In a speech before the NRA last Friday, former Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed the following:
Regardless of whether or not Gingrich could implement this politically, do you think he’s correct? A few points:[ul]
[li]Some nations outside the US already have a right to bear arms in their constitution–Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala are three examples nearby. Others have a strong tradition of popular gun ownership–Yemen and Switzerland are #2 and #3 behind the US in guns per citizen. However, the majority of world nations do not provide a documented right for its citizens to bear arms.[/li][li]Widespread gun ownership in some areas has led to citizen militias that commit continuing atrocities. I’m thinking specifically here of the Lords Resistance Army operating in several central Africa nations–the object of the Kony 2012 on-line campaign earlier this year.[/li][li]Does Newt’s logic apply only to this particular amendment in the Bill of Rights, or does the same logic apply to other amendments?[/li][/ul]
Interesting what will happen in the next country we invade – I guess we can’t disarm the citizens to keep them from shooting at our own soldiers.
In fact, soldiers too would have a universal right to bear arms. I guess we can’t disarm captured ones either – it’s not like they’re criminals or anything.
Aside from that, Newt’s suggestion is preposterous. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies explicitly to US citizens and the US government, and in certain cases to people of other nationalities living within our borders. It says so explicitly and repeatedly.
I don’t think Newt’s logic applies to much of anything really other than the standard rule that a public speaker should know his audience.
America has a long history of telling other countries why we do things better over here and there’s nothing horrendously wrong with that. We just need to get used to the concept of other countries telling to get our own house in order first.
Disclaimer: I am an owner of multiple firearms and I do not apologize for that fact. I also don’t see any inherent conflict between wide-scale private ownership of firearms and the return of sanity and federally administered uniformity regarding their legal use. YMMV
This is poorly worded. Militant groups existed, and guns being what they are, they found it easier to committ atrocities using guns. I don’t think gun ownership led to the creation of these kinds of groups: they existed and armed themselves. And people who are sympathetic to Gingrich’s idea would say that the solution to murderous thugs with guns is to let their intended victims have guns, too. That’s not what you would call a perfect solution, but maybe it’s a deterrant. Certainly if you have a group of people being menaced by a dictator or a Lord’s Resistance Army, they’d rather have weapons than not.
I’m not confindent in your interpretation. I’m pretty sure the laws of war allow for this.
That’s not in dispute. He’s saying he would propose a U.N. treaty with wording similar to the Second Amendment.
Newt wasn’t really talking to gun owners, he was talking to gun manufacturers. A billion people in India alone are going to need sidearms, if we can just get the Newt plan passed, and the USofA is the number one armament manufaturer in the world.
Does Gingrich propose letting the United Nations override national sovereignty? He said he wants a UN treaty to establish gun rights in every country. What happens if another UN treaty established universal public health care? Would the United States have to submit to that?
There is so much stupid in Newt’s statement I don’t know where to start.
First, he makes the leap that because the Declaration of Independence alludes to “certain inalienable rights” that these include the rights enumerated in the BoR. But the Declaration was written over a decade before the Bill of Rights, so cannot be referring to those rights specifically. Nothing in the Constitution claims that the Bill of Rights are “universal” or endowed by our Creator.
You know, I was going to go on from there, but really it’s just too mind-blowingly stupid to argue. The United States has no authority, moral or legal, to unilaterally impress any concept of human rights on the rest of the planet.
If other countries wanted such laws, they would enact them. The fact that they haven’t pretty much tells you that it isn’t really a universally agreed-upon nor even desired situation.
Of course it’s made-up bullshit, but he’s still not saying that the Bill of Rights has legal force outside the U.S. He’s saying the right to bear arms should be extended to people in other countries because that right come from humanity’s creator and blah blah blah. We say those kinds of things about the right to free speech and freedom of religion - we regard them as human rights that everyone should be able to exercise regardless of what local law says - and he’s doing the same with the right to bear arms.
What if a country doesn’t feel like it needs a “well regulated militia” or it isn’t interested in “the security of a free state.” Could it infringe on the Newt given right to bear arms then?
It makes more sense with regard to the rights to speak and think, though, because the ability to speak and think are universal to humans. If some god had wanted us to universally bear arms, he would have given us bear arms - ie claws, or some other form of integrated weapon.
Since he’s doubtlessly talking about guns specifically, it’s doubly moronic to claim that God has been giving us the right to possess them since time immemorial. The only possible way to frame this even semi-intelligently is if he’s saying that humanity has the inalienable right to own anything it can get its mitts on, possibly excepting things acquired through other crime. Which means that he obviously should think that man has an inalienable right to possess drugs too, and, of course, nukes.
And if he thinks man has the inalienable right to be able to acquire anything he wants, as in to have all such things provided to him for taking or buying (and man has had these rights since time immemorial), well, we’re back in looney-land again.
There’s no right to free thought - as a teenager I used to say the Constitution protects freedom of speech but not freedom of thought, so you can say whatever you want as long as you don’t think about it first - and that argument about natural abilities doesn’t apply to freedom of religious practice or things like assembly or redress of grievances. And I think most of us would also agree that the right to due process and protection from cruel and unusual punishment and from unreasonable search and seizure should also be universal. None of those comes from any inherent human ability. If you can argue some of those Constitutional rights should be universal, you can argue that others should, too. I’m not saying you’ll convince a lot of people, but it’s not inherently absurd.
Perhaps if Gingrich suggested instead that mankind possesses a universal right to arm bears, the world might look upon him as less of a batty old kook.
In all seriousness, even if Gingrich were elected and submitted such a treaty, the UN would be about as interested in passing it as it is in lighting itself on fire, seeing as most civilized nations have a vested interest in the diametric opposite of gun proliferation amongst private citizens. Quite frankly, letting Iran and North Korea fiddle about all they might want with nuclear warheads, would most likely cost fewer lives than a binding UN resolution instating an unalienable right to bear arms.
I’m pretty sure the laws of war allow for this.