# The "right" to bear arms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2001, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491 "2001-08-22T05:03:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/41 "2001-08-23T04:57:34Z")
Good try, though. “Well Regulated” in the context of the times in which it was written, did not mean the National Guard, since it wasn’t even around yet. A clock was considered well regulated, for example, if it kept good time, oiled, didn’t break down. What they were referring to was “every able bodied male” and I suspect the Michigan Militia wasn’t exactly what you had in mind. (In other words, don’t go there.) In any case, it seems fairly strange that every amendment that refers to “the people” has been construed as an individual right (1st Amendment, for example) but somehow, that’s _not_ what they meant on the 2nd? It’s always funny when people claim the constitution doesn’t say what it clearly says, not to mention what they meant. ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/42 "2001-08-23T05:25:07Z")
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of yeomanry, and of the other classes of citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." The Federalist, #29, Modern Library, New York Obviously, “Well Regulated” didn’t mean 20,000 conflicting gun laws, merely being proficient at what they do. Yes, the goal was supervision, in the established units, no question. The young country needed an army. It’s an entirely different thing to claim that personally owned weapons were not envisioned, nor desired. Not only that- How do you feel about the Draft? Service in the National Guard? Forming your own Militia to augment the state and federal forces? This is usually interesting. Certainly, if one claims that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, they wholeheartedly support the Draft, correct? National Guard service one weekend a month? ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/43 "2001-08-23T05:34:20Z")
Lots to answer. But first, let me make something clear: I’ve posted this topic because in the course of debate I’m entirely open to being persuaded by other people’s perspectives and arguments. If you disagree with me, don’t resort to entirely indulgent posts like the one posted above by **1kBR Kid**. I really don’t care if I don’t convince you: but I’m willing to air the matter through intelligent debate, and even be convinced that the precepts of my belief are wrong. But, I’m just not interested in pro-gun histrionics or a wankfest. I’m a citizen of a country where an overwhelming majority of people supported a conservative government initiative to tax people 2% of their annual income to fund a programme whereby citizens voluntarily surrendered their guns to the goverment for destruction, and I’m just not going to be even vaguely persuaded by macho bullshit about how good guns are. Having thought about it overnight, it seems to me that there are two issues here: 1. are human rights artificial constructs? 2. if not, is the right to protect your human rights a human right, or a legal right? **1. Human Rights as Artifical Constructs.** I agree, more or less, with what **msmith537** says, here: > [@](#): > > 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. Goverments can make laws which contradict fundamental human rights. Human rights are something which overlap with laws, but can be different or even contrary to laws (and in this regard I’m thinking of unjust laws). I haven’t investigated this point, but it seems to me that this is the position taken by the International Court of Justice and otherwise in international law (specifically, the Nuremburg and Tokyo war trials). A law can contradict human rights. So, just because something isn’t a law, does this mean that it isn’t a legal construct? I’m more minded to think that its a “cultural or societal construct”, but I can’t really see the difference between that and a “legal construct”, other than it is limited to a culture or society (and so is not universal, which supports the argument of cultural relativism). 1. **Is the right to protect your human rights a human right in itself?** Intuitively, I don’t think so. By way of analogy, if you put your money in a safe, the safe doesn’t become the money. The safe may be valuable and useful, but it doesn’t become the object of value. **Joe\_cool** says: > [@](#): > > I honestly don’t see how you can be expected to resist oppression if you are not allowed to be armed. Setting aside the issue of pacifist resistance to armed oppression, there are mechanisms should, at least in theory, enable you to resist oppression. You can win a court case against the government for trampling over your rights. You can protest in public against governmental actions which you deem repressive. The media can bring public attention to an oppressive act of government (or corporation, for that matter). > [@](#): > > You seem to make the assumption that the government has absolute authority and power over all of us, and we are only allowed to do what they choose to “let us” do. This government is by, for, and of the people. That means the government does not have any power that WE do not give to IT. I have no idea what you are talking about, here. Where is that assumption evident? Also, you are taking an American-centric view. My government is not “by the people” etc.: I’m concentrating on universal human rights, not the peculiarities of a certain country’s constitution, other than in respect of the legal right to bear arms. > [@](#): > > And regardless of what other countries feel about it, the foundation of our government is this: The Bill of Rights, and therefore the United States, recognizes that