Ah yes, I remember fondly the passages of Voltaire in which he proclaimed the human right to own guns; the eloquence of D'alembert in his passionate defense of rifles; Spinoza's more geometrico proofs of the divine right to arms. However could we have forgotten these pearls of Enlightenment ideals?

Ah yes, I remember fondly the passages of Voltaire in which he proclaimed the human right to own guns; the eloquence of D'alembert in his passionate defense of rifles; Spinoza's more geometrico proofs of the divine right to arms. However could we have forgotten? — StreetlightX

People should be incarcerated for possessing a firearm? Or just fined?

Manufacturing firearms other than for the purpose of supplying the police and military: a prison sentence?

Will museums see any guns in their collections confiscated? Will such firearms be taken out of sight, or will the government display them in government-run museums?

You have... peculiar powers of extrapolation.

I hear them saying that it is not even a human right and never was a right of any kind in the first place. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's because it's not. These are:

www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Well, you present an odd response, suggesting that had the right to gun ownership been specifically declared a universal human right in 1948, then it would be, as if the document was gospel.

But since you've bought into that ideosyncratically American way of hierarchical document interpretation where the highest one is treated like it came from Mt. Sinai, consider Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." This clause actually forms a personal basis for gun ownership clearer than the 2nd Amendment, as it's not complicated by the strange language of state militias. That is, this is a general right to protect against intruders, not just against the government. If I present a compelling argument that I cannot be safe without a gun, am I not entitled to one? I don't see anything in this document suggesting that these rights be limited if society is overall harmed. This document speaks in terms of absolute rights without regard to a general societal weighing test.

And really, despite their dependence on the 2nd Amendment, isn't this what gun rights advocates are really arguing, not that they actually believe their handguns will resist a fully armored tank attack with air support? They want "security of person" from whoever might threaten it.

I didn't support gun rights prior to your showing me this document. Thank you for this.

This clause actually forms a personal basis for gun ownership clearer than the 2nd Amendment, as it's not complicated by the strange language of state militias. That is, this is a general right to protect against intruders, not just against the government. If I present a compelling argument that I cannot be safe without a gun, am I not entitled to one? — Hanover

The entailment here is not this clear cut at all: that one has a right to the security of persons can equally translate into a right not to be surrounded by a society in which people have easy access to instruments of death. I'm not saying that this is how it should be understood, only that there is alot more ambiguity here than what I think you're suggesting. Arguably, a large part of the gun debate turns upon just this contested notion of what 'security' ought to look like.

Yes, I have the right to security of person. So, thankfully my government doesn't allow dangerous weapons to be widely available. In other words, when your right to security impinges on mine there's a conflict. And in my view, having less weapons on the streets increases security rather than diminishes it. And no, the UN document isn't the last word on human rights but they are at least debatably human rights.

I'm not saying that this is how it should be understood, only that there is alot more ambiguity here than what I think you're suggesting. Arguably, a large part of the gun debate turns upon just this contested notion of what 'security' ought to look like. — StreetlightX

I agree with you, but my response to Baden is that slapping down this document as definitive proof that gun ownership is not a human right just doesn't work. It leaves us no better off than we were when we began, with both sides using a document to support their position, which, again, evokes another peculiar American institution, that of inherent legalistic ambiguity, where no argument is ever conceded because there is always suspected to be one tribunal somewhere that will endorse your argument and make it law. And, of course, that leads us to another American interpretational problem: who gets to decide? In America it's clear: only Americans, which is why international documents are never thought to have come from Mt. Sinai If you're American.

And wasn't that at least part of Baden's clandestine agenda, to trump (I do so enjoy that word) the Constitution, to tell Americans it's not the final word when such an idea is known to be sacrilege to Americans?

So, thankfully my government doesn't allow dangerous weapons to be widely available. — Baden

But this can't be so, because Article 12 says:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

This makes direct reference to the law being the required protection against interferences with honor, reputation, and privacy, but Article 3 places no such limitation ("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."). That is, where the drafters wished to declare that a person be protected by the government (i.e. "the law"), they said so. But in the sweeping declaration of the right to security of person, the drafters left it wide open, allowing you to protect yourself with whatever you have to give.

