100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Good People Should Be Armed | |
|---|---|
|
|
 The US, except for China, has the highest number of traffic related deaths per year. Perhaps we should get rid of autos too? car driving has common sense regulations, no one proposed for anyone to 'get rid' of guns,,, No, just the unalienable right for citizens to own them within the law, and without violating the rights of others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! where are these 'gungrabbers'? and why always Assuming those who aren't gun enthusiasts are therefore aligned with some other entity which happens to agree with some of their opinions? good point. I do not like the pro gun lobby/ NRA at all, but I very much believe in the 2nd ammendment. I would own a gun if I lived in a rural area. I have shot a gun and used a gun. (legally). I do not belong to any group, organization or political party with any kind of agenda. My agenda is only reasonable control and it is a personal belief because I THINK for MYSELF. The debate is, "reasonable", what that is, not whether controls should exist. Certainly anyone with any type of criminal record should not have a gun. Military style weapons have no place in residential neighborhoods (except perhaps MAYBE as souveniers with NO ammo). Again, reasonable controls protect the law abiding citizens right to a self defense or to hunt wild game, and hopefully also protect the rights of those who would be victims of fire arm crimes. I don't like the gun lobby because they refuse to compromise or acknowledge that the victims are the greater importance. If some gun owners have to accept some controls for the good of society than that is that. We all have to accept reasonable controls for the benefit of the larger society. I'd love to drive 90 mph in the median. HA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! where are these 'gungrabbers'? and why always Assuming those who aren't gun enthusiasts are therefore aligned with some other entity which happens to agree with some of their opinions? good point. I do not like the pro gun lobby/ NRA at all, but I very much believe in the 2nd ammendment. I would own a gun if I lived in a rural area. I have shot a gun and used a gun. (legally). I do not belong to any group, organization or political party with any kind of agenda. My agenda is only reasonable control and it is a personal belief because I THINK for MYSELF. The debate is, "reasonable", what that is, not whether controls should exist. Certainly anyone with any type of criminal record should not have a gun. Military style weapons have no place in residential neighborhoods (except perhaps MAYBE as souveniers with NO ammo). Again, reasonable controls protect the law abiding citizens right to a self defense or to hunt wild game, and hopefully also protect the rights of those who would be victims of fire arm crimes. I don't like the gun lobby because they refuse to compromise or acknowledge that the victims are the greater importance. If some gun owners have to accept some controls for the good of society than that is that. We all have to accept reasonable controls for the benefit of the larger society. I'd love to drive 90 mph in the median. HA I scares me every time I see someone use the word "common sense" in a debate, especially about guns. If you go to the obnoxious graphic at the top of this page and adjust the murders by the 5% of the population who are black and lawless and commit 50% of the crime, the picture might look much different. I see the words "common sense" used to explain why a fundamental constitutional right should be reduced, but nothing about how the rights of the 5% who are committing 50% of the crime should have their rights reduced. "Common sense" would say that the profiling which has done so much good in New York City should be expanded ... but most of the same sellers of "common sense" say it should be reduced. I hear how "common sense" should dictate how "hunting weapons" or "Target weapons" are OK but military style weapons should be banned when it is the use of military weapons that the right to bear arms was intended. Discussion by Congress of the recent unconstitutional use of power by the US president to pick and choose laws to enforce combined with the overt action to eliminate gun ownership by citizens should alarm all citizens. Use a little common sense. A right that depends on anyone's interpretation of "common sense" isn't a right. BTW, if the feds enforced existing gun laws, the graphic would look much different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're lucky that you have a law for self-defence in the States? If somebody breaks into your house, here in the UK and you tackle them. It's you that can be treated as the real criminal, as he can charge you with assault. While he gets a fine or community work at Court for housebreaking, you're looking at Prison. Crazy laws, but true. Carry a handgun over here and it's 5 years in jail. That's what we have to contend with!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 12/08/13 11:17 AM
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! where are these 'gungrabbers'? and why always Assuming those who aren't gun enthusiasts are therefore aligned with some other entity which happens to agree with some of their opinions? good point. I do not like the pro gun lobby/ NRA at all, but I very much believe in the 2nd ammendment. I would own a gun if I lived in a rural area. I have shot a gun and used a gun. (legally). I do not belong to any group, organization or political party with any kind of agenda. My agenda is only reasonable control and it is a personal belief because I THINK for MYSELF. The debate is, "reasonable", what that is, not whether controls should exist. Certainly anyone with any type of criminal record should not have a gun. Military style weapons have no place in residential neighborhoods (except perhaps MAYBE as souveniers with NO ammo). Again, reasonable controls protect the law abiding citizens right to a self defense