If RKBA is REALLY an inalienable right, then doesn't this happen....?

[Pert_UK]

OK, this is just a thought I've had and not 100% developed, but here goes.

If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is genuinely an "inalienable right" and that "all men are born equal" with such a right, then don't the pro-RKBA crowd have to start complaining that this right is being abused in "less palatable" countries?

For example, US marines are confiscating guns in Iraq and Afghanistan now......The UN is probably taking them in Bosnia........People in China aren't allowed (or can't afford i.e. repression of rights monetarily) to own guns, so shouldn't the US be campaigning for that right, and maybe donating a few ship-loads of guns? Should the UN High Commission on Human Rights be examining the UK and its draconian laws against private gun ownership?

I bet that the common people of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia aren't allowed to own guns privately, without police contacts and/or bribes? Pakistan and India?

Even if I am factually inaccurate in any (or even all) of the above, doesn't it follow that the pro-RKBA position entails that every citizen of EVERY country in the world is entitled to a gun if they want one, and that those citizens could and SHOULD use them to over-throw a government whose views strongly contradicted their own?

Now......would the NRA or any American government be genuinely likely to encourage the mass-arming of non-friendly populations, or is it just "US Friendly" countries that should be allowed an armed populace?

Lastly, do we think that the world would be MORE or LESS peaceful if everybody was allowed a gun in the cupboard at home.....MORE or LESS........MORE or LESS........?

[FeebMaster]

1. As far as I'm concerned

everyone in the world has the same rights. Granted, I don't specifically say every day, "Gee, it's a shame in some country 7000 miles away from me that some guys rights are being violated," but that doesn't mean people's rights aren't being violated around the world.

When it all comes down to it I have to worry about myself first. My rights are being violated, so I'm concerned mostly with that. That doesn't mean I don't understand that the rights of people all over the world are being violated and it doesn't mean that it doesn't bother me.

What does the NRA or the US government have to do with anything? Why the constant obsession by some people with the NRA? What does either of them have to do with rights? The NRA barely supports the arming of Americans, why would they support the arming of people outside of America? The US government is only concerned with one thing: The US Government. Why would they want to arm people who aren't friendly to their interests. They shouldn't be arming anyone as far as I'm concerned.

Lastly, do we think that the world would be MORE or LESS peaceful if everybody was allowed a gun in the cupboard at home.....MORE or LESS........MORE or LESS........?

Irrelevant. How do you even define peaceful? Is it preferable that people live under the boot of a repressive government if it "keeps the peace"? Is having people rise up against tyranny an undesirable thing if they do it through force of arms and violence?

[mikey_1962]

2. Not an inalienable right but granted by the second amendment..

As for other countries... depends on their constitution.

[FeebMaster]

4. Granted?

The bill of rights was such a bad idea it's not funny.

[Heyo]

3. Well.. to answer your 'more or less' question...

How do you think the country would be if every criminal knew, that no matter what, he could go into any house and be sure that the person inside is unarmed? To know 100 percent that the people inside do not have a firearm with which to defend themselves?

It's not like the criminals wouldn't still have their guns.

I think the threat of being caught and going to jail is a decent deterrent from crime... so the the thought of dying at that very minute.

I think if there were no guns in the hands of lawa abiding citicenz, there'd be an incease in the number of home invasions, robberies, rapes, etc....

Any victim they choose would be ripe for the picking.

Would you attempt to rob a person who you even think MIGHT have a gun?

Heyo

[Pert_UK]

21. Well in the UK (and some other countries)...

a criminal can already be 100% sure that there are no legally held pistols inside, and probably 99.999% sure that there are no shotguns either (unless he's targeted a farm, in which case there'd be a fair chance of a gun inside).

And yet the UK isn't over-run by armed criminals, and guns are only very, very rarely used in personal crimes like burglary or street robbery.

Oddly enough, before the gun-ban there was probably still a 99.99% chance that the homeowner wouldn't have a gun inside, because very few people actually wanted to own guns.

There are other countries with strict restrictions on gun ownership and I don't think that any of them are plagued by gun-toting burglars....

One point to remember is that with more guns in circulation it is easier for criminals to get hold of guns. Guns are "two a penny" in the States and there is no centralised tracking of who owns what. It is therefore farsically easy for a criminal to obtain a gun either legally or illegally.

[iverglas]

5. absolutely

Remember how attentive Bill Clinton was to the rights of Rwandans:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm

Many of the early Tutsi victims found themselves specifically, not spontaneously, pursued: lists of targets had been prepared in advance, and Radio Mille Collines broadcast names, addresses, and even license-plate numbers. ...

... Dallaire never spoke to Bushnell or to Tony Marley, the U.S. military liaison to the Arusha process, during the genocide, but they all reached the same conclusions. Seeing that no troops were forthcoming, they turned their attention to measures short of full-scale deployment which might alleviate the suffering. Dallaire pleaded with New York, and Bushnell and her team recommended in Washington, that something be done to "neutralize" Radio Mille Collines.

... The country best equipped to prevent the genocide planners from broadcasting murderous instructions directly to the population was the United States. Marley offered three possibilities. The United States could destroy the antenna. It could transmit "counter-broadcasts" urging perpetrators to stop the genocide. Or it could jam the hate radio station's broadcasts. This could have been done from an airborne platform such as the Air Force's Commando Solo airplane.

... In early May the State Department Legal Advisor's Office issued a finding against radio jamming, citing international broadcasting agreements and the American commitment to free speech. When Bushnell raised radio jamming yet again at a meeting, one Pentagon official chided her for naiveté: "Pru, radios don't kill people. People kill people!"

Should George W. Bush not be held to at least as high a standard?


(Let me just mention again that PBS is airing a 2-hour documentary about the Rwandan genocide tonight, and recommend the article linked above for anyone interested.)

.

[Me Me Meme]

6. No! Hell no!

Yes, the RKBA is inalienable.

Yes, all men are created equal. Some of the women, too.

(I would hope it's not necessary to point out that the last sentence is a joke, but ya never know...)

However, I'm quite busy enough keeping track of the issue here, let alone following it around the globe.

And really, who gives a shit? I don't mean about your question - it's a valid one. But I for one don't give a red fuck about the relationship of any government and it's citizens except right here in America. It's none of my business, and none of America's business. We've already got our nose in places where it doesn't belong. I don't support any part of what my government is doing in the world. I wish I could convince them to stop. I wish I could undo the damage they've already done with their meddling and leftover, obsolete cold war bullshit. The last thing we need is some other godamn cause to take up in the world. Let the rest of the world fend for itself.

[MrBenchley]

7. All we have to do is look at peaceful havens

like Somalia or Nigeria...where everybody DOES have a gun.

