The answer to this question really boils down to a an even more simple idea. Do you believe rights are granted by society or are your rights granted by birth? IF you think rights are given to you by a collective society then you will not think gun ownership (Right to self defense) is a natural right. If you believe you are born with certain natural rights, one being the right to defend yourself, then you will likely see gun ownership as a natural right. The old expression "God made man, but Samuel colt made him equal" applies to this I think. A 90 pound women can defend herself from a 200 pound man with a pistol.
Of course governments can regulate human rights - the death penalty is an example. It doesn't change the nature of human rights though.
If you believe you are born with certain natural rights, one being the right to defend yourself, then you will likely see gun ownership as a natural right. That doesn't follow. The right to defend yourself no worries. Gun ownership has nothing to do with that.
Well then... All of the descriptors you use for "human right" apply as well to the right to arms. How is it not a human right?
Sure it does. You're going to use the best tool technology offers to defend yourself with, be that a sword, a sharp stick, or a firearm. Being able to create tools with our minds, and have the natural ability to use these cool nature-provided thumb things means using tools in defense of our lives is as natural as the right to defend yourself.
What is the most common and effective way from a 90 pound women to defend herself against a 200 pound man.
I agree with you. I believe that self-defense is among the most basic human rights and natural rights that exists. Thus, as a corollary, the right to keep and bear arms is also a basic human right. After all, one cannot claim that a 100-pound woman has a right to self-defense again two 250-pound male attackers, but, at the same time, deny her the right to use a gun to thwart these attackers. That's no different than Marie Antoinette allegedly stating, "Let them eat cake" (in reference to the starving masses): It conveys an outlook of callous indifference to an obvious injustice.
I don't believe owning gun is a human right. There are some humans that should not own a gun. I do however believe that it should be an overall national right and law abiding citizens of their respective countries should be able to purchase a gun and keep it in their home to use as self defense.
Perhaps it's better to say that people have the right to defend themselves with the best means possible, instead of saying everyone should own a gun. A gun is just a means to an end after all. Some may not be comfortable with guns, or simply chose to defend their lives with a spork. Either way. There are other classifications of people who shouldn't own guns of course. You have unsafe idiots who have only survived so far because society works hard to keep them alive, and then you have criminals, who shouldn't be free to obtain guns anyway.
Correct I'm not saying we should force people to have guns, just that they should be free to do so if the choose. Not all criminals should be barred from having guns. Violent criminals and those you call unsafe idiots, I call mentally unstable should not be allowed to obtain a gun. Also a but off topic but America needs to vastly improve the system it uses to care for those with mental issues, everything from depression to post traumatic stress
Like the right to own and carry a spear or nuclear device. *shrug* Anything can be a right, but somethings we want to be entitled to make it harder on the community.
And again: All of the descriptors you use for "human right" apply as well to the right to arms. So, how is it not a human right?
Is it a human right then to own a bazooka, flamethrower, howitzer, tank, or a figher jet? Can each individual own exactly what is made for killing? Like our military does.
Who/what determines what is natural vs human rights? In reality, the only true right is 'might'. Unless some legal form of system is set up. And then human vs natural vs other rights are determined by the system.
Is Gun Ownership a Human Right? For sure not ... but the right of self defense is of course a human right and this right has nothing to do with right of a gun ownership.
It is about self defense. Where does one draw the line as to what they can use as self defense? Your entire argument is self defense means we can own something to protect us as best as possible. Who, what are we protecting ourselves from?
OK... what does the right to gun ownership have to "do with"? - - - Updated - - - "Is Gun Ownership a Human Right?" There need be no discussion of anything outside whatever qualifies as a gun. Your questions, therefore, are nonsense.
The right of self-defense includes not automatically to have the right of owing an own gun. The gun ownership has not automatically to do with right of self-defense, because a gun is only a (effective) tool for self-defense but not the only one. The right of gun ownership includes also right to have a gun for hunting or any other sort of gun sport too which has nothing to do with self-defense. This right of gun ownership includes also the right to have a collection of (old) historical weapons and this has again nothing to do with self-defense ... or do you buy an expansive version of an Winchester rifle from 1886 for self-defense purposes? So right of gun ownership has only in part to do with self-defense and not in general ... and the right of self-defense includes NOT the right of gun ownership automatically ... it can include, but must not, because there are other ways. If a drunken fool in a bar attacks you unreasoned and wants to beat the *peep* out of you, then you need no right of gun ownership to for self-defense! If a guy threats you with his 0.22cal to give him your money, an own gun is an option for self-defense here of course, but only if you are fast and good enough...
In other words... The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The second amendment was done at a time where the next Sherriff of any sort of "police" was days away and where the "lets go west" settlers were in constant danger of hostile natives and / or criminals. The Militia issue is backed on this background too - keyword: Minuteman! Where is any real legally militia, installed and linked with state or federal government organizations today existing? 99% are the private one which are backing their existing with this amendment and majority of them are radical movements only, some of them can even be rated as potential terrorists. Traditions and threats change in world ... but the law does not meet these changes often, too often. Aside any gun law discussion are enough silly laws from yesterday existing in the USA and elsewhere which are today only ridiculous.