or to hunt wild game, and hopefully also protect the rights of those who would be victims of fire arm crimes. I don't like the gun lobby because they refuse to compromise or acknowledge that the victims are the greater importance. If some gun owners have to accept some controls for the good of society than that is that. We all have to accept reasonable controls for the benefit of the larger society. I'd love to drive 90 mph in the median. HA I scares me every time I see someone use the word "common sense" in a debate, especially about guns. If you go to the obnoxious graphic at the top of this page and adjust the murders by the 5% of the population who are black and lawless and commit 50% of the crime, the picture might look much different. I see the words "common sense" used to explain why a fundamental constitutional right should be reduced, but nothing about how the rights of the 5% who are committing 50% of the crime should have their rights reduced. "Common sense" would say that the profiling which has done so much good in New York City should be expanded ... but most of the same sellers of "common sense" say it should be reduced. I hear how "common sense" should dictate how "hunting weapons" or "Target weapons" are OK but military style weapons should be banned when it is the use of military weapons that the right to bear arms was intended. Discussion by Congress of the recent unconstitutional use of power by the US president to pick and choose laws to enforce combined with the overt action to eliminate gun ownership by citizens should alarm all citizens. Use a little common sense. A right that depends on anyone's interpretation of "common sense" isn't a right. BTW, if the feds enforced existing gun laws, the graphic would look much different. this is a nice attempt at diversion, but those who are committing crimes are and should be restricted from having guns mixing and matching violent crimes to try to racialize GUN RELATED DEATHS doesn't work either truth is amongst blacks and whites, the MAJORITY of crimes are committed INTRARACIALLY and not INTERRACIALLY, so us would still rank pretty high considering the gun death rate amongst white folks is 9 per 100,000 there is also no evidence that what happens in nyc concerning profiling is 'working',,, crime there has been dropping before those policies were initiated common sense shouldn't be scary, its only scary to those who don't want to be held to it,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're lucky that you have a law for self-defence in the States? If somebody breaks into your house, here in the UK and you tackle them. It's you that can be treated as the real criminal, as he can charge you with assault. While he gets a fine or community work at Court for housebreaking, you're looking at Prison. Crazy laws, but true. Carry a handgun over here and it's 5 years in jail. That's what we have to contend with! our country is likewise litigious with ridiculous lawsuits, we are not that 'lucky' in that area consider yourself lucky when it comes to guns,, in the above scenario everyone comes out with their lives, that is why you have a .25 per 100,000 gun death rate compared to our 10 per 100000 our gun death rate is, FORTY TIMES that of yours,, I Think you are the lucky ones in that area,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! where are these 'gungrabbers'? and why always Assuming those who aren't gun enthusiasts are therefore aligned with some other entity which happens to agree with some of their opinions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! where are these 'gungrabbers'? and why always Assuming those who aren't gun enthusiasts are therefore aligned with some other entity which happens to agree with some of their opinions? complicit in what? continuing to REGULATE The sale of guns across borders,,? how terrible!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 12/08/13 11:57 AM
|
|
the Heck they don't want to ban them!
Democrat Leader: We’re Going to Ban Handguns Next People who defend their tyrannical leaders have to engage in mental aerobics — namely denial and delusions. Every day, dozens of leftists post on our Facebook page claiming “nobody wants to ban your guns”… even though Obama is literally having press conferences about banning guns I own. Either way, this should be proof that yes, a comprehensive gun ban is their goal. A Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, Rep. Jan Schakowsky from Illinois, is promising that an assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”. Handguns are next, just like they are in Illinois. In other words, the gun control laws that are failing in Chicago are soon going to be the goal for the entire country. There’s a reason that the political divide in America is so strong and is growing stronger. Some people want tyranny regardless of how many people it kills, how many lives it ruins, and regardless of what studies show. They aren’t motivated by facts — they want the state to grow in power, and it’s only about that. The conversation and admission is below. Follow Capitalism Institute Breitbart.com reports: “We want everything on the table,” Schakowsky told Mattera. “This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it.” One poignant exchange was as follows: Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can. Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning? Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun… something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely. Get ready, because it’s going to be a rough ride over the next few years. They want to ban assault weapons, and they want to repeat the mistakes of Chicago, the UK, and DC — they want to ban handguns as well. Remember, handgun crime doubled in the UK after the handgun ban. Not just crime — handgun crime specifically. The ban was a complete and total failure. They've lied about the statistics. They’ve ignored the facts. They’ve used sexism to justify disarming women. Don’t make a mistake — your well being was never their goal. Of course, the original intent of the Second Amendment is clear, but that won't slow them. Their goal isn't the law, it isn't liberty, it isn't safety ,their goal is power. And that's it. http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/handgun-ban/ Keep on apologizing for that Vermin! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 12/08/13 12:18 PM
