Gun Rights

Human right or Civil right?

  • Human

    Votes: 64 77.1%
  • Civil

    Votes: 19 22.9%

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

sprice

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
916
I was having a conversation with a fellow member the other day and he brought up an interesting point.

Is the right of arms (firearms) a civil right or a human right?

Human right- rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled. God given.
Civil right- protected by the government for individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations. Given by the government for citizens of that state/country only.
 
Last edited:
Hummm Human right is to defend ones self and property.

Civil right granted by the founding fathers in the 2a.
 
I'm not sure how to answer. In that self-defense is a natural right that existed long before civilization (and will exist long after civilization collapses ;)) and exists independently of it, I guess it's a human right as well. Since guns are the most effective means of self-defense, then it follows that gun rights are human rights, at least in my view. If in a civil society, as most of us understand it, there are egalitarian principles such as equal protection under the law, then it stands to reason that guns, being the great equalizers that they are, would be an essential part of ensuring equality. In this case it takes us away from certain aspects of nature (e.g. superior physical strength allowing one person to dominate or kill another at will) while reinforcing other more fundamental aspects (the right to defend oneself and the freedom to live), which I think is the very basis of civil society. Therefore gun rights are also civil rights.

Hummm Human right is to defend ones self and property.

Civil right granted by the founding fathers in the 2a.

This civil right is enumerated and protected by the Second Amendment, but not granted by it--none of our rights are granted by the government (which can only either defend or take them away), and we have other rights that are not enumerated.
 
This civil right is enumerated and protected by the Second Amendment, but not granted by it--none of our rights are granted by the government (which can only either defend or take them away), and we have other rights that are not enumerated.
+1. "Shall not be infringed". It's a restriction on the government, nothing more. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.
 
I believe that God has given me the right to protect my self and family.
That could be with a sharpened stick or a firearm.
Man has taken the rights away from some individuals who have shown the lack of common sense and the ability to act the way man has made his own laws.
 
Civil - Civilization - Lack of either and you do not need to worry about RKBA.....

:scrutiny: If civilization collapses, you'd better have some way to protect yourself.

RKBA is certainly a Human right. The right to defend your person, your property, your territory.
 
Human rights seem to be things that are an innate part of being human.

"Civil" rights seem to be things that are guaranteed to a person by civil society. I disagree that civil rights are necessarily "given", more like they are codified in some manner.

So we seem to have in the Second Amendment a bit of both. The right to protect one's own life pre-existed the Constitution, making it a human right, the Second specifically protects it, making it a civil right in our society.

My opinion anyway.
 
I like what you had to say texasrifleman. I agree with that but it's sometimes hard for me to put my ideas into words.
 
In our "Western/Christian" legal system the right of self-defense dates back to the OT biblical era. More recently, (and for our legal purposes), English Common Law deemed that right just. Writings of prized jurists like Blackstone emphasized it. Our Founding Fathers - after much public writings and debate in their local governing bodies - incorporated it into our organizing documents. Until the latter half of the 20th century it was "part and parcel" of most of our common law.

Only with the advent of the "nanny government poloice state" have we been denied the right of active self-defense or defense of family by some states' governing bodies. >MW
 
To me it's a human right in that every human in the world will instinctively fight to stay alive if necessary. With that in mind denying someone the ability to do so to the best level possible is taking a basic human right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top