Gun cartoon of the day Posted on July 17, 2010 by Joe “Access to guns” is a human right. And that is what they view as the problem. There is no common ground between the rapist, or any other rights violator, and their victims. They can either stop proposing to violate our rights or not. Like this:Like Loading... Related Share
Access to guns is a human right? No it isn’t!!! Human rights are those which are held by ALL HUMAN BEINGS and all human beings do not have access to guns!
The right to keep and bear arms is a human right. In this country, at this time, with our level of technological development, that means guns.
See, this is why there is no “common ground” and no compromise is possible between the anti-gun and pro-freedom people. Either the anti-gun people are infringing upon our rights or they are not.
Hmmm. Let’s try that logic with some other rights, shall we?
Shall I go on? By your logic there are no rights, because if anyone, anywhere, infringes anyone else’s right, it ceases to become a right.
Infringement of a right does not mean that it is not a right, it only means that one person or government is doing wrong against someone.
Don’t confuse the United States Bill of Rights with Human Rights. Human Rights are rights that all humans in all countries have.
Human rights (also called Natural Rights) are universal and do not require laws for their existance.
Here’s the best piece I can find stating the distinction: “Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.”
China’s “one child” policy is thought to be a violation of human rights because reproduction is a natural right.
I don’t think anyone here will disagree with you on your definition of a natural right. The right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and innocent life is just such a natural right. The founders of this country believed that and our Supreme Court believes that (read the Heller decision). All people of all countries (and even those without a country) have this right. Unfortunately most countries, including ours, infringe upon that right to greater or lesser degrees.
And that, right there, is the key element in this debate, that UBU52 seems to be missing – just because a government does not permit its populace to exercise a right, that does not mean the right in question simply does not exist. The individual citizens/residents/subjects still possess the right, for what little good it does them – it is just that their government does not respect them or their rights.
In this exact case, self-defense is absolutely unquestionably a basic “human” or “natural” right, and our Founding Fathers codified and attempted to protect that right in the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, over the past 200+ years, scumbag politicians who have no respect for their employers (namely, us) have found, crafted, and connived all manner of workarounds for the very plain language of that particular Amendment, and now we are left with having to fight and claw for what should never have been in question.
Governments do not define rights, and they do not destroy them. They certainly do ignore them whenever they can, though.
There is very little of a “culture of violence” outside a pretty well-defined criminal class. There is a certain small but prolific group of people who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime.
FWIW, almost none of them are NRA members or 2A activists. In fact, even among the larger group that is derogatorily referred to as “rednecks,” violent crime is extremely low.
Yup– ubu thinks our constitution grants or creates the right to keep and bear arms. She doesn’t realize that this right, along with all other rights, pre exists. “…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…” and all that. She doesn’t understand the definition of the word, which to some extent is understandable, given the gross distortion of the language promoted by the Left.
She should understand though, just from reading this site. It means that either we’re not getting through to her, or she’s just being stubborn or coy.
ubu; a right is a right, whether or not anyone recognizes it. Right can be either recognized and protected, or they can be violated, but rights cannot be created or destroyed. The assertion of a “right” that demands anything other than non interference from anyone else, is not a right. Hence, if we’re going to call free healthcare a “right”, that would be an example of creating or granting something, but it sure as hell isn’t a right because it demands that someone else provide some people with a service. Rights can only be rights if they involve non interference only.
It’s very important that we use the words correctly, and not, as is all too common, dumb down or compromise our very language to accommodate the clueless or the criminally insane (the Left). That just makes these simple concepts more complicated, which is of course the goal of the anti-rights movement. I will not cede to them control of the language.
I agree that self defense is a natural right, however “access to guns” is not. I’d be more willing to agree that “access to knives” is a natural right since you can make a knife out of almost anything. “Guns” are manufactured products that have nothing to do with natural rights.
We all have a “right to travel” yet “access to sportscars” is not a natural right.
You can make/manufacture anything into a knife, and you can assemble guns quite easily (the WWII liberty pistol given to the partisans)
then you should say instead, access to knives is your “unnatural right” because you can MANUFACTURE Knives…
Fine, then how are the infirm, elderly, female, smaller, lighter, younger, and generally weaker individuals within our society supposed to exercise and defend that right you supposedly agree with?
Apparently, in UBU52’s world, some animals are more equal than others – no great surprise there.
Unfortunately for her, UBU’s strawman is completely meaningless. “Access to sportscars” is not protected by a right to travel – it is, however, protected by a right to commerce. If a person has a sportscar that I have the money to purchase from him at a previously-agreed upon price, I have a right to engage in that transaction. But, as AntiCitizenOne already noticed, expecting rational arguments from UBU52 is something of a losing cause.
I must say, Ubu52 is quite the useful idiot. In her very frank statement she is now claiming a ban on sports cars is also “reasonable”.