|
|
this is so all over, but I will try to address what I can
yes, there are extremists on both sides, believing EVERYONE needs a gun and beliving NOONE should have a gun I continue to assert that they are a minority in any group, an Illinois representative isn't the whole congress and the view expressed is not one that is widely supported through congress the idea that handgun crime doubled after a ban, says little, anyone can choose a period of time and claim a correlation to whatever they want I believe the hangun ban in UK was passed in 1997 fact is, , if and when this doubling occurred, it was a period of time that climaxed right BEFORE gun crimes consistently started going DOWN,,,, for the past decade, the rates of homicide and gun death have been declining in the UK,,, changes , especially political often don't effect change or trends IMMEDIATELY,, and often times when people (even criminal) feel safer in their activity they will increase it until they are shown otherwise not to go on tangent, but I believe similar spikes in hiv aids cases could be seen right after news of treatment for aids spread,, before they started to decrease again in any case, none of this is anything to do with 'good people' and wheter they all 'need' a gun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nation's murder rate is near a 40 year low and the
number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and rising by about 4.5 million annually. Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates on the average than the rest of the country. Total violent crime in Right-to-Carry States was 24% lower; murder 28% lower; robbery 50% lower and aggravated assault 11% lower. The cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control. FBI Crime Report 2007 FBI Crime Report is Bad News for Anti-Gunners 1/2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nation's murder rate is near a 40 year low and the number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and rising by about 4.5 million annually. Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates on the average than the rest of the country. Total violent crime in Right-to-Carry States was 24% lower; murder 28% lower; robbery 50% lower and aggravated assault 11% lower. The cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control. FBI Crime Report 2007 FBI Crime Report is Bad News for Anti-Gunners 1/2009 it is true that the murder rate is lower than 40 years ago, ,since then, gun laws have been passed as to whether 'right to carry' produces less crime, no real evidence on either side of that debate eiher both right to carry and strict control states rank all over (even though the FBI site specically warns against using their data for ranking purposes) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to point out something that has been overlooked. In the USA, a convicted felon does not have the right to possess a fire-arm. Thus, the right to bear arms isn't an absolute. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to point out something that has been overlooked. In the USA, a convicted felon does not have the right to possess a fire-arm. Thus, the right to bear arms isn't an absolute. WRONG! It is an absolute until a verdict in a jury trial, if found guilty, with that right being forfeited by your willfully violating the rights of others as a consequence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Sun 12/08/13 04:29 PM
|
|
I want to point out something that has been overlooked. In the USA, a convicted felon does not have the right to possess a fire-arm. Thus, the right to bear arms isn't an absolute. WRONG! It is an absolute until a verdict in a jury trial, if found guilty, with that right being forfeited by your willfully violating the rights of others as a consequence If the right to bear arms were an absolute, then a convicted felon could still legally be able to bear arms. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Smartazzjohn
on
Sun 12/08/13 05:40 PM
|
|
I want to point out something that has been overlooked. In the USA, a convicted felon does not have the right to possess a fire-arm. Thus, the right to bear arms isn't an absolute. A convicted felon can purchase and posses certain firearms under federal law. The firearm has to be one manufactured before or during 1898 which is loaded through the muzzle with the firing done by a percussion cap or a flint and flash pan. Legal ownership depends on state law and varies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sun 12/08/13 06:55 PM
|
|
I want to point out something that has been overlooked. In the USA, a convicted felon does not have the right to possess a fire-arm. Thus, the right to bear arms isn't an absolute. WRONG! It is an absolute until a verdict in a jury trial, if found guilty, with that right being forfeited by your willfully violating the rights of others as a consequence If the right to bear arms were an absolute, then a convicted felon could still legally be able to bear arms. They can, but like any law it's all about enforcement. Many laws go against the Constitution and the peoples rights, but anyone who challenges them will lose because the entire system is corrupt, and has been since 1913 for sure, and long before that in actuallity. Look at the POTUS sitting now and those before him, and the state of our country, its laws and courts. They could actually care less about the actual wording or the peoples rights as long as they hold power and the media to tell the people what their rights are. Most today can't tell you who gave the Gettysburg Address, what the Bill of Rights say or even are. They know we have a Constitution, but most can't tell you a damn thing in it except they they know "it has something to do with free speech".....and that's about it. Ask them about any sports team, movie star or reality show tho and you might be hung up for hours on monolog! Television, their church or their friends will tell them all they care to know, and the results of elections the last several decades will bear that out! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nation's murder rate is near a 40 year low and the number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and rising by about 4.5 million annually. Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates on the average than the rest of the country. Total violent crime in Right-to-Carry States was 24% lower; murder 28% lower; robbery 50% lower and aggravated assault 11% lower. The cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control. FBI Crime Report 2007 FBI Crime Report is Bad News for Anti-Gunners 1/2009 it is true that the murder rate is lower than 40 years ago, ,since then, gun laws have been passed as to whether 'right to carry' produces less crime, no real evidence on either side of that debate eiher both right to carry and strict control states rank all over (even though the FBI site specically warns against using their data for ranking purposes) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/ you could be wrong here... take a look at Chicago... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! where are these 'gungrabbers'? and why always Assuming those who aren't gun enthusiasts are therefore aligned with some other entity which happens to agree with some of their opinions? good point. I do not like the pro gun lobby/ NRA at all, but I very much believe in the 2nd ammendment. I would own a gun if I lived in a rural area. I have shot a gun and used a gun. (legally). I do not belong to any group, organization or political party with any kind of agenda. My agenda is only reasonable control and it is a personal belief because I THINK for MYSELF. The debate is, "reasonable", what that is, not whether controls should exist. Certainly anyone with any type of criminal record should not have a gun. Military style weapons have no place in residential neighborhoods (except perhaps MAYBE as souveniers with NO ammo). Again, reasonable controls protect the law abiding citizens right to a self defense or to hunt wild game, and hopefully also protect the rights of those who would be victims of fire arm crimes. I don't like the gun lobby because they refuse to compromise or acknowledge that the victims are the greater importance. If some gun owners have to accept some controls for the good of society than that is that. We all have to accept reasonable controls for the benefit of the larger society. I'd love to drive 90 mph in the median. HA I scares me every time I see someone use the word "common sense" in a debate, especially about guns. If you go to the obnoxious graphic at the top of this page and adjust the murders by the 5% of the population who are black and lawless and commit 50% of the crime, the picture might look much different. I see the words "common sense" used to explain why a fundamental constitutional right should be reduced, but nothing about how the rights of the 5% who are committing 50% of the crime should have their rights reduced. "Common sense" would say that the profiling which has done so much good in New York City should be expanded ... but most of the same sellers of "common sense" say it should be reduced. I hear how "common sense" should dictate how "hunting weapons" or "Target weapons" are OK but military style weapons should be banned when it is the use of military weapons that the right to bear arms was intended. Discussion by Congress of the recent unconstitutional use of power by the US president to pick and choose laws to enforce combined with the overt action to eliminate gun ownership by citizens should alarm all citizens. Use a little common sense. A right that depends on anyone's interpretation of "common sense" isn't a right. BTW, if the feds enforced existing gun laws, the graphic would look much different. this is a nice attempt at diversion, but those who are committing crimes are and should be restricted from having guns mixing and matching violent crimes to try to racialize GUN RELATED DEATHS doesn't work either truth is amongst blacks and whites, the MAJORITY of crimes are committed INTRARACIALLY and not INTERRACIALLY, so us would still rank pretty high considering the gun death rate amongst white folks is 9 per 100,000 there is also no evidence that what happens in nyc concerning profiling is 'working',,, crime there has been dropping before those policies were initiated common sense shouldn't be scary, its only scary to those who don't want to be held to it,,,, There is no "diversion". It is why good people should own a gun. According to the police in NYC, their tactics are working and well documented. The general public there seems to agree. And yes, your version of common sense is scary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've thumbed through some of the views on here and only give mine!
1)Its your Right to bear arms fought for and Blood Shed by American Patriots 2)Its your Right to protect your Family from All Threats of danger (animal or human) 3)If you have whepons of any type you need to be prepared mentally and physically to use Deadly Force in case of any type of Threat of your Family,Yourself or defending your property"its the Law"for now anyhow! 4)When i was in the Armed Forces many others and myself took the Oath to Protect our Nation and Citizens of all Threats,Foreign or Domestic ! In other words I fought for these Rights and will Die Defending these Rights "Abroad or Here" as well as anyone else's Rights i Swore to Protect until I'm Dead! No Debate needed,A Fact!! The Old Saying Goes" until you Pry My Whepons from My Cold Dead Hands" Honor and Ancestral Pride Is Deep In Me! And its Pride not Anger that Motivates me! I Served Fought and will Die Defending these rights with an empty Weapon and My Last Breath!! |
|
|
|
|