"Should the UN High Commission on Human Rights be examining the UK and its draconian laws against private gun ownership?"
Tee hee hee...worth noting when the UN DID want to look at the problem of illegal trade in guns and small arms, the Pirates of Enron torpedoed the talks, at the express wish of the NRA.

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/cat/atn0601.html#NRA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1430077.stm

And of course it was supported by a furious campaign of internet lying...aimed at the sort of dimwits who believe Britons are slaves, cowering in their homes vainly pleading with the Queen for guns...and that "freedom fries" is a brave gesture of defiance at the tyrants of France..

[iverglas]

9. hahaha

From your link:

January 1999: At a meeting on the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the U.S. delegation criticizes the Canadian draft of the Firearms Protocol because it does not criminalize the failure to mark firearms at the point of manufacture.

Was April Fool's Day in January that year?

And things shore did change after December 2000 (cf. the chronology in that link), eh?

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0108arms_body.html

The Bush administration may think that it has struck a blow in favor of the Second Amendment by attempting to sabotage the recent UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms. But U.S. obstinacy has consequences in all the Americas, most notably Colombia and the surrounding region.

... In pandering to the gun lobby, the Bush administration showed what little regard it has for strengthening international efforts to deal with trafficking in small arms. President Bush promised to elevate the status of the Americas in his foreign policy. If he intends to follow through on this promise, his administration must realize that the problem of illicit trafficking in small arms is more complex and serious than the attention it gave to it at the UN conference, and acknowledge the implications for the Americas.

On Pert's point:

At the UN conference, the United States opposed any language in the program of action that prevented the sale of arms to non-state actors. John R. Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, flatly said that the United States could not be part of an agreement that "would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government." While the United States wants to keep the option open to aid insurgents battling oppressive regimes around the world, this policy can adversely affect legitimate governments battling insurgencies.

The question this prompts, in my mind, is: when exactly has the US done this? When has it armed the VICTIMS of anything?? As long as the US has the "option", it doesn't matter whether anybody actually has the weapons??

Hell, airlifting a few thousand guns into Rwanda would have been a whole lot more fun than jamming a radio signal or authorizing the deployment of more UN peacekeepers ...

.

[MrBenchley]

14. Say isn't Al Qaeda about the most famous

"non-state actor" around lately?

"When has it armed the VICTIMS of anything?"
I think the last time I can remember is WW2...

[CO Liberal]

8. Perhaps It's NOT An Inalienable Right

From The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No mention of firearms there.....

And I just did a text search through the US Constitution - there's no mention of the word "inalienable".

So maybe the rights in the Constitution aren't as inalienable as some people would like to have you believe.

[iverglas]

10. yuppers

It's the usual error. All that stuff actually comes from US the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain <George III> is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

There follows the list of grievances against the colonial power.

And you know what the amazing thing is??

NONE of those grievances has anything to do with individual "unalienable rights" or liberty. They are ALL stated as collective grievances. The tyranny referred to is the tyranny over states, not individuals.

The US Declaration of Independence was an exercise of a collective right, the right of a people to autonomy. The tyranny that your founders & framers objected to was the tyranny over the people and the bodies by which it exercised its collective rights: legislature, judiciary, "state".

Scan 'em here: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

What a dog's breakfast some people do make of things, eh?

.

[hansberrym]

71. April 1 .....so an April fools joke perhaps?

(quoting Iverglas)
There follows the list of grievances against the colonial power.

And you know what the amazing thing is??

NONE of those grievances has anything to do with individual "unalienable rights" or liberty. They are ALL stated as collective grievances. The tyranny referred to is the tyranny over states, not individuals.
(end quote)



From the Declaration of Independence:

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
(end quote)


Perhaps you can refresh our memories; was it Virginia that was captured on the high seas and forced to bear arms against Maryland, or was it the the other way around?

[Cooper]

12. "among these"

meaning "these are not the only rights, but the most basic and easily stated when we're trying to get england off our asses."

are you honestly saying you don't consider freedom of speech inalienable?

[CO Liberal]

16. Does "Freedom of Speech" Allow You To Yell "FIRE" ....

...in a crowded theater?

No.

So there ARE limits. Just as there must be limits on guns.

[Cooper]

19. no one tries to ban your voice

or allow you maximum decible output, or outlaw certain "evil" sounding words, because you MIGHT abuse your rights and commit a crime.

of course there are limits to any right. but the limits in other rights are applied after the fact, and punish the culprit rather than everybody exercising the same right the culprit abused.

[MrBenchley]

22. Earth to Coop....

"no one tries to ...outlaw certain "evil" sounding words, because you MIGHT abuse your rights and commit a crime."
Say, wander over to your local airport this afternoon, when it's real busy, and say the word "hijack" in a nice loud voice. I bet you'd learn an interesting new fact the hard way.

"the limits in other rights are applied after the fact, and punish the culprit "
Ah, that vaunted RKBA "logic" or whatever it is...the law against bank robbery (4th amendment) prohibits EVERYBODY from robbing banks. Yes, it doesn't just apply to criminals...it means law-abiding citizens cannot rob banks either. And it's on the books because you MIGHT "abuse your rights" and rob a bank. In fact, our fellow citizens do it with some regularity, in part because they can get guns so easily.

In fact, one bunch of idiots running a bank are so nutty as to actually give away guns as a premium..a FACT Michael Moore used to great comic effect at the beginning of "Bowling For Columbine." Audiences laugh their asses off when they see that scene. Wonder why?

[Cooper]

33. are you

trying to run a newbie away? seems like my posts are getting a whole lot of your attention.

<<Say, wander over to your local airport this afternoon, when it's real busy, and say the word "hijack" in a nice loud voice. I bet you'd learn an interesting new fact the hard way.>>

i bet i'd be beaten and handcuffed. AFTER i said the word. but nobody passes laws making the word itself illegal. if the cops raid myself and find that i've written the words "hijack, bomb, and terrorism" on a piece of paper, nobody's going to send me to jail for that. now if i commit terrorism by hijacking a plane with a bomb, then i'm in trouble.

<<the law against bank robbery (4th amendment) prohibits EVERYBODY from robbing banks. Yes, it doesn't just apply to criminals...it means law-abiding citizens cannot rob banks either. And it's on the books because you MIGHT "abuse your rights" and rob a bank. >>

um . . . what part of the fourth amendment says anything about robbing banks?

it's the same analogy as saying "hijack" in an airport. there is no preemptive punishment for robbing a bank. you get punished AFTER you commit the crime.

[MrBenchley]

38. You mean questions about what you type scare you away?

"i bet i'd be beaten and handcuffed. AFTER i said the word. but nobody passes laws making the word itself illegal."
Coop....how the hell COULD it possibly be illegal to say the word "hijack" at an airport except before the fact.

"um . . . what part of the fourth amendment says anything about robbing banks? "
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"
I'd say money in the bank is an effect.