The “access to firearms” is always under the right to manufacture or purchase. I may WANT a certain firearm, but if I can’t secure the funds, or the equipment to make one, I have no right to FORCE somebody to buy or make one for me at no charge.
Of course Ubu has been very clear that she wants the right to purchase and manufacture arms curtailed (at least for people who live or work near her) and I guess she has the authority to dictate what cars we buy as well.
The 2nd Amendment is just one battlefield against the enemies of freedom. We can clearly see from the widespread campaigns against automobiles, energy, knives, and food that these people are not dedicated to restricting freedoms just on guns alone.
Sorry, I lost this conversation for a couple of days.
Okay, ubu, I’ll bite on that one just for the sake of argument. Let’s try it.
Your comment completely ignored my point in favor of a strawman, but I’ll say it again: Infringement of a right does not mean that it is not a right, it only means that one person or government is doing wrong against someone. Distinguishing between rights enumerated in the Constitution and “natural” rights that aren’t enumerated doesn’t change that.
No clue how EASY it is to make a firearm.
Even if we restricted that to “modern firearm chambered in a common commerically available cartridge”, it is actually easier to make a firearm than she thinks.
Heck, it’s HARDER to make a legal semi-auto than to make a fully automatic weapon. It’s harder to make an 18th Century FLINTLOCK from scratch than a 9x19mm submachinegun!
Less than half an hour, using a Dremel tool and a chunk of fence post, and you have a fully functional submachinegun receiver. The rest of the parts can either be bought off the shelf at a decent hardware store, or manufactured very easily at home. NOTHING in teh “Bill of Materials” is “gun related” — it can ALL be done with standard (British, American, or Metric, dealer’s choice) basic hardware and supplies.
There’s a guy in Great Britain who wrote a book on making and firing a SMG that has NO “gun” arts in it – -it is ALL made from standard supplies available in a British hardware store. (OK, his design is a little scary to my eyes, but if it wasn’t for 922(o), I’d consider dropping $200 to test it. I’ve thought about asking a buddy who is an FFL/SOT manufacurer to build one as a test sample.)
Hell, the Germans couldn’t keep people in occupied Warsaw from making SMGs in their apartments by the CASELOAD. That’s pre-Dremel tool, no internet, no Lowes Hardware ten minutes away. . .
There’s an entrie REGION in Pakistan on teh Afghanistan border where the Pakistani government doesn;t like to allow Westerners to go — the villagers HAND MAKE guns that are parts-interchangeable with milspec Kalashnikovs, etc. They also do custom work — like a selective fire Mauser Broomhandle that takes PPS-43 magazines. These guys do not even have ELECTRICITY — the toos are all HUMAN powered.
Making fully automatic “zip guns” that are effective is exceedingly easy.
Making regular “zip guns” is even easier. Convicts in high security American prisons make guns BEHIND BARS.
Unless Ubu will claim that making a knife or a spear isn’t a human right unless you magic up the componants for it without purchasing them as standard hardware stock, then a gun falls right in line with her claim that knives are protected because you can make it yourself. Or, maybe, that right only exists if you are a Master Bladesmith.
Hell, if the ability to “roll your own” was a bright line protected civil right, then I’d happily have a closet full of automatic weapons “just ’cause”. And I am no machinist, and don;t own a milling machine or similar tools.
But I AM a tool-using higher primate with opposable thumbs AND the advantage of being literate.
Since it appears that I am the only semi-anti who posts on Joe’s blog, I can’t respond to each individual who disagrees with me. I don’t have the time. I pick and choose and may respond to you sometimes or I may respond to someone else instead. Sorry, but I am only one person and no one is paying me to do this.
If you wish to engage other “semi-anties” or even Anties, you must entice them to post on this board or you must go post where they are — which would be the liberal political boards, I assume. (Though some, like Talkleft, are run by pro-gun liberals.)
Have fun posting!!
(P.S. I should have mentioned that Talkleft is not only pro-gun, it’s also pro-criminal since it’s run by a criminal defense attorney. She doesn’t tolerate “chatter” which she considers to be meaningless talk so you must stay on topic. She believes most criminals are wrongly convicted and deserve to have 2nd Amendment rights too. That’s the very essence of Liberal and Libertarian all in one spot.)
Pretend you are Adam of Adam and Eve fame. How would you create a gun?
The same way you’d make that knife, hon.
My mistake. Since it immediately followed my comment, I thought this:
was in response to my use of Rights enumerated in the Constitution. If not, then I apologize for assuming you ignored my point.
On the other hand, you both had and took the time to explain that you weren’t responding to me and why, instead of using that time to actually address my point – while dismissively implying that you aren’t interested in responding to me at all.
Reasoned Discourse(tm), anyone?
She got called on her tactic of avoiding the very debate she started…so she chimed in just to let us know she wasn’t avoiding the debate…and avoided the debate while she was here.
I’ve seen it before…I used to work in a daycare!
See? She’s not ignoring us! not at ALL!!