And now that we've resorted to original intent (just to again make the point this document offers us no greater resolution of the matter), now let's look at historical context. It seems highly doubtful the framers wanted to suggest they wanted to gather up the citizens of the world's guns. That was not the sentiment in 1948 generally, and especially not of those who just suffered through the devastation of the world war. I'd suggest that if anyone were justified in clinging to their guns, it was those folks.

What you need more than a clear document and a clever argument is a receptive tribunal.

Meanwhile, the people who are supposedly champions of the oppressed and vulnerable — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Groups of people that are being shot up with a fair amount of regularity should count as vulnerable peoples don't you think? As for the increasing intensity, every new shooting acts as an exclamation point to their original call for gun control. Even the slaughter of twenty elementary school children didn't move the needle. Indifference can be maddening.

There are probably a few delusional people out there who think we could just ban guns altogether next week, but I'd guess those people are in the minority. Most probably understand that it is incremental changes over time that will get them to their destination. That's why the NRA fights every little change because they know it too.
I think a lot on the left will let themselves drift into wishful talk from time to time, envisioning an America that looks more like Europe with regard to guns and a few other things. Or if asked if they would be okay with a gun free America they answer honestly. You can't blame them for that. Guns contributed to 33,000 deaths last year alone. Yes some of those would have still ended up being suicides, and some of that number that were mass-murderer related might have been perpetrated by a different means, but it's not far fetched to think that number would be significantly smaller.

The US could get along without guns. Other countries already do. Plus, this fervor for and fetishisation of guns by the right is fairly recent, despite what the NRA would have you think. This article goes into the history at length.

This right to arms is enshrined in our Constitution, but unintended consequences are a hallmark of the best made plans. I see no reason why we can't reevaluate the rules we made/make for ourselves if the consequences become too great. Do you think the great thinkers of the enlightenment would frown upon us reconsidering vague and archaic documents put in place by men of yore? The Bill of Rights is America's holy book, but it should not be seen as eternal and infallible.

And wasn't that at least part of Baden's clandestine agenda, — Hanover

Jesus. I wake up from a nice sleep and the second thing I see is someone accusing me of a clandestine agenda. How...Anyway, I'll probably go into more detail later but for now on the security thing. Suppose the framers of the UN article were referring to individual security in the way you suggest. Why then stop (or even start) at guns? A gun may not make you very secure if everyone else has one. Why not bazookas? But then if everyone else has one why not tanks? And so on. There's never any absolute individual security unless you want to lock yourself away in a nuclear bunker. And no one particular weapon from your fists to bombs holds any special decontextualized connection to the concept of "security". So, either the proposed right is incoherent or something more collective and government provided was meant.

Self-defense is a human right. The anti-gun politicians all seem to be protected by armed police escorts. They have the right to self-defense. YOU don't. That's their logic.

Groups of people that are being shot up with a fair amount of regularity should count as vulnerable peoples don't you think?... — ProbablyTrue

It is the police who are shooting those people a lot of the time.

It is those police shootings--and police brutality without guns like in the case of Eric Garner ("I can't breathe!")--that the protests and media scrutiny have been about.

Yet, we have liberals/progressives saying that the police and military should have guns and that the rest of us have no right to possess guns.

As for the increasing intensity, every new shooting acts as an exclamation point to their original call for gun control. Even the slaughter of twenty elementary school children didn't move the needle. Indifference can be maddening... — ProbablyTrue

The rate of gun related deaths in the U.S. is down from 20 years ago.

And most of the mass shootings probably could have been prevented with interventions that have nothing to do with the manufacture and distribution of firearms. For example, if I recall correctly, in a recent school shooting the assailant targeted classmates who had bullied him. Stopping the bullying probably would have prevented that shooting. Local and national campaigns to end bullying are already underway.

Or if asked if they would be okay with a gun free America they answer honestly. You can't blame them for that. — ProbablyTrue

It is one thing to say that society should be free of guns and to work to make that a reality without compromising other people's rights.

It is another thing to say that possessing a gun for one's personal protection is not a right and that only the police and military should be allowed to have guns.