the people have certain rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and country. The 2nd Amendment is the legal, documented declaration that this particular right will not be infringed. I admire your patriotism and enthusiasm, but you’re really sliding away from my point. **Jodi** , as ever, has some thoughtful and incisive things to say: > [@](#): > > 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 This is the position of many countries, and who go further to add that the promotion of human rights globally is tantamount to “human rights imperialism”. Human rights imply that individualism, a key concept of Western culture, is paramount. The collectivism of Sinic cultures is quite different to individualism, and they view this as a basis to reject the concept of human rights, as, in the words of Japanese PM Kiichi Miyazawa after the Tiananmen massacre, “abstract notions”. > [@](#): > > 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 Hopefully I’ve answered that above. I can see the value in resistance, and can even see the moral obligation of resistance: but I don’t see it as a human right. This jibes with what **Tedster** has said: > [@](#): > > 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. …except that in so far as Western traditions follow Judeo–Christian beliefs, pacifist resistance seems to be more of a core precept (if not followed in practice). > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t know that belief in God has a connection to human rights, as a source of the rights. Individualism developed in the 14th and 15th centuries in Christendom, long after the rise of Christianity. > [@](#): > > 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. I actually think you are right in this. Choosing the balance of Western countries as a lodestone might be a flawed premise. The US might be displaying human rights beyond that of its peers. > [@](#): > > 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 Yes, I agree with you. The trouble is, I’m not sure on the source of “human rights” other than as a instinctive sense of the fundamental entitlements of a human being. Owning a gun seems to me to be something other than fundamental. Maybe its a cultural gap between Americans and non-American Westerners. I’ll give what you’ve said here some more thought and come back to you on it. **Danimal** says > [@](#): > > 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. Entitlement rights in this context mean the right to expect a basic education, and the right to expect basic health care. Not so much of an American concept, perhaps. \*\*dalovindj \*\*says: > [@](#): > > 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: …and then goes on to list a number of benefits of owning firearms, without addressing how that impacts upon the right to do so. I’m sure it would be to my benefit to own slaves: but I have no right to do this. This has already taken me several hours to do, while I’ve been busy being distracted by work, and no doubt other people have posted in the interim. Weird Al Einstein makes some good points, too, which I’ll have to get back to in a few hours. For now, I’ll post what I’ve written and come back later. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/44 "2001-08-23T05:35:50Z")
Lots of new interesting points, I see - I’ll be back soon. ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/45 "2001-08-23T05:55:09Z")
The founding fathers posit that rights can only be granted by god, not man, and are inherent to all men, and can only be taken away by government. They crafted a document by which they hoped would restrain government from limiting those natural, god-given rights. Where do I find the right to a firearm in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights again? ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/46 "2001-08-23T06:14:41Z")
**Kalashnikov** So we meet again. > [@](#): > > _Gandhi_ > Violence breeds violence…Pure goals can never justify impure or violent action…They say the means are after all just means. I would say means are after all everything. As the means, so the end…If we take care of the means we are bound of reach the end sooner or later. > [@](#): > > Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness…Every citizen is responsible for every act of his government…There is only one sovereign remedy, namely, non-violent non-cooperation. Whether we advertise the fact or not, the moment we cease to support the government it dies a nature death…My method is conversion, not coercion, it is self-suffering, not the suffering of the tyrant…I hope the real Swaraj (self-rule) will come not by the acquisition of authority by the few but by the acquisition by all of the courage to resist authority when abused. In other words, Swaraj is to be attained by education the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate ad control authority… Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies…Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke…Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing…Disobedience to be civil has to be open and nonviolent…Disobedience to be civil implies discipline, thought, care, attention…Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation…Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are different but [are] branches of the same tree call Satyagraha (truth-force)… Coercion cannot but result in chaos in the end…One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman…Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good… Nonviolent action without the cooperation of the heart and the head cannot produce the intended result…All through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall, always. Furthermore, the fact remains that he liberated India WITHOUT weapons or violence. Actions speak louder than words. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/47 "2001-08-23T06:17:57Z")
Oh yes, and you might want to get a source that spells his name correctly for future use. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/48 "2001-08-23T06:21:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Misguided intentions + guns = situations in Israel, Northern Ireland, etc. Which tells us… what, now? That misguided intentions, not guns, cause problems. So why is it bad for people to be allowed to bear arms? > [@](#): > > Wow. It takes a minute to grasp the sheep stupidity of that statement. Simply responding to the stupidity of your original point, old chum. Gandhi succeeded because he was facing a rational adversary. The necessity of having arms is based on the theory that, sooner or later, you may face an irrational adversary. Or do you really think that some crook breaking into your house will be as “thoughtful” as England was? Do you really think Gandhi would have just sat in the dirt if someone was trying to rape his wife or kids? I never use this smiley, but… :wally ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/49 "2001-08-23T06:23:51Z")
I suppose it’s fine to give up your rights, including self-defense. It’s not fine for anyone else to take _my_ right to self defense, however. What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say about self defense again? ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/50 "2001-08-23T06:32:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > \*\*Oh yes, and you might want to get a source that spells his name correctly for future use. \*\* The spelling mistake was mine. The source is real. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/51 "2001-08-23T06:52:46Z")
> [@](#): > > What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say about self defense again? Taking “self defense” in the broadest sense of the term, it starts with this… > [@](#): > > Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Which basically agrees with the “original intent” (or, part of it, anyway) of the 2nd Amendment. Then it goes on (as somebody has already mentioned)… > [@](#): > > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and **security of person.** (Bolding mine) I interpret that as a drumroll of support for the idea of self defense. And, finally… > [@](#): > > Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community Since the U.S. has a strong gun culture, I have the right to participate in this culture. So nyah-nyah! (That last one was a bit of a joke…) ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/52 "2001-08-23T07:41:01Z")
**MysterEcks** says: > [@](#): > > You get a lot of lip service for them worldwide, anyway. Nonetheless, if the KGB or the Gestapo or whatever the local equivalent is says their citizens have no such freedoms, then those citizens don’t–not unless the holders of this worldwide consensus are willing to go in and impose those freedoms by force. I find this prospect unlikely, especially with, say, China. Fundamental difference in perspective of human rights. I say they are universal, irrespective of what the local regime says. (The US government and the EU agree with me, which is why they have imposed sanctions on Myanmar. But, they don’t always agree with me, otherwise they’d impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia.) > [@](#): > > Where exactly do you think “rights” come from? The mind of God? Great thinkers? Manifestations of the mass unconsciousness? They have to come from somewhere, after all. > > In the real world a “right” which the government refuses to recognize is just a nice phrase to repeat to yourself over and over after they throw you in a cell for being a troublemaker. The thing which troubles your view is that international law recognises rights which exist, even if denied by the law of an particular country. This bothers me, though, because it still means they’re a legal construct. **Vorfod** Sorry you misunderstood the sarcasm point, as it wasn’t directed to you: look again and you’ll see I did repeat what you said. > [@](#): > > Are you trying to tell me that regimes that are resistant to the concept of universal human rights will actually listen to the rebuttal of their arguments? Even if America rescinded the right to bear arms, those sort of regimes would find another poor excuse to use as ammunition for their resistance. I can’t see that restricting the rights of Americans for an exercise that is bound to end in futility can be worthwhile. Yes, they do, but so far, at least since getting clobbered in 1993, the West isn’t doing too well. There was a World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna and, led by China, Syria and Iran, the declaration approved by the assembly contained no endorsement of freedom of speech, expression, religion and the press, and so was a shadow of the Universal Declaration approved by the UN post WW2, when the West had more clout. As an aside, I laugh when Americans complain that the UN doesn’t serve their interests: this is because the West is now outnumbered, and the UN is now more representative than it was post WW2. It also highlights the diplomatic sophistication of non-Western countries. They took the issue seriously in 1993, and creamed the ill-prepared Western diplomats. This happened again this year, when the US was embarrassingly booted off the UNHRC. Other civilisations take the issue of human rights claims seriously enough to try and scuttle them, with repeated success. My point was, why give them more ammunition? (as **weird Al Einstein** says, the pun was not intended) ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/53 "2001-08-23T08:24:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say about self defense again? > > Taking “self defense” in the broadest sense of the term, it starts with this… > > > [@](#): > > > > Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, > > Which basically agrees with the “original intent” (or, part of it, anyway) of the 2nd Amendment. Then it goes on (as somebody has already mentioned)… > > > [@](#): > > > > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and **security of person.