In this thread, I asked for a discussion about the universality of the U.S. Constitution. Rather than divert that thread into a hijack about a specific aspect of that question, I’ll start a new one.
For American supporters of the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: do you see private gun ownership as a universal human right? If so, do you support similar freedoms for the “new” Iraq?
Yes.
So you’re against the recent attempts to get Iraqis to hand their guns in to American forces?
Yes, and no. Yes, I think the citizens of Iraq have the right to bear arms, and no, I am not against any attempt by US forces to get them to voluntarily hand over their weaponry. The key word, of course, is voluntary.
No.
Because I also support the notion that people who make war against the government (which, arguably, you could say that even Saddam was) should be treated in a like manner.
I know this subject is more complicated than my responses indicate. But the bottom line is that yes, owning weapons is a basic human right IMHO. And no, that does not mean that people have the right to initiate acts of violence.
It’s more complicated than that. Iraq right now is under Martial Law (if not de jure, then certainly de facto). In that case, certain rights can and are suspended. Once Iraqis become truly self governing, with a “real” constitution, I do believe that gun ownership should be included as a right (or that gun ownership should not be excluded as a legal choice for citizens).
So if martial law were declared in the U.S. for some reason, would you willingly hand over your guns?
Well, once again, simple questions demand simple (but inaccurate) answers and defy complicated (but true) answers.
So, if martial law were declared for some odd reason and everything else was the same as it is now in America, I would not hand in my weapons.
If, however, a foriegn army was invading the country and the government somehow needed weapons and so asked for mine, I might indeed turn them over.
So, what is the context? How about if you ask if we were Iraqi citizens would we turn in our weapons.
I don’t own any guns. 
If I did, I don’t know. Just because the gov’t declares Martial Law, doesn’t mean that I would agree with that declaration. I might if I was **confident ** that the term for Martial Law was short, and that I could retrieve the gun once Martial Law ceased to be in efect., or that at least the right to obtain a new gun would be reinstituted.
Here lies the issue… it really depends on trusting your government. Iraqis don’t trust the CPA. I’m anti-guns… and I wouldn’t expect Iraqi to hand their guns in. Many americans that do trust their govt. wouldn’t hand their guns in either…
Is the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) universal? This is a very good question. To me, RKBA stems from the basic human right to life. This right (life) includes the right to defend your life from being ended. This included right to preserve the overarching right is an inherent part, in my view, of every right that truly exists. I also hold that rights exist beyond the scope of government; that is, governments can not grant rights, nor legitimately deny or curtail them. (At this point, I will ignore the question of whether a people can legitimately give up their rights beyond those which are absolutely necessary for the functioning of society.)
So, we area left with the status of RKBA. In the U.S., this right is explicitely guarranteed by the Constitution. The Iraqis do not have such a guarranty, either from the U.S. government nor from their own (that is their previous regime). I would contend that the protections afforded to the people of the United States by the Constitution do not extend to governmental actions against non-Americans in foreign countries, especially in times of armed conflict, so the Second Amendment would not apply. But does the lack of a guarranty mean that the right does not exist?
The right to live is pretty hollow without the right to defend that life should the need arise. Unless a government is going to provide complete and absolute protection of each individual’s right to life, then it cannot deprive those people of the means of protection which they rely on for protection. This level of protection of life is something that no state can, even if it desired to, provide. Since there is, therefor, no other way that the right to life can be defended, then RKBA is included in the right to life, and therefor a fundamental, universal right of all mankind.
At this point, I must confess my ignorance, as I am unaware of the details of the current disarmament being undertaken by the U.S. government in Iraq. The disarmament of enemy combatants by a military force would not, in my view, be an infringement of this basic right, nor would encouraging the voluntary surrender of arms by the population at large. However, a forced, wholesale disarmament would, in my view, not only be a bad idea, but would rise to the level of an unjust infringement on the rights of the Iraqi people.
Well, let’s be clear here. Only the most ardent gun proponents think that the second ammendment means unlimited right to own any and all types of fire arms. Most agree that some sorts of limitations on automatic weapons and explosives are compatible with the right to own guns.
And If I am not mistaken, many of the weapons being confiscated were essentially passed out by Saddam. Additionally they are finding rocket launchers and bomb making materials.
So, while I can certainly feel concerned that we are imposing such broad gun confiscation policies in Iraq (I have similar concerns with some anti gun activists in my own country), I’m not sure that the activities there really constitute some sort of denial of the essential priciple of gun ownership.
Perhaps that is a more complete answer to the OP.
To clarify: you seem to be going back and forth between what the Iraquis’ rights are, right now, on paper; and fundamental human rights. I’m not asking about the first; I’m assuming that if you believe RKBA is a fundamental human right, then any paperwork limiting that right is wrong, so there’s no need to address the actual current legal status.
I’m just wondering if you believe that the new Iraqui constitution should include RKBA.
I’m sorry; I thought I’d made it explicitly clear that those were exactly the people that I’m addressing.
As of this morning’s news, the only weapons voluntarily surrendered were inoperably rusted, etc.: useless.
Again, not what I’m asking. I want to know if the people who believe that private gun ownership is a a fundamental right believe that it’s a fundamental AMERICAN right, or should be a fundamental HUMAN right.
I’m trying to put the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted by those people addressed in the OP, in a different context; to view it through a different lens.
That’s the crux of the matter, though. I don’t think that the paper has anything to do with rights. Rights exist, regardless of what we put on paper. That, to me, is why the Second Amendment doesn’t matter in such a discussion (and what I tried to point out). Governments don’t grant rights, governments exist to protect those rights.
It can’t hurt, but I think it is totally unnecessary. Rights, including RKBA, exist regardless of the documents created by governments. No piece of paper can create a new right, and no piece of paper can stop a government (or an individual) from infringing upon rights.
Well a, I think you’re getting more abstract than was my intent. The thread you’re posting to is entitled “Who grants rights?” I’m talking specifically about WHETHER (you’re discussing HOW) Iraquis should be allowed private ownership of guns.
Sorry, I’m used to having to explain my views more fully (at times while being called an unpatriotic, selfish nazi - don’t ask). If all you’re looking for is whther Iraqis should be allowed to have guns, then my answer is a resounding yes!
The Iraqi people should be guaranteed the right to own firearms much as Americans are now. That is, people with no convictions for violent crime, and no history of mental illness. Those that do not meet these simple conditions, should not be permitted to own guns. However, this right cannot be enshrined until the Iraqis have made permanent a constitution to which it can be pinned. This assumes, of course, that majority of the Iraqi people want the general population to have the right to be armed. They should be permitted to decide this for themselves at the proper time.
Until that happens, whatever the current status of their gun ownership rights is, should be maintained. (I have no idea, were the Iraqi people permitted to own guns under Hussein?) The occupying troops should not be forcibly confiscating guns from people who appear to be peaceable, law-abiding (or whatever passes for law-abiding over there these days) and do not pose an immediate threat to the occupying forces. If Iraqis are using their weapons to threaten, or actually shoot, the occupying forces, then any necessary means may be taken by those being threatened to remove the threat.
I’m not sure where you think you’re taking this, lissener, but the manner in which your questions are posed, seems kinda “leading.” In any case, the answer is quite simple. And is no different than the proper course for first amendment rights.
Please append the phrase, “or any other person, or persons” to the end of my sentence “The occupying troops should not be forcibly confiscating guns from people who appear to be peaceable, law-abiding (or whatever passes for law-abiding over there these days) and do not pose an immediate threat to the occupying forces.”
Thus:
This seems pretty baselessly accusatory and negative. I hope you can either show me where I gave you this impression or withdraw it.