On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
Schadenfreude <
klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
>what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.
Oh, *everyone* "actually knows what the Second Amendment means"; the
only problem is that, if you have a hundred people, you will have a
hundred different interpretations of its meaning... to each person,
their individual interpretation being intuitive and obvious. You'd
have a stronger position if you'd simply accept that and accommodate
the equivocation within your argument.
Is having a gun a human "right" per se in the same sense that the
right to believe and worship (or not) as one chooses choose is a
right? I would suggest that it has never been thus in any country in
the world; I'll take the United States as a representative example:
I don't have to go back far in history for my first point; when we
invaded Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, our first act after gaining site
control was to go door to door collecting all weapons. We would never
have gotten away with confiscating copies of the Qur'an; we didn't
smash the publishing machinery; we made sure Saddam had a lawyer and
received at least something that could be called a trial; however, we
confiscated the guns and nobody raised so much as an eyebrow.
If a person immigrates to the US, as soon as he or she sets foot on US
soil, the person may choose his or her (I'll just adopt the masculine)
church; he may speak and read freely; if charged with a crime, he has
the right to a lawyer... but he cannot have a gun.
If a US citizen is placed under a restraining order, he may attend
church; however, he cannot be in possession of a gun even though the
restraining order may have nothing to do with a gun.
If a person is convicted of a crime where the possible jail sentence
exceeds one year, then the person may never again own a gun regardless
of the crime or the sentence of the jury. Would we ever say that
anyone convicted of a crime cannot be a Methodist? Could that person
be ordered not to read the biography of Malcolm X? Would we deny them
representation in subsequent trials? I think not.
In the US, there are many restrictive laws addressing weapons; there
is no consistent law. A community may enact a local law. The Supreme
Court has never asserted that any of these violated the US
Constitution.
Thus, I suggest that, even in the US, weapon possession has never been
treated as a fundamental human right. The rights one enjoys in the US
are generally consistent with those exercised in any politically
stable country in the world... have you ever read, for example, the
Australian Constitution? What about the constitutions of France or
Germany? Fer cryin' out loud, the Bolivian Constitution guarantees
the same rights... and a Bolivian citizen with a clean record may also
have a gun.
I'm not really trying to gore your sacred cow, buddy, and I support
responsible gun ownership; however, such is not and never has been
regarded as a fundamental human right anyplace in the world including
in the United States. You have the *ability* to own a gun, not the
right to.
Jones