The US could get along without guns. Other countries already do. Plus, this fervor for and fetishisation of guns by the right is fairly recent, despite what the NRA would have you think. This article goes into the history at length. — ProbablyTrue

The U.S. could get along without cheese.

But nobody is saying that the right to cheese does not exist and that only the government should be able to make, possess and consume cheese.

It is about individual rights and state power, not about pragmatic outcomes.

If pragmatic outcomes are really the issue, like I showed in another thread, a new study concluded that pollution is responsible for 15 times more early deaths than war and violent crimes. Do you hear liberals/progressives saying that polluting is not in any way a right and that at the same time only the government should be allowed to pollute?

Is having tunnel vision and spending all of one's resources fighting against guns--devices that are used for a variety of things besides killing people and most of which, as far as I know, are never used to kill people (how much pollution can you say does not kill anybody?)--really the pragmatic thing to do?

With all due respect, it looks to me like liberals/progressives are as obsessed with guns as their opponents in the gun debate.

This right to arms is enshrined in our Constitution, but unintended consequences are a hallmark of the best made plans. I see no reason why we can't reevaluate the rules we made/make for ourselves if the consequences become too great. Do you think the great thinkers of the enlightenment would frown upon us reconsidering vague and archaic documents put in place by men of yore? The Bill of Rights is America's holy book, but it should not be seen as eternal and infallible. — ProbablyTrue

I agree with all of that.

But the people I am talking about do not think like you do. They say that no right of any kind to possess a gun for one's personal protection ever existed in the first place and that only the police and military should be allowed to possess guns. If social conditions have changed in a way that warrants reconsidering our personal and collective relationships with firearms, I doubt that many reasonable people would oppose such reconsideration. But to use language that implies not recognizing rights that most people recognize or calling for rights to be taken away is illiberal. And it is hypocritical when such language comes from people who condemn it in other matters such as the right to same-sex marriage.

Very well stated. In the other gun thread, the argument I gave in favor of retaining the constitutional right to bear arms is that this right is grounded in the natural right to self-defense. Put in a syllogism, it looks like this:

I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
Therefore, I have a right to own firearms.

This was the chief principled argument I gave, but apparently, it's easier to endlessly compose infantile, sarcastic quips than engage with such arguments, judging by the responses.

The claims of hypocrisy don't even use the word correctly. A hypocrite is somebody who says that people should do (or not do) X and does not do (or does) X themselves. For example the sexual morals crusader that has secret affairs.

For somebody to advocate both positions A and B, which an uncharitable bystander deem to be inconsistent, is not hypocritical. At worst, it's lacking in logic - which is not hypocrisy - but usually it's not even that.

It is the police who are shooting those people a lot of the time.
It is those police shootings--and police brutality without guns like in the case of Eric Garner ("I can't breathe!")--that the protests and media scrutiny have been about.

Yet, we have liberals/progressives saying that the police and military should have guns and that the rest of us have no right to possess guns. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I was going to look up police shooting statistics over the last (insert number) years, but the data available is crap. Somehow despite all the protests of the last year or two, we still haven't managed to hold police departments more accountable to on-duty shootings/killings.
That being said, even if the numbers have increased, armed citizens are certainly not the answer. There are almost zero instances of an armed citizen defending himself with force against abusive law enforcement. At least none that I'm aware of. And if they did they're likely dead now. The way our justice system works is the police abuse you, and if you survive, you then try to pursue them in court for an early retirement.

The rate of gun related deaths in the U.S. is down from 20 years ago. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Admittedly I didn't search forever, but I couldn't find info on the last 20 years. I did find info from 1999-2015 here. From what I can tell it has been pretty consistent.

I would like to clarify that I personally don't think the US is going to be rid of guns altogether anytime soon. I do think it would be nice to wave a magic wand and have it be so, but legislation that would do as much is just not practical. I am in support of some more restrictions on what guns are legal though. Bump stocks serve almost no purpose as a means of self defense. They diminish you're ability to fire at specific targets accurately. The only purposes they serve are for recreational fun and what we saw in LV. We decided long ago that fully automatic weapons should not be legal because of the hazard they pose to society, and I think now is a decent time to recognize that high-capacity semi-automatic rifles fall into the same category. Make people get a Federal Firearms License, or go through the same process as purchasing an NFA weapon.

