A deconstructionalist might argue that several universal human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the like are artificial constructions.
I think that these rights are inherently necessary for the dignity of human existence. (What that means, exactly, though, I’m not entirely sure. I found this but it doesn’t help much. Even the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a legal document - so could it be argued that human rights are an artificial construction on that basis?)
A right to bear arms in the US is a right which is different. It is purely and obviously a legal right, and something quite peculiar to the US.
China and Islamic countries argue that human rights are not universal, but are Western notions based upon developments in Western culture. Such countries argue that the imposition of such rights is cultural imperialism.
An argument asserting that human rights are universal is undermined by the existence of the right to bear arms. It is obviously a construct. No one needs to be able to bear arms to have human dignity.
The right to bear arms isn’t a “universal right”, in the sense that freedom of expression is a universal right.
The existence of a right to bear arms does not assist efforts to convince other cultures that do not believe in human rights that such rights are fundamental and universal. Such an artifical, legal construct undermines such efforts.
You’ll have to forgive me if I’m not willing to give up the Bill of Rights in order to help somebody or other score debating points against people who aren’t gonna buy the argument anyway.
There is no such thing as a “universal human right” except as a lable. Allrights are legal constructions. If whoever holds power in a given area doesn’t go along, such rights don’t exist–fiddling with the terminology won’t change that.
So, if a consitutional congress that repealed the second amendment was held tomorrow (the necessary previous footwork having been taken care of in a hypothetical recent past), then freedom and human rights will magically spread faster across the world?
Hmmm. I’d like to buy, but most of my investment is tied up in this excellent bridge purchase I just got in on.
Alright, Dave, I deserved that one. My apologies, and let me try for a proper answer.
I can’t see how the US citizens, by having a constitutional right to bear arms, are undermining the fight around the world for basic rights. How will stopping Americans from owning firearms stop the Afghanistani Taliban from oprressing non Shi’ite religions? How will it stop the Chinese Government from incarcerating political dissidents?
(This list is going to get very boring very quickly - I think you get my point).
And MysterEcks: whether they are legal constructs or not, there are certain freedoms that every human being should have for which you can get a very large consensus on worldwide. I think Dave is saying that the right to bear arms had fewer disciples than say freedom of speech and religion. (The rest of his argument, I’m yet to buy).
How so? “The right to bear arms” stems from the notion that people have the right to defend themselves from real and reasonable dangers.
Why not? Certainly, a person doesn’t need to communicate in order to survive. It seems that we can eliminate ALL rights, as outlined in the BoR, and people won’t suddenly drop over, dead.
Your comparison is ridiculous. Just because “expression” comes first in the BoR listing doesn’t make it any less important.
Oh, this is rich. You’re claiming that the 2nd Amendment is completely undermining the humanitarian efforts of groups such as Amnesty International. “Give up the Right to Bear Arms, or people will never be free.” Sorry, pal, but until you explain how you got from Point A to Point B, you’re just babbling.
I’m drawing a distinction between a “human right” (which is an entitlement right, which are demands on society by the individual to have a basic and socially acceptable level of health, education and prosperity, or an individual rights, which prevent the violation of the mind or body by society), and a right which is purely an artifical concept.
A human right is of universal application. A right to conscience is something that should be enjoyed by all humans. Vorfodand **Drastic **(whose sarcasm isn’t worth repeating)
Many of these types of arguments are raised in global debates about human rights. Its not “undermining” regimes: its providing them with ammunition in their resistance to the concept of universal human rights.
Spoofe
Actually comparing what I said to what you said, Spoofe, you’ll see I said no such thing. Its an argument in favour of those who think that human rights is a Western concept: they can point at the 2nd amendment and say that this is just as artifical as the concepts contained in Universal Declaration.
I’m not at all familiar with the US Bill of Rights, and suggested no such thing. This is not an argument about the US Bill of Rights generally: I’m looking at the 2nd Amendment in conjunction with the Universal Declaration.
This is something I have the most trouble comprehending, but the most trouble challenging. This could be a fundamental human right, in so far as its an extension of the human right to be free from interference from the state. It could give practical effect to universal human rights. But, as you say, its a “stem”. It is not a fundamental human right of itself. And even the concept that it stems from, thinking out loud, couldn’t be a fundamental human right. Is resistance a fundamental human right?
If it isn’t, then the right to bear arms is not a human right. This is supported by the persepective of the original human rights advocates - Voltaire or any number of Renaissance liberterians would never in their dreams have thought that there was a fundamental or universal right to bear arms. Non-American Westerners can find the concept an anethema, which suggests that it is not “universal” amongst those those people who most value human rights.