** > > (Bolding mine) > > I interpret that as a drumroll of support for the idea of self defense. > > And, finally… > > > [@](#): > > > > Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community > > Since the U.S. has a strong gun culture, I have the right to participate in this culture. So nyah-nyah! > > (That last one was a bit of a joke…) \*\* Actually, not that much of a joke. My initial reaction is that I think that kind of has some merit. I don’t think though that “security of person” equates to “the right to bear arms”. Doesn’t it mean the right to be free from molestation, but not to prevent the molestation? The “right to bear arms” seems to me to be a self-help remedy to maintain one’s rights, rather than a right per se. The right to bear arms contests the right to be treated fairly and justly: if that right is maintained, then there is no need to have a right to bear arms. Its a fall back position. I might even agree that the right to resist is a supplementary right, and from that stems the right to bear arms: but is it a right as fundamental as, for example, freedom of speech? ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/54 "2001-08-23T09:53:16Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think though that “security of person” equates to “the right to bear arms”. Doesn’t it mean the right to be free from molestation, but not to prevent the molestation? It can be argued that way. However, in order to guarantee freedom from molestation without allowing those who are to enjoy that freedom access to a means to fight off would-be molesters, you would need to have created a near-utopia. Crime is a simple fact of life… and we have to live with it. We do this by (here’s one of my favorite phrases) preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. > [@](#): > > The “right to bear arms” seems to me to be a self-help remedy to maintain one’s rights, rather than a right per se. Yeah, I know. I don’t deny it. Another way to think about it is “A person has the right to defend his rights”. > [@](#): > > The right to bear arms contests the right to be treated fairly and justly: if that right is maintained, then there is no need to have a right to bear arms. But there will always be those who will NOT treat people fairly and justly. Call me pessimistic if you must. > [@](#): > > I might even agree that the right to resist is a supplementary right, and from that stems the right to bear arms: but is it a right as fundamental as, for example, freedom of speech? I couldn’t say… it depends on your worldview. Some people, for example, probably don’t consider Freedom Of Speech to be very important (I don’t know of any off-hand, however). I don’t consider the Right To Bear Arms any more or any less important… just different. It deals with a different aspect of human existence. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/55 "2001-08-23T10:15:20Z")
That’s a fair post, **SPOOFE**. Can’t say I disagree with anything you’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/56 "2001-08-23T11:02:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > \*\*Oh yes, and you might want to get a source that spells his name correctly for future use. \*\* And you may want to familiarize yourself with two centuries of Federal 2nd Amendment case law, including what exactly constitutes “the militia” and who is in charge of it. It will save you considerable embarrassment. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/57 "2001-08-23T14:38:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > **Sorry about that misinterpretation of who was being oppressed, but that seems less relevant that the fact that guns were being used FOR oppression.** No problem. That is, provided you acknowledge that they were also used to RESIST oppression. Who gets the credit for building a house - the hammer, or the carpenter wielding it? Who carved the David statue - Michaelangelo, or his chisel? Who painted The Last Supper - was it Da Vinci or his paintbrush? Who was guilty for so many killings and eating the victims - Jeffrey Dahmer or his fork? Pretty silly questions, right? And when somebody is stabbed brutally, it’s a crime committed by a violent or deranged person. But when sombody is shot to death, it’s a shooting, not a crime committed by a sick person. Why? > [@](#): > > _the 2nd Amendment_ > **A _well regualted_ Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.