"there is no preemptive punishment for robbing a bank. you get punished AFTER you commit the crime. "
Yup....just ilke you get punished for possessing an illegal firearm after you possess the firearm.

[iverglas]

42. it's all so odd

i bet i'd be beaten and handcuffed. AFTER i said the word. but nobody passes laws making the word itself illegal.

No, and it wouldn't make a jot or tittle of sense if they did, would it?

The things that are made illegal are things that people do. Like SAYING words. Or SWINGING THEIR FISTS into someone else's nose. Or POSSESSING firearms.

Do you really imagine that laws "make guns illegal"?? How, exactly, are those guns punished for being illegal?

it's the same analogy as saying "hijack" in an airport. there is no preemptive punishment for robbing a bank. you get punished AFTER you commit the crime.

And you get punished AFTER you unlawfully possess a firearm.

Possession is an ACT, just as speaking and swinging yer fist are acts.

It can be a legal act, or an illegal act. Whether it is validly illegal in any instance will depend on whether the law that makes it illegal passes constitutional scrutiny. Just like whether it is validly illegal to say "hijack" to an airline employee will depend on whether that prohibition passes constitutional scrutiny.

Ditto robbery. It is not unlawful to use force, and it is not unlawful to take things from other people. It is unlawful to use force against a person where s/he does not consent to it, and to take things from a person where s/he does not consent to it.

"Robbery" is not something that sprang full-blown from a stone tablet. It is a combination of acts in certain circumstances, which are made punishable by a law.

"Unlawful possession of a firearm", ditto. Possession of a firearm without lawful authority. Made punishable by a law. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is such a law.)

Unlawfully using force and taking things ... unlawfully saying "hijack" ... unlawfully swinging yer fist ... unlawfully possessing a firearm ... all ACTS.

It is perfectly legal to use force and take things against and from someone who has your things. It is perfectly legal to say "hijack" in your living room or in a news report. It is perfectly legal to swing your fist at the tree in your back yard. It is perfectly legal to possess a firearm if you have a permit to do so. Kinda like it is perfectly legal to drive a car if you have a permit to do so, or to perform surgery if you have a permit to do so, or to broadcast on the airwaves if you have a permit to do so.

YOU don't think that it should be necessary to have a permit in order to possess a firearm legally. There are undoubtedly those who don't think that it should be necessary to have a permit in order to drive legally, or broadcast legally, too.

If your response is going to be to bore me with yet another outburst of "but no one has a right to drive or a right to broadcast", you'll have to tell me where in your constitution it says that no one has a right to drive or a right to broadcast, or find some other way of substantiating that absurd statement.

.

[Cooper]

49. thank you for a reasoned response

you make good points.

i can't think of many crimes that don't require some kind of tool to accomplish. whether that tool is your own voice ("HIJACK!" in an airport), a firearm, or your car.

i understand what you're saying . . . possessing an illegal firearm is a crime, punished after the fact. that's not the point i'm trying to make. i'm saying it should not be a crime to possess a firearm.

it is not illegal to possess a voice or a car because you MIGHT use them to commit crimes. weapons and drugs are about the only things i can think of that are treated this way.

are you licensed to drive? sure. does that stop people with no license from driving? nope. since so many people out there are driving illegally, shouldn't we ban cars? no? then why should we ban weapons because criminals possess them illegally?

[iverglas]

51. if only ...

then why should we ban weapons because criminals possess them illegally?

I don't know. Who is it who is proposing to ban firearms, again? Why are you asking me this question?

And if what you meant to say was "why should we restrict legal access to firearms because criminals possess them illegally", who was it who was proposing to restrict legal access to firearms because criminals possess them illegally?

... possessing an illegal firearm is a crime, punished after the fact. that's not the point i'm trying to make. i'm saying it should not be a crime to possess a firearm.

And again: who is it who is proposing to make it a crime to possess a firearm? Why are you saying this to me?

I think that *I* was talking about possessing a firearm without a permit.

The requirement for a driver's licence just does not make it a crime to drive a car. It makes it a crime (broadly speaking) to drive a car without a licence.

does that stop people with no license from driving? nope.

Who is it who said that requiring that people who wish to possess firearms have a permit would stop people with no permits from possessing firearms?

Are *you* suggesting that since requiring that people who wish to drive have a licence does not stop people with no licence from driving, no one should be required to meet any qualifications for driving? -- that being what a licence is, after all, all about.

When did the fact that people break laws mean that there should be no laws?

i can't think of many crimes that don't require some kind of tool to accomplish. whether that tool is your own voice ("HIJACK!" in an airport), a firearm, or your car.

And I think that's totally irrelevant. A voice is not a "tool", nor is the fist with which one strikes someone's nose. Acts are what laws prohibit. Acts are committed by people, the bodies which commit the acts being constituent elements of people.

Possession of a firearm without a permit is an act. Just like driving without a licence is an act, and broadcasting without a licence is an act, and performing surgery without a licence is an act, and building an office tower without a permit is an act.

There simply ARE some acts that are not at all intrinsically "bad" that we nonetheless justifiably require people to have permits before engaging in. In fact, there are lots and lots and lots of them, and some of them, like performing surgery and building houses, are quite "good" things, but are nonetheless prohibited without permits.

They are acts that can have important consequences for other people or for society. They are acts that we therefore require people to meet certain requirements for doing, before permitting them to do them.

.

[Columbia]

20. No one is stopping you from doing so

You can if you want. I'd highly recommend it too if there is indeed a fire. You may even be considered a hero for doing so. If there isn't a fire and a panic ensues then you should subsequently be charged with reckless endangerment, reckless manslaughter or possibly murder if someone dies.

The same should be said of firearms. If you misuse them then you should be charged with those acts. However, if you do not abuse them, there is no reason to disallow their ownership or use. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[iverglas]

25. well

are you honestly saying you don't consider freedom of speech inalienable?

What might be nice would be if we all knew what "inalienable" (unalienable) means.

inalienable that cannot be transferred to another.

In French, when you sell or assign or give away your property or a right (like a right of ownership or occupation or use), you "alienate" it.

Something that is inalienable cannot be got rid of; by implication, it cannot be taken away.

The fact that one has something, however, does not mean that one's enjoyment of it cannot be subject to limitations. One has a right of free speech, for instance, and no matter how much one's ability to exercise it is limited, one will always have the right.

Rights are really just tautologies, no matter what theory of them one uses. One is a human being because one has rights (that is the ultimate distinction between human beings and non human beings); one has rights because one is a human being. Rights are inherent in the concept of "human being" -- a human being is that which has rights; that which has rights is a human being.

But it's all in our minds, ultimately. It's just that it's inherent in us, in our minds, to have these notions.

You can't separate the rights from the human being; rights aren't like hair or teeth or fingernails. Rights are inalienable.