But if resistance is a fundamental human right, then that changes everything.
Finally, Mister Ecks
You sound like the Chinese. There is no inherent sanctity for the individual. I’m going to have to think about that one overnight. I’d like to think that they are more than just simply legal constructions.
Dave, your link does not work. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be read here.
Article 3 of the Declaration states:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
If the right to life, liberty and security of person do not imply a right to defend them against infringements, then what good are they?
Anyway, I have to agree with Mister Ecks. There are no inherent rights. They’re all legal constructions. That, of course, does not negate their usefulness.
I much disagree that human rights are necessarily entitlement rights. The right to free expression is not an entitlement right in the sense that you are describing. Even in the most liberal western democracies, you do not have a right to demand that society provide you with a typewriter, a megaphone, a lecture hall, a lectern, or even a single piece of paper on which to write the thoughts you are expressing. The right simply means that neither the government nor the private citizen may legally restrain you from your expression. Society does not have to assist your expression in any way.
I think you are also mistaken in saying that the right to bear arms is peculiar to the US, as I believe it also exists in Switzerland. I am not sure if there are other governments that recognize it today. In ancient Greece, the right to bear arms was what distinguished the free citizen from the slave; indeed, it was almost the defining feature of the citizen, since the citizen was expected to defend his city-state from invaders.
Governments are artificial constructs. So is all of society. Whether rights are created by man or given to us by some devine deree is irrelevant.
It is the diference between a government that is there to serve the people and a government where the people are there to serve the state. Which one do you think China, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan belong to?
Western ‘rights’ give people the opportunity to decide their culture, beliefs and ideals for themselves. I am under the impression that China and the other nations I mentioned give their people no such choice.
One needs to be able to defend themselves in order to have dignity. The right to bear arms is an extention of the basic human right to self defense. how much dignity can you have if anything you build or create can be taken away at will by bandits, a jealous neighbor, or an oppresive and corupt government?
Without the right to bear arms, you are required to rely on someone else (ie the police/government) for protection. That protection and the threat of removing that protection is a form of power and control.
Cultures that do not believe in human rights are generally oppresive states. In those countries, the perpentuation of the state and the ruling class is generally more important that any individual.
A right to bear arms directly threatens those ruling classes because they no longer have free reign to enforce whatever laws they see fit.
Wrong. That would be a ‘law’, not a ‘right’. ‘Rights’ go beyond simple government legislation. According to the guys who created the Constitution/Bill of Rights, men and woman have a moral imperative to rise up against any government that threatens to take away the basic rights they outlined in the B of R. That is to say, if whoever holds the power doesn’t go along, the people should rise up to take away taht power.
So what. Convincing people who want to control other peoples freedoms and rights that freedoms and rights are universal has never been, and never will, be easy. Regardless of the existence of a law in the United States regarding firearms.
You’ve given an example of what you think this law does that is negative: Undermines efforts to convince others of the existence of fundamental rights. I don’t really buy this, but let’s take a look at what it does that is positive:
Allows you to be able to kill a Bear, Snake, Wolf, Fox or other dangerous animal. There are alot of parts of this great nation that are wilderness. Growing up in Kentucky, I often had occaision to kill one of the above. Not to hunt (I hate hunting), but to protect myself and family. You can’t have little kids running in the grass when poisinous snakes are around. If a bear comes out of the woods and trys to maul me, I don’t care about rights in China at that moment. Only thing I care about is disabling that bear.
Allows you to defend your property against thieves/criminals who would take your property and/or cause bodily harm.
An armed population is harder to subject than an unarmed one. While the idea of the US Government turning against it’s citizens is unlikely, it is not impossible that some in power would consider it in certain situations. Knowing that you’ve got a pretty well armed population may give those in power pause.
Were civilazation to break down (nuclear or biological war) to the point that it could not provide for it’s population, people with guns are going to have alot easier time hunting than those who do not. Farfetched? Yes. Impossible? No. Let’s just hope “cooler heads prevail”.
Either way you slice it, a gun is a pretty handy tool. It can be misused, so you make the laws against the misuse. Not against the tool itself. A screwdriver can be used to kill someone, but we shouldn’t make it illegal.
It’s a good right. Why should we give it up? So that people who don’t think you should have rights will come around and say “Well they got rid of the gun law in the US, maybe we really should treat people fairly.”? Fat chance.
I might add that my right to bear arms has been removed due to the fact that I live in NYC. Your not even allowed to have a taser here. Never mind a gun. So I keep all my guns at my Dad’s house in KY.