** > > Don’t tell me about the intent of the 2nd amendment, because its stated right in there. It is to have a _well regulated_, thus under government control, militia. Unless you’re in a well regulated milita, then you’re not fulfilling the amendment’s aim. \*\* No, as has been ably pointed out already, well-regulated in that context does not mean under government control. The Army was already under government control, and the militia were civilian citizens fighting with their own weapons for defense of country. On the contrary, if you could walk up to an armorer in 1776 and tell him you want your rifle regulated, do you think he would give you some rules telling you whether and where you could use it? No, he would sight it in, make sure the action is oiled and working properly, etc. “Well-Regulated” in the sense used in the Constitution means properly equipped. A well-regulated militia is the whole of the people capable of bearing arms, properly equipped, willing and able to fight. I invite you to read [this article](http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm), which is testimony before the Senate by Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA school of law. Some excerpts: > [@](#): > > The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a “right of the people,” not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. … These rights are clearly individual – they protect “the right of the people” by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right. > > What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, … ? It turns out that there’s nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution’s Free Press Clause, for instance, reads > > The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . > > Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public. Additionally, Prof. Volokh had this to say on “Well-regulated”: > [@](#): > > The second clause guarantees a “right of the people,” which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a “well-regulated militia,” a legal term of art that means “the body of the people capable of bearing arms” (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention’s proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment) – the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit. And > [@](#): > > Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure: > > _Rhode Island Free Press Clause:_ > The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. Can anybody seriously make the claim that this says only people employed by newspapers may publish their sentiments? > [@](#): > > _Massachusetts Free Press Clause:_ > The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth. How about this one? > [@](#): > > _Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause:_ > The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. > > _New Hampshire Venue Clause:_ > In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed. I really don’t see how this is so difficult to understand. Because of X, Right Y shall not be infringed. X does not Qualify Y, it explains it. And since gun control advocates so enjoy saying how “Everybody knows” that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, and that the weight of law is behind that statement, **I for one would like to see some citations now**. I’m tired of citing case after case of Supreme Court decisions that simply get ignored by the opposition because they don’t support their point of view. So I’m looking forward to what you guys can come up with. Show me Court decisions ruling that the 2nd Amendment refers to State Militia, and not individual persons. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/58 "2001-08-23T16:20:29Z")
KALASHNIKOV – > [@](#): > > I was responding to your apparant disagreement > with my previous statement, “Actually the bill of rights is mostly about what the government is NOT allowed to do.” I did not, and do not, disagree with this. I disagreed with your initial rhetorical questions “where does the government have the right to do X?” to the extent that it implied that the government has “rights,” which of course it does not. JOE COOL – I accept your definitions. I knew “permission” was the wrong word to use, but I couldn’t think of another. DAVE STEWART – > [@](#): > > 1. Is the right to protect your human rights a human right in itself? Intuitively, I don’t think so. By way of analogy, if you put your money in a safe, the safe doesn’t become the money. The safe may be valuable and useful, but it doesn’t become the object of value. First, no one has limited the discussion of self-defense to the defense of human rights. Most generally, it is couched in terms of defending self, family, or property. Therefore the question is “is the right to defend yourself a human right?” If not, why not? Second, I think your analogy is a bad one. The right (or ability) to defend oneself (to act in a particular way) is clearly analogous to the right (or ability) to speak one’s mind (to act in a particular way. One right does not fit in the other; one is not intended to protect the other. Third, and with all due respect, you will find that having reached conclusions “intuitively” doesn’t generally cut much ice in Great Debates. > [@](#): > > Setting aside the issue of pacifist resistance to armed oppression, there are mechanisms should, at least in theory, enable you to resist oppression. Not if the government itself is your oppressor, which was the chief concern of the American founding fathers. > [@](#): > > You can win a court case against the government for trampling over your rights. You can protest in public against governmental actions which you deem repressive. The media can bring public attention to an oppressive act of government (or corporation, for that matter). The courts are a branch of the government, so if it is your oppressor, they will not avail you. You cannot protest in public if the government does not allow it. You cannot expect the media to bring public attention to oppression when they are owned by or themselves oppressed by the government. I said “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,” to which you replied “Hopefully I’ve answered that above.” Well, no, actually, you haven’t, because you have not addressed the right to self-defense in the context of defense of the _self_, as opposed to defense of other human rights. > [@](#): > > I can see the value in resistance, and can even