So, what does that tell us about what restrictions may be placed on people's exercise of their rights? Not much, eh?

And what does it tell us about what rights are -- what rights we have? Not much either. It's all just up to us to decide. And that's a process that involves the same paradoxes and conflicts as any other process that involves individuals both qua individuals and qua members of groups of people, and groups of people both qua groups of people and qua individuals.

We think about it. We talk about it. We reach consensus, not about what is, but about what is to be done.

We all speak from our belief (or claimed belief) about what is, but we both never will, and do not need to, reach consensus on that. And no one's personal belief (or claimed belief) about what is, no matter how widely shared, is authority for what is to be done -- except to anyone who shares that belief, and that's purely a matter of personal preference; and by agreement, and that's a matter of, well, agreement.

And that includes any founders & framers you might name. Yours, mine, anyone else's. The things they said and wrote are merely expressions of consensus (at best, and often not that), something that is limited by time and place. That consensus may indeed be joined by others, in other times or places, but it still isn't authority for anything unless the consensus adopts it as authority for deciding questions of what is to be done. Then you have a constitution.

My constitution says that I have a right to equality before and under the law, and to the equal protection and benefit of the law, without discrimination on grounds that include but are not limited to sex, race, religion, national origin, etc. That was the consensus of my society at the time the constitution was adopted. Your constitution doesn't say that. Your constitution says something about a right to bear arms. Mine doesn't. Whose is right? Nobody's.

Mine also says a number of things about the right to use English or French for various purposes, and to educate one's children in the language of one's choice in certain circumstances. Yours doesn't. Should yours say that? Should mine *not* say that? I certainly wouldn't say that yours should, and I would hope that you wouldn't say that mine shouldn't. So I have language rights that you don't have, and you have arms rights that I don't have.

Now, *I* think that language rights are inalienable; quite seriously - they are core rights, they are essential to the individual's ability to do all the things that we believe individuals are entitled to do, which are the reasons we have this concept of "rights" in the first place: to live their lives fully and autonomously, and also as full and equal members of society.

You think that the right to bear arms is equally essential to the individual's ability to do what individuals are entitled to do: live their lives fully and autonomously. (You plainly also believe that they are essential in order for individuals to live as full and equal members of society, even if that is seldom articulated.)

I recognize that the exercise of all rights may be limited by the group within which the individual exercises those rights, pretty much also by definition. It's a reciprocal relationship. If an individual weren't operating within a group, s/he would not be exercising rights; s/he would just be doing stuff. "Rights" only has meaning in the relationship between an individual and a group. Rights are a relationship, and in a relationship, one party simply does not get the final say about the rules.

The rights of the individual are "inalienable"; they exist. But so does the relationship: it simply cannot be renounced. Human beings ARE members of human groups. By definition; we're born that way, into a group, in the form of everything from the nuclear family to the species. The group has a nature just as the individual does.

And we acquire rights by virtue of *both* our individual existence *and* our membership in that group. Just as we acquire shoes by virtue of both our purchase of them from someone else and the sale of them to us by someone else.

I'm sure someone will rejoin with the old "man in a state of nature" business, he who acquires fish by virtue of his labour. Me, I'd say that people acquire fish by virtue of their labour *and* by virtue of the physical environment, and this implies the human group/species' agreement to let them use the physical environment, which belongs to all of us by definition. We all live here, it's all ours. Earth doesn't belong to any one or some of us. Our "right" to fish is conditioned on the group's agreement that we may fish, right here and right now. Our relationship, as a group, with the environment is definitional, just as our relationship, as individuals, with the group is. Our existence is our essence, you might say.

So, is the right of free speech "inalienable"? Yup, by definition. May human groups limit individuals' exercise of that right? Yup, by definition.

That settled, we just get on with the business of agreeing about what limits are acceptable to us and what aren't. Just like for every other right we agree we have.

.

[MrBenchley]

27. Great post

and right to the point.

[Cooper]

50. some good ideas

it's odd, i just wrote a paper from the prompt "what are rights and where do they come from?"

there is a balance, as you said, between human rights and humanity. rights don't mean much unless they are respected by the rest of society. you can have free speech all day long, but if you get beaten to death because of what you say and no one does anything about it . . . well, it didn't matter much, did it?

this is one of the reasons i'm pro RKBA.

i'm currently taking a class on art in the holocaust, and people keep philosophizing about solutions that could have prevented it: protest, passive resistance, or how the germans could have learned tolerance. all that is fine. but those things rely on rights, free speech mostly. that was one of the first things (the others being RKBA and right to move around) denied to the jews.

well, i have a big damn gun that says that won't happen to me. i agree with you; i can never make other people respect that right, or any of my rights. but, if it comes to that, i will die free. or at least my personal version of "free."

[iverglas]

53. please

Nothing you said was in any way related to anything I said. Some of it was inimical to what I said and what I think.

So oblige me by not saying you "agree with" me, if you would.

"Dying free" just isn't something that I or most of the world is really interested in doing. We prefer living, if it's all the same to you, and we'd rather focus on ways of doing that, and doing it decently well.

.

[Cooper]

54. ok, i'll try again.

sorry.

it seems like we both agree that rights are the product of both individuality and society. rights are individualistic, but are also affected by the society in which the individual lives.

am i correct in saying we agree on this general idea?




incidentally, i don't particularly want to die, but when i do, i want to be free. if the choice comes down to dying later with no liberty or dying sooner fighting for my liberty, i'll die free. i came to that conclusion through a lengthy analytical process based on a lot of stuff written around the time of the american revolution. i should not have put the concept in those harsh terms without sufficent prelude.

[Low Drag]

56. What?

Read a bit further... To the BOR with preamble. Go to LOC/Thomas for a peak.

Here's one from the UN:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

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

How do you ensure security of person without the required tools?

[Cooper]

11. i'll bite . . .

yes, i believe the ownership of an effective means of defense is a basic human right. the most effective weapons today are firearms, so i believe the RKBA applies to humanity in general, not just americans.

the UN is an anti-gun organization. i personally would rather see us pull out of the UN (i know, i know, call me a freeper) for this and other reasons.

the NRA is a bunch of good ol boys who really don't give much of a crap about our rights. they use the RKBA as a way to elect republicans.

the American government only shows token interest in human rights in general. plus, it's anti-gun.

as others have said, though i personally would love to have an assault rifle in the hands of every human able to use one, i'd also love to end world hunger, save the whales, etc. the only thing i can do to achieve any of those goals is live my life the right way, and that, right now, involves gun-rights activism for my own country.

[MrBenchley]

13. the UN is an anti-gun organization

says it all....

"i personally would love to have an assault rifle in the hands of every human able to use one"
Yeah, just look what a plus they are in Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Liberia, Afghanistan....

