Being a creationist it is quite clear that Newt would believe he was gifted the right but even as an atheist Locke, Hume, & Rousseau’s ideas still work.
In your provided example there would have been no authority that would have punished you for killing the puma first.
Granted, the jungle is a free-for-all, that doesn’t mean that rights still exist there.
I have no idea how this man isn’t in a room with rubber wallpaper.
A third of the country is uneducated and misinformed enough to think he’s right on all issues.
Well remember it was in response to the divine-right theory of kingship.
There may be an argument that natural rights do not exist but it would never apply to a jungle as a party or a puma, they can not enter into contracts by choice or by force.
What the USA needs is a functioning democracy - something that is responsive and malleable, not this evolved, bizarre caricature that masquerades as representative.
How does this relate to Newt’s latest ramble?
In what way do we not have a functioning republic if others share the same rights afforded to us?
You don’t need me to answer - who funds the ‘representatives’? Who’s interests are served? Why is there even a ‘tea party’? Etc, etc.
Sorry, but it’s a nonsense of a democracy; why do you think of all the hundred plus democracies subsequently achieved - and are still being achieved - none follow that model? It’s too perfect, right?
Wait…what are you claiming here, Newt wanting others to the right to arms relates to the tea party how?
But I would find groups like the tea party to be a normal outcome of a democracy, if there weren’t groups I didn’t disagree with it would be fishy.
Some of the posts here are confusing. How does submitting a treaty to the UN equate to conquest and a demand that other nations submit to our iron fist? He could submit it and every country in the world could refuse to ratify. All he would be doing is echoing the words of Jefferson that it is the right and duty of free people to overthrow tyrannical government. And you can’t do that by throwing rocks.
It is an American idea, but one that IMHO has merit and other societies should strongly consider allowing their citizens to have these freedoms.
But other countries might not consider it to be a freedom at all. Put the shoe on the other foot-some country in the U.N. submits a treaty calling for all nations to heavily regulate, if not ban, the possession of personal firearms. Not only wouldn’t Congress consider such a measure, but cries of “Path to One World Government!” would go forth.
I think it was mentioned upthread that similar treaties have been proposed. Obviously, the U.S. will not consider, let alone ratify those. But I think that is one of the main reasons for the U.N.: to throw a proposal out there and give your best argument as to why it is such a good thing.
We aren’t imposing our will on countries; we are just saying that we believe citizens have a right to keep personal firearms, here’s why, and we urge you to adopt this treaty. Get’s voted down 165-3 in the General Assembly? Oh well, no hard feelings.
What other two countries vote for it?
Piss of Yank, most people in Australia don’t want more guns and applaud our current laws.
With our low crimes rates, especially murders we just be on to something?
This is confusing, these two paragraphs seem to be contradictory. If having lost the vote 165-3 the US won’t even consider, let alone ratify, a decision of the UN, what is the point of these votes? Or are you saying only votes that agree with the US would be enforced? Or that all votes are only indicative?
Explain to me what you think should happen if in the morning the UN votes 165-3 to uphold a universal right to healthcare (the US being one of the noes) and in the afternoon the UN votes 165-3 to uphold a universal right to bear arms (the UK being one of the noes).
Then ponder what the likely margins in both votes would really be.
The mans an idiot.
If everyone had the right to bear arms in the U.K. there’d be a bloodbath within weeks.
So Gingrich is saying he’s going to tell all of the other countries in the world that they can have a right to own guns of they want to or they can not have such a right if they don’t want to. He’s basically just acknowledging that countries can pass their own laws.
Why exactly does he need to be President to do that? Can’t he just go ahead and make the public declaration now? Sure, it would have no legal weight behind it but as you point out, neither would his proposed Presidential treaty.
What is the definition of a bloodbath? I think that gun crime and violence would increase… But would it soar? Would it explode out of all proportion, or would it merely go up a bit?
In fact, rather than the short term, I think the greater harm would be over the long term, as the guns filtered downward into the hands of the worst possible people. I think there would likely be a short spike in crime stats, but it would drop again as people came to their senses…followed by a long, slow, steady, and slight increase over time, as guns fell into the hands of those few people who have no senses to come to.
Why exactly? I mean, what would be different now then before guns first began to be restricted in the UK back in the 1920s?
The U.K. is a very different place from the 1920s.