see the moral obligation of resistance: but I don’t see it as a human right. But, again, you have not articulated why not, except that it is something you “intuitively feel.” > [@](#): > > …except that in so far as Western traditions follow Judeo–Christian beliefs, pacifist resistance seems to be more of a core precept (if not followed in practice). Pacifism has _not_ historically been considered a core precept of Christianity, and is not so considered today, unless you limit your definition of “Christianity” to pacifist sects such as the Quakers and the Mennonites. There is no reason I can think of in generalized Christian thought or history why the right to defend oneself could not be considered a God-given right, fully reconciliable with Christian beliefs. > [@](#): > > I don’t know that belief in God has a connection to human rights, as a source of the rights. Individualism developed in the 14th and 15th centuries in Christendom, long after the rise of Christianity. The fact that one developed after the other does not mean that the later could not develop out of the earlier, or that the two are then the same thing. In any event, I am not trying to personally argue that rights are God-given (though I personally believe they are). I am merely pointing out that in the United States at least, the assumption that rights are _inherent_ and may not be taken away was _originally_ premisd on the idea that rights are given by God and cannot be taken away by Man. (“We hold these truths to be self evident: . . . That [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”) In this regard, my only question is that, if _you_ consider certain rights to be inherent (as you apparently do), then where do you think those inherent rights spring from? If instead you consider them an artificial construct, then you are obviously free to pick and choose those powers you will consider “rights” and those you will not. > [@](#): > > The trouble is, I’m not sure on the source of “human rights” other than as a instinctive sense of the fundamental entitlements of a human being. Owning a gun seems to me to be something other than fundamental. But I am not talking specifically about the ability to own a gun; I am talking more generally about the right to defend oneself. But I think this nicely encapsulates my problem with your premise. If you consider rights to be inherent (for whatever reason, and from whatever source), then why do you view the right to defend yourself as “artificial” when the right to express yourself is not? I would also comment, in passing, that the _recognition_ of human rights by governments is always an artificial (and almost always a legal, or quasi-legal) construct. It seems to me self-evident that regardless of what we may say _theoretically_ about the rights possessed by human kind, as a _practical_ matter we only have human rights because our governments allow us to, and only to the extent they allow us to. You may argue that a Chinese person has a right to self-expression, and I will not argue with you in theory. But in the real world, he or she does not possess that right in any meaningful way because he or she does not possess the ability to exercise it. ---
**Author:** ![MysterEcks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MysterEcks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysterEcks)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/59 "2001-08-23T22:46:59Z")
**Dave Stewart** said: > [@](#): > > Fundamental difference in perspective of human rights. I say they are universal, irrespective of what the local regime says. If the local regime won’t recognize them, then they at least might as well not exist. Words are just words, without the mechanisms and will to enforce what they say–defining them as “human rights,” “laws,” or “handed down from (your favorite deity here)” doesn’t change that. > [@](#): > > The US government and the EU agree with me, which is why they have imposed sanctions on Myanmar. But, they don’t always agree with me, otherwise they’d impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia. So it would seem that whether or not the people of a given country have universal human rights depends on the economic power (or military power–see China) the country has–weak ones will be sanctioned for not going along, and strong ones will occasionally cause hand-wringing. As a principle, this ain’t much to hang your hat on. > [@](#): > > The thing which troubles your view is that international law recognises rights which exist, even if denied by the law of an particular country. You seem to be of the opinion that international law is something other than what the major powers say it is, and further that what the major powers say it is has nothing to do with their own goals. Go back to your previous quote and answer this: do you honestly think the US and EU would enforce sanctions against another country to uphold the concept of rights _which the US and EU didn’t themselves agree with?_ > [@](#): > > This bothers me, though, because it still means they’re a legal construct. You aren’t going to get away from this, because while my reply back on page one was a bit flip, it was true enough–the concept of what should be a “right” must come from somewhere. And since rights either operate against government or must be enforced by government–or be totally ineffective, in which case they don’t really exist–it follows that however you define them, such rights must ultimately be legal constructs. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491/60 "2001-08-24T03:31:49Z")
I actually have to concede I think I’ve lost this one. Lots of food for thought. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/77491.md?page=2)