[Cooper]

18. excuse me

but would you mind backing up the things you say with logic?

in what ways to do you think the UN is a pro-gun organization?

<<Yeah, just look what a plus they are in Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Liberia, Afghanistan....>>

you sound kind of like a certain "president" i know of.

isn't it switzerland that has almost mandatory assault rifle ownership and a whole helluva lot less crime than we do? violence is not caused by guns, but by violent culture. switzerland and somalia would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. we'd be somwhere in the middle.

[MrBenchley]

23. You first, coop....

It's hilarious to hear faulty RKBA "logic" actually wobbling into "action" by leaking oil, tipping over and exploding.

Gun Nut: Everybody knows that owning guns is an inalienable, I'm sorry, unalienable human right. That's obvious.
Non-Gun Nut: How come none of the other UN nations, or the UN charter, list that among basic human rights?
GUN Nut: The UN is anti-gun!!

"you sound kind of like a certain "president" i know of."
Would that be pResident Turd, who torpedoed the UN's small arms control talks as the NRA asked him to? The one who's shown nothing but contempt for the UN? Sorry, he belongs to the gun nuts...

"isn't it switzerland that has almost mandatory assault rifle ownership and a whole helluva lot less crime than we do?"
<sarcasm>Yeah while Britons are slaves of the Queen.</sarcasm> Switzerland has universal gun registration and EVERY ROUND must be accounted for in writing. Handguns are almost impossible to get. I'd be happy to agree to those conditions here. And, after some nutcase took his assualt rifle and shot up a canton's parliament not long ago, the Swiss are quietly discussing changing those rules.

[Cooper]

34. hmmm . . .

this sounds to me like pure far-left socialist "logic". if a country has guns and little crime, it must because the government keeps track of every single cop-killing baby-raping white supremacist bullet. you're just anti-gun! anti-gun! anti-gun!

(see, two can play this game, mrbenchley. isn't it more pleasant when we argue intelligently?)



ok, so you don't actually claim the UN ISN'T anti-gun . . . but you're trying to imply it. that doesn't work well with your lamentation in the next paragraph about how pro-gun bush disagreed with the pro-gun UN when they tried to initiate pro-gun small arms control.

<<Would that be pResident Turd, who torpedoed . . . >>

no, that would be the president who wants to go "liberate" all those poor misguided militants in those countries you mentioned. the one you seem to agree with on that point.

<<Switzerland has universal gun registration and EVERY ROUND must be accounted for in writing.>>

we have the same thing for our government-owned arms (i believe all of Switzerland's rifles are army-issue).

so you think that registering those guns and counting the rounds is what keeps switzerland from becoming a chaotic hellhole like somalia?

[MrBenchley]

39. Coop, it's plain fact...

this sounds to me like pure far-left socialist "logic".
How ironic that we'd get a phrase like this uttered in perfect solemn seriousness, on the day the DU Hate Mailbag is on the front page!! Truly, there's no absurdity beyond the RKBA crowd.

Tell us, coop, do you think that Switzerland just puts a pile of assault weapons in the center of each canton and lets any numbnutz who wanders by pick one up and wander off?

[iverglas]

26. okay, me too

i personally would rather see us pull out of the UN (i know, i know, call me a freeper) for this and other reasons.

Surely it couldn't be a rules violation to do what someone instructed one to do - ?

I can't think of a much more freeperish position, myself.

.

[MrBenchley]

40. Sounds like anti-gun far left socialist logic to me!

How ironic that coop would post this stuff on the same day the hate mailbag is open on DU's front page....

[Wickerman]

44. I should chastise, but, an order is

an order. :shrug:

everyone play nice,

thank you.

that is all.






really.









I am serious









get back to work!









damnit!






















Ok, that does it - I am telling Mom

[CO Liberal]

45. The UN Has Done More Good in the Past 50 Years...

...than every progun organization (especially the Nuts Ruining America) will EVER do. COMBINED.

[Columbia]

46. I remember I had a conversation once...

With an Iraqi when we saw a UN vehicle pass by us in Nasiriyah. I told him, "Look, the UN is here now, see everything is going to get better now." He responded by saying (generally), "The UN? What has the UN done for us? Where were they when Saddam was massacring our people? Where were they the last 12 years when Saddam used the UN sanctions to profit while we suffered? The UN is nothing." Needless to say, I was quite surprised by this response, and it has completely altered how I view the UN now.

[CO Liberal]

47. Still...

...we're better off having the UN than having all the gun groups in the world combined.

Have gun groups helped eliminate hunger?

No.

Have gun groups helped improve people's health?

No.

Have gun groups done a damn bit of good for the world???

No.

[iverglas]

48. yeah

It's kind of novel to condemn the UN for what it *doesn't* do, eh?

Obviously, it can only do what its member states authorize and instruct it to do. If there's something it isn't doing that it oughta be doing, let's be blaming them, I'd say.

Kinda like blaming the gummint for something instead of blaming the people who elected it ...

Or like blaming firearms for the harm done by people with firearms. Lucky nobody actually does that.


Have gun groups helped eliminate hunger?
Have gun groups helped improve people's health?

Excellent points. The UN has. And those are what it's all about, in many of our minds.

The UN oughta do *more*. Maybe somebody here should tell their own gummint that. ;)

Or heck, maybe they've got a better idea. When it came to Iraq, George W. Bush seems to have thought he did ...

.

[Columbia]

52. Stated goals are different

You could say the same thing about any number of organizations by saying they are not doing something that they are not supposed to do anyway.

With that said, I think both the UN and gun rights organizations do a poor job at their stated goals.

[Frodo_Baggins]

68. Just ask the Tutsi

Has the UN helped them?

[Me Me Meme]

57. Good for who?

Sure, it benefits third world shitholes across the globe. What do we get out of it? Besides bills to pay?

[MrBenchley]

58. For the entire world, including us

But hey, what harm could people from third world shitholes possibly do us, or our mighty Pentagon?

[Frodo_Baggins]

67. Yeah, right!

Just ask the Tutsi.
And the Kurds.
And the Chechenyans.

[solinvictus]

15. Ummm,,Pert??

Right now in Iraq each family is allowed to keep either a pistol, carbine, or rifle; including the villified Kalashnikov.

[MrBenchley]

24. Under Iraq's proposed Constitution

All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed.

Not a peep from the gun lobby about THAT, for some reason...

[slackmaster]

29. Another piece of creative writing by MrBenchley

Article 53
Special Restrictions

1. Possession and use of drugs resulting in strong and imminent danger for the general public is prohibited.
2. Possession and use of firearms and other weapons without a permit is prohibited.

MrBenchley pulled his statement out of the air.

The draft doesn't say one word about registering gun owners or licensing guns. The article refers to POSSESSION and USE not ownership. And it's talking about PUBLIC possession only here. Read on.