No, it stems from the idea that people have the right to BE “real and reasonable dangers.” That way OTHER “real and reasonable dangers” will then be less inclined to attack. The theory behind protection is to violently defend yourself against violence. Sounds like a vicious cycle to me.
Now I’m not calling for an repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I don’t agree with the OP either. I’m just saying that the 2nd amendment is an anachronism that its too late to fix.
I agree on the first two. Given your later posts I will reserve judgement on “the like”.
I strongly disagree. What makes you think this?
Freedom of expression is also a “legal” right. How is this a distiction?
Today. It wasn’t always.
I strenuously disagree. However, if it is so obvious, I am sure you will have no difficulty explaining it to me.
This statement has as much meaning as one such as: “No one needs to print an editorial in a newspaper to have human dignity” or “No one needs to attend church services to have human dignity”.
I am loathe to descend into mere contradiction, but, it most certainly is.
See below.
“Entitlement right”? That’s a perversion of the very concept of a “right” as it has been traditionally understood. You cannot have a right to something that requires the labor of someone else to produce (health, education, etc.). The proper word to describe that sort of thing is slavery.
If you are going to be distinguishing between two different kinds of rights, you should be distinguishing between “entitlement rights”, and individual rights.
No pun intended , I’m sure. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that I agree with you here. Your implied solution to this problem seems to be for the US to cease acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms, thus bringing it into synch with the rest of the western world.
I have a different solution. I think the rest of the western world should get in synch with the US, and begin to acknowledge (or re-acknowledge, in some cases) the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms.
If I understand you correctly, this would solve the problem just as effectively, and would have the added bonus of correcting a grave injustice. After all, rights by definition are not determined by majority rule; they are part of the “inherent sanctity for the individual”, as you said in your reply to Mister Ecks. Hence you must admit that the simple fact that a majority of the western world does not acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that this right does not exist.
If I am armed, but will only use my gun to defend myself from attack, how am I a danger to you?
Some would argue that its not only a right, but an obligation. In the western tradition, evil is something to be fought against, so a policy of non-violence in the face of violence is allowing evil to triumph, presumably a bad thing.
On a practical level, I don’t care too much for guns. This isn’t some effete suburban attitude, I carried arms in the military for quite a few years. However, the US has several hundred million guns within its borders. Keeping law abiding citizens (the good guys) from protecting themselves legally is an untenable position. Crimes against women, the elderly, and everyday citizens are an abomination against society, and the armed citizen is a valid defense against thugs.
Indeed, the more I think about it, an equally effective argument can be made that an assertion of universal human rights is undermined by neglecting to specifically include a right to defend oneself from harm, including but not limited to the use of arms to do so.
A deconstructionalist might argue that all human rights, and indeed the idea of human rights, are/is an artificial construct. They do not exist unless a given society says that they do, and they do not exist meaningfully unless a given society agrees to respect them.
It is unclear why you would consider, say, the right to free expression, to be “inherently necessary to human dignity” but not the right to defend oneself.
And they are, of course, correct, if you view human rights as something artificial (man-made) as opposed to inherent. The Western theory of human rights is largely based upon the ideal of human dignity for its own sake and the historical belief that certain rights were given to all people by God and therefore may not be taken away by Man. If you reject the idea of God, or the idea that He (She/It) is the source of rights, then you naturally would reject the inherency of rights. This is, I believe, the position of those who consider the very idea of “human rights” to be Western cultural imperialism.
Of course, this doesn’t follow. You have failed to articulate why the right to express oneself should be considered a universal one, while the right to defend oneself (specifically through bearing arms) should not be. Surely you are not arguing that rights are decided by popular vote; assuming you are not, the fact that the U.S. stands alone in extending this “right” to its citizens does not mean the right does not, or should not, independently exist.
Moreover, the Constitution of the United States sets forth the rights of United States citizens as United States citizens. It does not purport to be a statement of “universal” rights" or “human” rights, except to the extent that the grant of rights within the Constitution is premised upon the inherency of those rights. Therefore, you have every perfect right to argue that the right to free expression is (or ought to be) a universal right but the right to bear arms is not. But if you wish to argue that the former is an inherent right (a right to which we are all, somehow, entitled) and the latter is not, then you need to articulate where you believe inherent/entitled rights arise from, and why the concept of the inherent right cannot or should not include the right to defend oneself.
Semantic nonsense, and wrong. You’re assuming that a person who is “armed” (and, therefore, capable of defending himself against other people who are armed) is automatically “dangerous”, which is ridiculous.