm)

Conspicuous in its absence is any reference to firearms. Now do you think it was left out and should have been specifically included? Or is it under the umbrella of, say, Article 3, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Would you add in something more specific if you could? Or would that get us bogged down in technical debates, as the 2nd has? After all, there isn't anything that says "you have a right to breath."

I would be curious to hear your thoughts.

[Kaylee]

My thoughts are that the UN "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" are classic hucksterism. Start with the things nobody can possibly disagree on -- "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. " for instance.

Theeeeennnnn start sneaking in all kinds of nanny-state claptrap under the name of "rights" ... this one's my favorite:


(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.



Oh wait.. no... this one!

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

:barf:


To answer the question though.... I'd say that self-defense is indeed a fundamental right.. one of the most basic. In the early 21st century that means a firearm. In the 13th century it might be a longbow, in the 29th century it might be some wierd phaser-thingie.

The technology is unimportant. What is important is the ability to meaningfully say "no....no I don't believe I'll co-operate. I don't want to go in your shower today. Bite me."


-K

[six 4 sure]

Personally I could care less what the UN thinks.

I feel it is my God given right to defend myself, by any means necessary and with the tool of my choosing, against those that choose to disregard “Common Sense”. See my sig

six

[Baba Louie]

is firearms ownership a universal right?

Quod eras demonstradum (or however you spell it)
Obviously it is not. Only if you were born in the USA, Switzerland or maybe the upper Nordic countries and as far as I can tell its fading fast in these places.

That particular "universal right" is limited to the governing bodies in the vast majority of terra firma's political tribes by their own decree. Keeps THEM safe from the peasants and allows them to make war on their neighbors and dissident sheep, donchaknow?

I could be wrong tho'.

Adios

[Dilettante]

I like what Kaylee said about technology. The principle of the right to self-defense is universal and eternal. The appropriate tools depend on the century.

A related question came up on another forum a while back. Many ex-cons, and people with some psychiatric conditions, are barred from owning firearms. Does that mean they don't have the right to self-defense? Not at all...unfortunately they are just not responsible enough to own a firearm.
You could even say the same thing about young children.
(I know that sometimes they use trivial offenses to keep people from getting a CCW etc. Right now I'm only talking about people who just can't be trusted because of a criminal record or dangerous mental disorder.)

[BogBabe]

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

And by inference, the means to protect life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

And by inference, the means to protect ourselves against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation

And by inference, the means by which to protect ourselves against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, and home.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

And by inference, the means by which to protect against those who would arbitrarily deprive us of our property.

[Okiecruffler]

I had a classmate tell me once that the constitution could always be changed to take away my right to bear arms. So I stood before my peers and explained as best I could.

The Constitution no more gives me the right to bear arms as it gave me brown eyes. Rights are not given, privileges are given, I do not have the privilege to protect what is mine, that is my right. It is everyone's right as a free thinking person, and those governments that take that right away are unjust and an abomination to the human spirit, and are doomed to ultimately fail. The drafters of this great country's constitution were not making a list of the powers that they were giving us. They were simply putting to record the things that were so very obvious to them as the basic rights of men. You say you would like to take this right from me, but you can not take what you can not give. And to those who would lace up their jackboots in a crusade to stifle my rights, I offer this truth. I am vigilant, I am skilled, and I am not alone.

[longeyes]

Those who prefer not to be eaten will master self-defense. This may derive, arguably, from a Higher Power but also, demonstrably, from a Lower Power: raw, organic instinct common to virtually all life.

The more "civilized" we get the more we deny our instinctual core. What we are seeing today is a hypertrophy of "civilization" at the expense of life.

Stay raw or you'll be cooked.

[cordex]

A free person can own property.
Thus, a free person can own arms.
If one is blocked from owning property (either in whole or in part) by Mommy.gov, one is less than free.
Some people don't like the idea of "dangerous" freedoms - meaning more freedom than they feel comfortable with. Sort of like the media definition of an "arsenal" - more guns than they arbitrarily think a law abiding individual "needs".
Some people on this very board who claim to be freedom loving, blanch at the thought of others being equally free. *shrug* There are bigots everywhere.

Firearms ownership is a right for free humans.

[suijurisfreeman]

The 'right' of self-defense is probably one of the most fundamental rights of a free Human Being! If when necessary you don't exercise this right you may very well lose all others! As for me, this 'right' does not exist on a piece of paper or anywhere else for that matter, it exists because I've got the 'cajones' to exercise it! Just like all the other rights that I claim, exercise and will defend! :evil:

[SGT109FA]

Firearms ownership - a human right?

Human right ..yes...constitutional right ...yes...God given right ...NO !

[Standing Wolf]

I had a classmate tell me once that the constitution could always be changed to take away my right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment could, indeed, be repealed, and could even be replaced with some piece of shameless anti-Second Amendment bigotry; our intrinsic human right to defend our lives and property, however, would be unchanged.

[geekWithA.45]

The right to be armed is inherent in your right to exist, and the right to be armed exists wherever, and whenever you are.

The local powers are likely to disagree, but the insistence of the local powers that 1+1 = 3 doesn't change the rules of math or the laws of physics.

Next question.

[Graystar]

Disregard the 2nd Amendment for the moment - is firearms ownership a universal right? Of course it is. But you have to place it at its proper level.

First we have a right to live. That is a natural right. As such, we have a right to defend that life. That is also a natural right. As such, we have a right to defend that life effectively. This is NOT a natural right. Nature does not provide animals with any weapons, other than what they are born with. This is a fundamental right. That is, it is a right recognized by civilized man, and is recognized as existing regardless of whether a person is part of a society or not.

The 2nd Amendment, however, refers to an even higher level of right. The 2nd Amendment was meant to protect the ability of state's citizens to come together and fight to protect the state. This is a societal right that really has no meaning outside a government structure (just as the right to vote is meaningless without a government.) And just like voting, the right protected by the 2nd is also part obligation. Your neighbors will be really pissed at you if you don't help them defend the homeland.

[Keith]

Kurt Vonnegut used to write about writers and artists being the "Canary in the Coal Mine" - those who were the first to sense authoritarian movements, and the first to die when those movements came to power.

Gun ownership is the "Canary in the Coal Mine" of human rights. It's the most important safeguard against authoritarian rule, and in consequence is the first right to be removed.

Keith

[Nightfall]

"Everyone (peaceful individuals) has the right (inalienable, inherent, understood claim to) to life (staying alive), liberty (staying free from government oppression, and oppression by other individuals or groups) and security (free from the danger of removal of the above and the means to their defense) of person (you, yourself)."

Though they may not realize it, they included the right to keep and bear arms when they guaranteed the ability of peaceful individuals to have the right to stay alive, to stay free, and to be secure. These things cannot be guaranteed without the means to fight back against attempts at their denial. To be secure (to put beyond hazard of losing or of not receiving), one must be able to provide protection (measures taken to guard against espionage or sabotage, crime, attack, or escape). Individually owned firearms, obviously, are the surest way to provide an immediate ability to effectively fight against attempted, unjust removal of these individual rights.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

:barf:

Try and stop me, UN. I shall exercise my rights, regardless of how they interfere with your purposes.

[Chris Rhines]

The most fundamental right is the right to own and dispose of property, and all other rights (life, liberty, free speech, free trade, even the pseudo-right of privacy) can be traced back to this keystone.

As cordex said, firearms are a form of property.

- Chris

[Dilettante]

(Keith)
Kurt Vonnegut used to write about writers and artists being the "Canary in the Coal Mine" - those who were the first to sense authoritarian movements, and the first to die when those movements came to power.

Conversely, they are often the first to sign up and promote those movements!!