Here are some other applicable parts (underlining added for emphasis):

Article 26
Human Rights

1. The Republic of Iraq acknowledges liberty and equality of all humans.
2. Human dignity must be respected in any case.
3. Everyone is free to do or not to do whatever he or she chooses. Everyone is responsible for acts freely chosen.
4. The Republic of Iraq ensures that the quality of an Iraqi shall never be held in doubt because of faith, belief or presumed loyalty.
5. People have rights for no other reason than that they exist as individual human beings. These rights are not a gift from others.
6. Slavery is abolished.

Comment: Natural Rights theory in 1s and 0s.

Article 29
Property Integrity and Related Rights

1. Everyone has the right to acquire, own, possess, exclusively use, and convey private property.
2. Property may not be taken without due compensation.

No special treatment for guns here. Private property is private property regardless of what kind.

And a door-to-door weapons confiscation sweep is out of the question:

Article 34
Right to Privacy

1. Everyone has the right to privacy.
2. The home is inviolable.
3. The privacy of letters as well as the secrecy of mail and telecommunication is inviolable.

Because Article 34 guarantees the right to privacy in one's home, Article 53 clearly refers only to PUBLIC possession of firearms and other weapons. And since "other weapons" is not specified, the government is empowered to adopt laws regulating possession of anything it chooses, e.g. edged weapons, blunt instruments, pepper spray, etc.

I haven't seen any pro-RKBA contributors here ever suggest that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on public possession and use of weapons. The proposed Iraqi constitution grants the government the power to act reasonably in the public interest in that regard, but it does not give any power whatsoever to regulate private property inside of one's home.

The draft also conspicuously lacks any authority for the government to regulate commerce in arms. The draft does explicitly prohibit Vermont-style carry, but it does not exclude the possibility of a shall-issue system for weapons permits. I doubt they'll go that route, but if this constitution is implemented the possibility of that exists.

See http://iraqconstitution.freeservers.com/proposal.html

[iverglas]

30. talk about creative interpretation

"Possession and use of firearms and other weapons without a permit is prohibited."

Because Article 34 guarantees the right to privacy in one's home, Article 53 clearly refers only to PUBLIC possession of firearms and other weapons.

Uh, yeah. And laws forbidding murder would only apply to the PUBLIC killing of other people ...

And that bit about "liberty" would only apply in PUBLIC, so the law could allow one to imprison people in the privacy of one's home ...

Sorry. That interpretation is just screwy.


The draft doesn't say one word about registering gun owners or licensing guns. The article refers to POSSESSION and USE not ownership.

Indeed. This actually makes it somewhat broader than "ownership".

While I concur that it does not say that the firearms themselves, or the ownership of them, must be registered, certainly a permit would be required in order to legally acquire firearms. Otherwise, the person who acquired them would automatically be in illegal possession of them.

That was Canada's former system: Firearms Acquisition Permits. It does essentially amount to licensing firearms owners, since one could really not become an owner without a permit to possess.

There's nothing at all to prevent Iraq from instituting a registration system in order to enforce the requirement that people have permits to possess firearms. That is essentially the purpose of Canada's firearms registry, and any such registry in other countries. Otherwise, the requirement of a permit to possess is pretty damned easy to circumvent ... as we're told all the time here. And one might think that if Iraq is going to the bother of putting that requirement in its foundational document, it might be wanting to enforce it.

One might expect that in a society without the infrastructure and institutions to deliver even basic public services and impose even a minimum in the way of the rule of law, this won't be either a possibility or a priority in the near future.

.

[slackmaster]

31. It doesn't say anything about firearms already privately owned either

And that bit about "liberty" would only apply in PUBLIC, so the law could allow one to imprison people in the privacy of one's home ...

Sorry. That interpretation is just screwy.

Sez you. Read the parts about Human Rights and see if your misinterpretation of my interpretation holds any water at all.

While I concur that it does not say that the firearms themselves, or the ownership of them, must be registered, certainly a permit would be required in order to legally acquire firearms. Otherwise, the person who acquired them would automatically be in illegal possession of them.

Not necessarily. It depends on how "possession" is ultimately defined.

For example, in California "possession" of a switchblade knife in public is a serious crime, but a switchblade knife in the trunk of your car or a locked case is perfectly legal no matter where in public you are. There is no law against an individual driving from California to Oregon, buying a switchblade there, putting it in the trunk of his or her car, driving back home, taking the knife out of the car, and into the home.

The laws concerning transport of registered "assault weapons" in California contain specific exemptions to proscriptions on possession if certain conditions are met.

Those California laws are intended to prevent people without permits from walking around armed with guns and switchblades, not to regulate ownership or track owners. I see the intent of that part of the proposed Iraqi constitution doing the same thing. If you can find anything in it about regulating ownership or licensing gun owners please let us know.

MrBenchley's broad-brush statement about "All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed" is hooey.

[iverglas]

35. I'll go with the golden rule

It depends on how "possession" is ultimately defined.

... of statutory construction. Words are to be given their plain meaning. The plain meaning of "possession" is pretty plain, I'd say. If it isn't to anyone, there are numerous common language and technical dictionaries I could recommend.

For example, in California "possession" of a switchblade knife in public is a serious crime, but a switchblade knife in the trunk of your car or a locked case is perfectly legal no matter where in public you are.

Indeed. So "possession of a switchblade" is not illegal / does not require a permit. Unlike what it says in the draft Iraqi constitution.

I'll bet it's also illegal for me to possess your wallet without your permission. And yet it is't illegal to possess wallets without a permit ...

I'm just not seeing any qualifiers in that draft provision, myself, or anything that would suggest that the plain meaning of the word is not what would govern.

Yup, laws must be internally consistent, and other provisions of laws may be used to clarify what one says if it is not clear, or if there is an apparent internal conflict.

I just don't see any conflict at all between a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms and a provision guaranteeing the privacy of homes. And I just can't imagine any reasonable person suggesting that a privacy guarantee makes private residences exempt from the effects of any provision of the constitution or ordinary law.

Those California laws are intended to prevent people without permits from walking around armed with guns and switchblades, not to regulate ownership or track owners.

And those California laws are quite different from what the draft Iraqi constitution says. What it says (I'm paraphrasing from memory) is that no one may possess a firearm without a permit.

Not "no one may acquire a firearm that s/he doesn't already have without a permit". (Obviously, the constitution is a starting from scratch kind of thing; it governs the society henceforth, and there are no grandfathered "rights" unless it specifically says so.) Not "no one may possess a firearm in public without a permit". Not "no one may possess a firearm in public without a permit unless it's locked in the trunk of a car". Not "no one may acquire a firearm without a permit unless s/he is taking it straight home".

It's just plain plain.

.

[slackmaster]

37. It's just plain plainly a pain

If they really want to require permits for all privately owned guns they're going to have one hell of a daunting task to get permits issued to everyone who owns a gun already.