The U.S. could get along without cheese. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I would have to leave the US in this case.

I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
Therefore, I have a right to own firearms. — Thorongil

I'm not fond of extreme examples, but using your same syllogism I could find justification for owning an M1 Abrams.

You could, but owning a tank is an impractical means of self-defense. It would be hard to stow it in a drawer or a purse, for example. You can't drive it to work either. And even if you could park it in a garage, it would be a strange sort of burglar, rapist, or murderer who waited while you grabbed your keys and hopped inside a seventy ton vehicle with which to engage him.

You could, but owning a tank is an impractical means of self-defense. — Thorongil

It would practical against a tyrannical government or an invading force. Obviously I'm not seriously in support of this, but the argument holds.
My point is that there should be limitations at the very least. I agree that a gun is a legitimate means of self defense and in the US is an established right, but it's not clear to me that it is necessary or is serving the intended purpose the majority of the time.

We all have the right to abstain from eating cheese, but it doesn't mean our lives would be better for it.

it would be a strange sort of burglar, rapist, or murderer who waited while you grabbed your keys and hopped inside a seventy ton vehicle with which to engage him. — Thorongil

It would probably be the same burglar as the one the NRA thinks would wait for a responsible gun owner to retrieve the gun from their child-proof gun safe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk

It would practical against a tyrannical government or an invading force. — ProbablyTrue

I actually think that a smaller guerrilla force with less powerful weaponry can hold its own and even defeat stronger militaries, for the outcome of a war has as much if not more to do with the morale on either side as it does with advanced firepower. The U.S. has learned this the hard way in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

but it's not clear to me that it is necessary or is serving the intended purpose the majority of the time. — ProbablyTrue

Then you need to look up the statistics. There are conservatively tens of thousands more defensive gun uses each year than homicides due to guns. They clearly serve their intended purpose the majority of the time.

It would probably be the same burglar as the one the NRA thinks would wait for a responsible gun owner to retrieve the gun from their child-proof gun safe. — andrewk

Which would take more or less time than the calling the cops and waiting for them to show up with... guns to the scene?

Which would take more or less time than the calling the cops and waiting for them to show up with... guns to the scene?

Your point being?

That you composed a silly response?

Sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a philosophical discussion. If I'd known it was supposed to involve playground insults I'd have stayed out, because I'm not very good at them.

playground insults — andrewk

And yet you attempted that very thing in your initial reply to me. You're a pot calling the kettle black.

You must think the word 'insult' has a different definition from what the rest of us do.

I actually think that a smaller guerrilla force with less powerful weaponry can hold its own and even defeat stronger militaries, for the outcome of a war has as much if not more to do with the morale on either side as it does with advanced firepower. The U.S. has learned this the hard way in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. — Thorongil

Ukraine has shown us that privately owned tanks can make a hell of a difference in low-intensity conflicts.

Huh? You want a philosophical discussion and yet post a video of a comedian strawmanning and insulting people.

Rebut, if you can, his point that a gun is either locked away, in which case it provides no protection against an intruder in the bedroom, or it is available for a child who finds it to play with.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/daniel-zimmerman/bad-arguments-for-gun-control-a-response-to-australian-comedian-jim-jefferies/

That being said, even if the numbers have increased, armed citizens are certainly not the answer. There are almost zero instances of an armed citizen defending himself with force against abusive law enforcement. — ProbablyTrue

Completely irrelevant.

You asked if the people being shot all of the time are not part of the oppressed and vulnerable. I pointed out that it is the police--the ones those aforementioned liberals/progressives are fine with possessing guns while they say that the rest of us have no business possessing guns--who are shooting those unarmed, vulnerable, oppressed people.

Admittedly I didn't search forever, but I couldn't find info on the last 20 years. I did find info from 1999-2015 here. From what I can tell it has been pretty consistent. — ProbablyTrue

"Yet the current rate of firearm violence is still far lower than in 1993, when the rate was 6.21 such deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 3.4 in 2016."