13 ms·
I'm not sure if you meant to imply that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental human right but if so I think that's a bit of a stretch. 'Fundamental rights' (under
by richmarr 9y ago
I'm not sure if you meant to imply that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental human right but if so I think that's a bit of a stretch.
'Fundamental rights' (under US law) I think is defensible as fundamental is treated as an alias for constitutional so guns are in.
'Fundamental human rights' to me implies broad and fundamental applicability, i.e. the UN declarations and covenants on human rights, which don't iterate guns as a right.
Case in point, when non-US countries talk about human rights, none of them are talking about guns.
- walshemj 9y agoCommon law (root of UK and US law) does have the right to self defence. And this "other countries" mm a lot of this had constitutions where the citizens where given some rights by the king and not have universal rights.
- dilippkumar 9y agoI believe UK law is not as strong as US laws regarding right to self defense [1].https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/pensioner-arrested-stabbing-suspected-burglar-death-police/ https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/pensioner-arrested-stabbing-susp... [2]. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1361028/Martin-is-cleared-on-murder-count.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1361028/Martin-is-cl...
- walshemj 9y agoI was more talking about some of the roots of the 2nd amendment - the uks' gun control laws started to be brought in during a panic over the general strike.
- mkempe 9y agoYes, the entire Bill of Rights in fact pertains to our inalienable, universal rights. There is no difference from what one may term "fundamental" or "human" rights. It doesn't matter what the UN or anyone in other countries say or talk about -- just as the laws of physics are facts regardless of what some people may say or feel. If we have the right to life, we have the right to self-defense. If we have the right to overthrow tyranny, we have the right to fight it and install a new form of government.
- mr_spothawk 9y agothis is my preferred interpretation, also :)
- laughingman2 9y agoThen please petetion your senator to deregulate tanks, fighter jets, nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, submarines etc. If you are serious about arming civilians as protection to overthrow tyranny, do a better job.
- mkempe 9y agoWe already have the National Guard [1] --aka militias-- which provide ample check from the State level against a would-be dictatorship at the Federal level. For further self-education, one may want to read The Federalist Papers, in particular no 46 written by Madison (see [2] for a discussion of the issue). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_S... [2] http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being-armed/ http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being...
- rplst8 9y agoThe national guard is NOT the militia.
- mkempe 9y agoI agree that it is not the only militia.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThe constitutional concept of the militia is universal (well, universal for adult free males, at least, but arguably the limitations their relate to limitations applicable to the concept of full citizenship at the time, not special ones for the militia); the National Guard is a subset of or overlaps with the militia (and is, as it is structured, in some ways, in conflict with the conceptualized role of the militia in securing liberty) but is not equivalent to the militia.
- harimau777 9y agoI'd argue that fundamental human rights means rights that exist inherently regardless of whether the UN or any given country recognizes them. My feeling is that people have a right to self defense, which would require them to have access to some effective weapon. In theory that could be a club or blade rather than a firearm; however, currently firearms are the only (somewhat) socially acceptable weapon to carry in the united states.
- tolgerias 9y agoself defense is a human right only in a lawless society. The existence of the state makes it necessary for it to have the monopoly of the application of force, and all matters should be resolved in a civil court of law. Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense. Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state.. while that is the definition of a lawless society (a society where the state has no way to impose the rule of law). I get it, guns are fun. But a human right? Definitely not
- GiorgioG 9y ago> Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense. If that's the case, I don't want to live anywhere else. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, they pose a deadly threat to my family. In what country would you not feel the same way? > Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state. Not all states are benevolent, nor are they guaranteed to stay benevolent. Many Americans are wary of our gov't (and IMO rightly so.)
- merpnderp 9y agoYou make a great point. Police forces have been sued for responding slowly or not at all to threats on lives and found to have no responsibility to respond to a particular crime.
- 9y ago
- Covzire 9y agoThe gravity of the second amendment isn't arms per se, it's the right to retain enough personal power to repel a dictator from taking over the government and just as importantly, making it so that even if a dictator succeeds, the country will be ungovernable for them.
- rch 9y agoSo we should substitute 'strong cryptography' for 'arms' and see what happens.
- dfsegoat 9y agoIt is funny you mention that actually - as a personal anecdote, I can say that many of my friends who happen to be advocates for free distro of crypto tech - or more commonly, cryptocurrencies - also tend to be fairly strong 2A advocates. TL;DR; - IMO there is some significant crossover between crypto* people, and 2A people.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoCryptography is useful to protect privacy, which is very closely related to liberty.
- freedomben 9y agoI have noticed this correlation as well (I am an example of it in fact). I think there is a common thread of decentralization and bringing power closer to the people that resonates with the two groups.
- 411mrc 9y agoI think the correlation is termed "libertarian."
- jethro_tell 9y agoI have not noticed this correlation, so it may be anecdotal.
- blackflame7000 9y agoThe 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This implies that the right to gun ownership predates the constitution because you can not infringe on a right that doesn't yet exist. Thus our forefathers saw it as an inalienable right that predates our nation.
- donw 9y agoThinking of it as "guns" being a fundamental right is... kinda backwards. And, for the record, I think that "because the Second Amendment" is a horrible and fantastically lazy argument for gun ownership. Now, let us take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." From this, I don't think it's a stretch to say that everyone has the right to protect the above -- within reason! Everyone has an innate right to defend their life, liberty, and security of person. Without that, those rights are meaningless. This is not the job of the police. You should definitely call them if you have the time! But they are under no obligation to protect you, or even to show up. (Most people don't know that, by the way.) When you encounter a threat to the above, you have the right to fight until that threat ends, with some leeway granted for the adrenaline dump of combat. This is not an indiscriminate license to kill or even to engage in violence! Even if you "feel threatened". You must be able to demonstrate that you acted in defense of life -- yours or another's -- in order to justify your use of force against an attacker. Weapons are the means by which individuals use force. Allowing for self-defense allows for the use of weapons. There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. Your hands and feet are natural, and lethal, weapons. More people die by these every year in the United States than by "assault weapons". Clubs and knives? Definitely lethal. The difference between the winner and a loser in a knife fight, is that the winner dies on the way to the hospital. Tasers kill more people annually in the United States than "assault weapons". Tasers are also one-time use only. Miss your attacker? Too bad. Attacker has a thick jacket? Better luck next time. Multiple attackers? That sucks. Pepper spray is probably the least-lethal thing you can use, but it still can and does kill people. Pepper spray is horribly ineffective. Use it indoors, or against the wind, and you will incapacitate yourself. It is useless in the rain. Or if your attacker is wearing a face mask. Or if you have multiple attackers. A gun, on the other hand, works in the rain. It works in the wind. It works equally well regardless of how strong or weak you are. It works against multiple attackers. Guns, even if "silenced", are also amazingly loud, which is a big advantage when you're defending yourself, because you want people to hear that noise and call the cops. So, in a world where we respect peoples' human rights, allowing gun ownership really is common sense.