And the "inviolate" nature of one's home will make enforcement of any permit law practically impossible. I find that wording odd - Nothing is truly inviolable just as no right is inalienable. Violation and infringement can always be done through due process.

Try a little reductio ad absurdum on the original statement by MrBenchley, i.e. "All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed." Applying the same logic to the draft Iraqi constitution would cover swords, concealable knives, pepper spray, etc. since all are generally regarded as weapons. Will the Iraqi government try to license everyone who OWNS a knife or can of pepper spray? Will there be a knife registry for all knives, or at least all that are designed to be used as weapons?

I propose a gentleperson's wager - I say "Possession and use of firearms and other weapons without a permit" will end up being interpreted as specifically referring to public possession, and you say I'm full of shit. Let's flag this and keep track of it.

[iverglas]

41. not disagreeing

And the "inviolate" nature of one's home will make enforcement of any permit law practically impossible. I find that wording odd - Nothing is truly inviolable just as no right is inalienable. Violation and infringement can always be done through due process.

Exactly. That's the nature of rights, as I was raving about.

I haven't read the whole draft constitution, but the bits that were reproduced are pretty far from standard form for constitutional bills/charters of rights these days. I don't know whether this is a function of US involvement or the culture (political, legal, religious, etc.) of the society it is to govern.

The Canadian constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what is actually "standard form" these days -- and by that I don't mean that we're the leader and we're being followed.

It happened that around 1980 we decided we needed a new constitution, and after considerable and acrimonious debate decided to entrench a charter of rights in it. This is contrary to the tradition of parliamentary supremacy, in which the legislature is supreme, and was seen as "Americanizing" our constitution in some quarters. The compromise was to incorporate a provision permitting the legislature (Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies) to override certain provisions of the Charter. It's the old checks-and-balances thing; there has to be an end point somewhere, and it's always going to be ultimately arbitrary.

Anyhow, we were in a position to take the accumulated wisdom and experience of humanity to date on the notion of the relationship between the individual and the group --"rights" -- and organize it into sentences. We considered the USAmerican experience, and our own experience and the British tradition, and thinking at the international level and in other places as expressed in international rights instruments. And we have had a Supreme Court that takes a very liberal approach to what we came up with, and that in short order filled in any gaps that the document left with very liberal plaster.

So the Cdn Charter has been the model for constitutional or statutory bills of rights in South Africa, New Zealand and Jamaica, for instance. And their courts have referred to the Canadian experience, e.g. Supreme Court decisions, in interpreting and applying their own charters. European instruments are similar, with differences (largely in the direction of more "social rights", which our constitution here, being still pretty "liberal", is somewhat short on). In the UK, there was hard-fought resistance to adopting a "Canadian-style" model, when the UK "constitutionalized" the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. ;)

Whatever model is chosen and however it is adapted, it does seem to make a lot more sense to go with something that has been tested and tinkered with than to make something up holus bolus.

Heck, we've seen how that has worked in the US. ;)

.

[demsrule4life]

32. Just wondering

do you really have a clue about anything? or do you just attempt to shock and awe? Then again I guess I shouldn't expect to much from anyone that has seen flying pigs.

[iverglas]

36. oh dear me

Then again I guess I shouldn't expect to much from anyone that has seen flying pigs.

Now I wonder: where might I have said that??

I finally got around to buying my gold star back, so I guess I'll just have to do a "pigs" search ...

Heh heh. I wonder whether I'll come up with posts by the "male chauvinist" variety, containing things like, oh, let me use my imagination ... "young ladies defense" ...


do you really have a clue about anything?

Was there something in particular about which you were looking to buy a clue? If it's constitutional law / statutory interpretation, I have a pretty good selection, and make them available for pretty nominal prices, so just let me know.

.

[Liberal Classic]

17. Well if you want to slip down that slope a bit

Most western democracies don't have universal suffrage until they tally children, felons, and the insane. ;)

[iverglas]

28. oh dear

Most western democracies don't have universal suffrage until they tally children, felons, and the insane.

Are you suggesting that in most western democracies, "felons" don't vote??

Are you somebody else mistaking yourself for the world?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/prison_vote.html

In October 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a law forbidding inmates in federal prisons from voting. The court decided "the right to vote lies at the heart of democracy in Canada."

Among G-8 nations, Canada was not unique in removing the right to vote from prisoners. Russia and the United Kingdom also ban prisoners from voting.

In Italy, whether a prisoner can vote or not depends on the crime committed and the length of sentence given.

In France and Germany, the right to vote can only be removed from a prisoner by a court order.

Japan grants full electoral rights to prisoners.

Only in the United States can someone with a criminal record be barred from voting, not only while serving a sentence, but also while on parole, on probation or, in some states, after completing a sentence.

There really are different notions about "rights" in different places and at different times, aren't there?!

As the Supreme Court of Canada said:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2002/vol3/html/2002scr3_0519.html

58 Denial of the right to vote to penitentiary inmates undermines the legitimacy of government, the effectiveness of government, and the rule of law. It curtails the personal rights of the citizen to political expression and participation in the political life of his or her country. It countermands the message that everyone is equally worthy and entitled to respect under the law -- that everybody counts ... .

.

[Liberal Classic]

43. Good reply, and I stand corrected

On Canada, Japan, France and Germany.

I realize you're Canadian (a nation dear to my heart) but it's easy to forget that when the posting audience is primarily United Statesian in demographic. If you'll forgive me the unpardonable sins of Americentricism and gun-loving I may have a point buried somewhere in all this verbiage.

As I was saying, can suffrage be "conditionally" universal, if it can be abridged with a court order as in France and Germany? Is suffrage universal when only those over the age of 18 can excercise the right to vote? We haven't had that debate here since 1971 when the voting age was lowered to 18 from 21.

There really are different notions about "rights" in different places and at different times, aren't there?!

Of course.

What I'm trying to say is rights aren't inalienable as we'd like to believe. I will repeat that suffrage is rarely universal. I think everyone agress that rights aren't absolute, but where along the line does inalienable lie between absolute and may-be-done-away-with for-safety's-sake? It's all too easy for the government to come and take rights away.

I think that people on the pro-gun-control side of the debate tend to characterize the right to keep and bear arms as a less-inalienable right as some others or perhaps one that has no place in a modern society. In drawing a comparison with universal suffrage the point I want to make is that we only really have the rights the government lets us have. High minded language in the national charter and the words of the framers not withstanding, the governemnt giveth and the government taketh away and all that jazz. We already have a government which can strip your possessions from you if a dog wags its tail the wrong way. See the other thread about the high electrical utility bill?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x49067

I am hesitant to give the government sweeping powers to deal with gun beyond what we already have because such powers are inevitably twisted around in some creative fashion.

[Low Drag]

55. Rwanda

It would have helped the victims in Rwanda.

[solinvictus]

59. Yep

And Armenia, the Soviet Kulaks, etc. Hard to make passive victims out of armed citizens.

[iverglas]

60. somebody really needs to explain Iraq

... and Saddam Hussein, and all the armed citizens ...

It is as horribly distasteful to watch all these "progressive" folks here exploit the tragedy of the victims of the Rwandan or any other genocide, in an attempt to further their own selfish agenda, as it is to watch them exploit the violence of which women are victims.

I dare anyone here to invite someone who actually knows something about the Rwandan genocide ... and actually cares about the victims of such events ... to offer an opinion on the clueless and essentially vicious statement that widespread firearms ownership in that society would have been a source of any good.

The people on this panel might be a good start:
http://www.cbc.ca/hottype/season03-04/04-03-30.html

• Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire, Author "Shake Hands With The Devil"
<the commander of the UN forces in Rwanda at the time>
• Prof. Ervin Staub, Dept. of Psychology, University of Massachusetts
at Amherst, Author "The Roots of Evil"
• Leo Kabalisa, Hope for Rwanda Children's Fund
<"a Tutsi who lost most of his family in the Rwandan genocide of 1994">
• Priscilla de Villiers, Office for Victims of Crime

I only caught a bit of the show the other day, but I didn't notice anyone offering an assault rifle in every home as the thing that would have prevented the Rwandan genocide.

Here are some thoughts from Prof. Staub on what might have prevented, and might in future prevent, such events:
http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/staub/commentary.html
http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/staub/preventing.html
I don't see much mention of arming neighbours against one another.

For pity's sake: did the Tutsi not also have knives and machetes? If they had had firearms, would the Hutu not also have had them?

Yeah, an assault rifle in every home might have meant that the genocide would not have happened when it did. There probably just wouldn't have been enough people left at that point for there to be a genocide.

Funny how much interest some people take in shithole little third world countries when they look like handy places to hang an agenda on. I do trust that none of that crowd actually thinks that anyone reading what they say thinks that they actually give a shit about the people in those countries.

.

[demsrule4life]

61. Women weren't the only victims

men and children were also victims. What a selfish thought.

[iverglas]

62. well that was pointless, wasn't it?

What I said, broken down so that maybe you'll understand it this time:

It is as horribly distasteful to

(a) watch all these "progressive" folks here exploit
the tragedy of the victims of the Rwandan or any other
genocide, in an attempt to further their own selfish agenda,

as it is to

(b) watch them exploit the violence of which women are victims.

What you "replied":

Women weren't the only victims
men and children were also victims. What a selfish thought.

What a moronic reponse, is all I can say.

Every kind of person under the sun was a victim of the Rwandan genocide, and the gun-thumpers here exploit their victimization for their own selfish ends.

Women, as women, are victims of violence in all societies, and the gun-thumpers here exploit their victimization for their own selfish ends.

Anyone who truly cares about the victims of any form of suffering can be expected to learn about the causes of their suffering and to make an effort to understand why it occurs, and put some thought into what could be done to prevent it, and maybe even to attempt to do something to prevent it.

Anyone who doesn't actually give a shit, but cares a great deal about him/herself, and puts considerable effort into furthering his/her own interests regardless of the effect on others, can be expected to exploit the suffering of the people s/he does not give a shit about where there is a chance that doing so will advance his/her own agenda.

I know what I see every time a gun-thumper here brings up Rwanda, or rape.

Anyhow, I'm sure that *you* aren't in the latter group, and that you have thoughtfully read the resources I provided for you and are now just a little bit better informed about the causes of genocide and what "bystanders" can do to prevent it.

.

[demsrule4life]

63. The difference is that I was there and you wasn't

What a waste of of life. One thing I do know I would much rather of been armed with an assault rifle then be hacked up by a machete.

In march of 95 I was participating in in an exercises called Creek Defender. It was in a training exercises in Air Base Ground Defense around Sembach AFB in Germany. Myself and my team was pulled out of the exercise and sent back to Ramstein AFB. I was informed that my team would travel on two C 141 transport planes to Kigali airport. I would leave a security element around the two jets and take another element to locate 200 Americans inside Rwanda, collect them up, get them back to the planes and get them out back to Ramstein AFB. I accomplished my mission with help from the French Foreign Legion that we hooked up with after we was on the ground in Rwanda. A month later my team was sent to Zaire to set up a bare base AFB to send in relief supplies to Rwanda. I lost count how many times I entered that country. Problem with this board is there is a couple of folks here that talk like they know everything and the problem is they have never been any were and dont know what the hell they are talking about.

[iverglas]

64. well y'know

Problem with this board is there is a couple of folks here that talk like they know everything and the problem is they have never been any were and dont know what the hell they are talking about.

I guess that's about how I feel every time someone props his agenda up on a woman who has been the victim of sexual assault.

Of course, the difference there is that I actually have been a victim, and you were not a victim of anything. And nothing you have said establishes that you are entitled to speak for any victims.

Let alone how widespread firearms ownership would have improved anything in Rwanda.

The plain fact is that what all these shithole little third world countries (note that this is not my voice you're hearing in that term) actually need is the institutions of civil society that make it possible to build societies in which people just don't see a reason to use weapons against their neighbours.

The unfortunate thing is that there isn't a lot of profit to be made by helping them to build those institutions.

And the plain fact is that where there are no strong institutions, there will be corruption, and there will be people with grievances for which they blame some ones or others of their neighbours. And there's lots of profit to be made by arming the whole lot of them ... and continuing to exploit them and their resources for profit, which is a whole lot easier when they're busy hating and killing one another.

Africa, nutshell.

.

[Pert_UK]

65. Come on iverglas......

you'd much rather be shot than chopped up wouldn't you? Therefore, guns would have made the whole thing better!......OK, not perfect, but better.........

I must admit that I am consistently amazed by people whose opinion seems to be that a society where peace is maintained by terror and the threat of violence is somehow a good result for all concerned.

See, if it was me, I'd be saying, "Wouldn't it have been better if the people could have overcome their differences and learned to get along?" or "....if the government had tried to stop the violence rather than encourage it" or even "....if the UN hadn't fucked up so badly, maintained peace through military deployment and helped resolve the conflict."

Apparently "guns" are the answer - "Wouldn't it have been better if they'd been able to take a few of them down before being shot to pieces?"

[Frodo_Baggins]

66. I *AM* complaining about that.

But the NRA and the US govenment is corrupt.

[MrBenchley]

69. Complaining about what, frodo?

Not enough armed loonies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Frodo_Baggins]

70. NO RKBA in various non-US countries

And are you calling me a *loonie*? :-)

[MrBenchley]

72. There's sure no shortage of guns

in shitholes like Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq and Afghanistan...