Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Letter to the Editor - Foreign Service Journal

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    Following LTE appeared in the July/August 2008 issue of the Foreign Service Journal. The FSJ is a publication of the American Foreign Service Assocation (AFSA), the professional association of the American Foreign Service.

    Bearing Arms

    AFSA has repeatedly made references to unarmed diplomats being sent to war zones, presumably a bad thing. Because the State Department is going to continue sending diplomats into harm’s way, AFSA should call for letting them be voluntarily armed. While controversial (to utopians who do not believe in the right to self defense), it would at least give our colleagues overseas a fighting chance in case they were kidnapped by terrorists or criminals.

    I cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people would be against this idea. After all, enshrined in the Second Amendment is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” When I joined the State Department, I understood there would be some restriction on my rights. Despite the First Amendment, I cannot publicly disagree with administration policy, but the department cannot totally prohibit me from expressing my opinions.

    Before the regional security officer can search my sleeping quarters for illegal guns, he’ll need a warrant. Or am I deprived of my Fourth Amendment rights, as well, when overseas?

    In some places, like Jamaica for example, certain personnel can keep a firearm in their sleeping quarters. Why isn’t the same true for those serving in active war zones?

    Before diplomats deploy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, they get firearms training along with combat lifesaver and Humvee rollover training. They should be allowed to keep and bear arms if they so choose; otherwise, the firearms training is worthless.

    John Higi


    FSO


    Embassy Kuwait

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    It's pretty simple, really. Your constitutional rights extend as far as the boarders of this country. Kind of like, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," "When out of the US... you aren't guaranteed jack." Abide by the laws of the country you are serving in. What would make him think that US laws somehow magically extend outside of the US?

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Yeah but AWD, our troops are allowed to be armed in active military zones. They have that right, why not our diplomats?

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    It's pretty simple, really. Your constitutional rights extend as far as the boarders of this country. Kind of like, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," "When out of the US... you aren't guaranteed jack." Abide by the laws of the country you are serving in. What would make him think that US laws somehow magically extend outside of the US?
    The military is REQUIRED to be armed in active military zones. I think diplomats, as well, should be REQUIRED to be armed. If they have diplomatic immunity, to hell with the laws of other countries. Do you honestly believe thatallforeign diplomats here are unarmed?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    It's pretty simple, really. Your constitutional rights extend as far as the boarders of this country. Kind of like, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," "When out of the US... you aren't guaranteed jack." Abide by the laws of the country you are serving in. What would make him think that US laws somehow magically extend outside of the US?
    Actually, you're only partly correct.

    The US Constitution's protection of your rights only extends to our borders. The rights themselves exist for all people, everywhere,and are not dependant on our constitution to exist.

    So, we have a right to life, a right to bear arms, in any place we stand. Be it at home, at the mall, on a commercial airliner, or in a foreign country.

    If the laws & rules governing where we stand prohibit bearing arms, then those laws & rules are infringing on our natural right, and should not exist.

    If it's not legal for US diplomats to posess a firearm for self-protection, it damn well should be. Hell, it just should be for just about everyone.

    ...[/rant]...
    ...Orygunner...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Re COTUS and borders; Embassies and consulates are sovereign territory. Rights are innate to mankind and only those Rights defended are enjoyed. We defend some Rights more vigorously within the US than others. Thus, we enjoy some Rights more than others.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Re COTUS and borders; Embassies and consulates are sovereign territory. Rights are innate to mankind and only those Rights defended are enjoyed. We defend some Rights more vigorously within the US than others. Thus, we enjoy some Rights more than others.
    Thanks, Doug. I was going to point out that very matter. It is absurd that diplomats would be prohibited from being armed at least on embassy/consulate grounds. But then it's the federal gov't and "absurd" pretty much goes with the territory.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    The US Constitution's protection of your rights only extends to our borders. The rights themselves exist for all people, everywhere,and are not dependant on our constitution to exist.

    So, we have a right to life, a right to bear arms, in any place we stand. Be it at home, at the mall, on a commercial airliner, or in a foreign country.

    If the laws & rules governing where we stand prohibit bearing arms, then those laws & rules are infringing on our natural right, and should not exist.

    I don't understand that thinking because I have yet to see these rights engraved in the side of a mountain by god himself. You don't even have a right to life because it can it be snatched away from you any second by an infinite number ofdifferent forces that are completely out of your, or anyone else's, control. They don't need to give you a reason, explanation, or even advanced warning. You have no innate right to life. To argue an innate right to bear arms is absolutely ludicrous. Show me where that is written, suggested, or even implied, anywhere.Our right to bear arms is granted by the constitution, nothing else. A "right" to self-defense is impossible to infringe because you can always fight back somehow, but a right to self-defense and a right to bearing arms aren't even on the same planet, let alone the same ballpark. Firearms are a controlled substance (if you will, object would obviously fit better)almost everywhereand your only right to keep and bear them is granted to you by the law of the country you happen to live in. When you leave the US, your "rights" stay at home. I'd love to see someone try to make a legitimate case for an innate human right to bear firearms. It'd be like trying to argue an innate right to drive 65mph on any highway, anywhere, simply because that's how it's done in the US.



    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Re COTUS and borders; Embassies and consulates are sovereign territory
    By the sound of the article he wanted to carry everywhere, and logically so. Obviously he should be allowed to carry on embassy grounds, but what would be the point of carrying in a heavily guarded, gated embassy? It's understandable that he would want to carry everywhere he went, but that is up to the discretion of the host country.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Show me where that is written, suggested, or even implied, anywhere.Our right to bear arms is granted by the constitution, nothing else.
    Try reading the SCOTUS decision on D.C. v Heller. Try reading the Federalists Papers. Try reading the notes taken by John Adams during the drafting of the Constitution (he kept detailed notes as to what was said and done). All of these talk about the God given rightto self defense and the rightto keep and bear arms.

    The Constitution does not grant usthe rightto keep and bear arms, it merely protects it.

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    I don't understand that thinking because I have yet to see these rights engraved in the side of a mountain by god himself. You don't even have a right to life because it can it be snatched away from you any second by an infinite number ofdifferent forces that are completely out of your, or anyone else's, control. They don't need to give you a reason, explanation, or even advanced warning. You have no innate right to life. To argue an innate right to bear arms is absolutely ludicrous. Show me where that is written, suggested, or even implied, anywhere.Our right to bear arms is granted by the constitution, nothing else. A "right" to self-defense is impossible to infringe because you can always fight back somehow, but a right to self-defense and a right to bearing arms aren't even on the same planet, let alone the same ballpark. Firearms are a controlled substance (if you will, object would obviously fit better)almost everywhereand your only right to keep and bear them is granted to you by the law of the country you happen to live in. When you leave the US, your "rights" stay at home. I'd love to see someone try to make a legitimate case for an innate human right to bear firearms. It'd be like trying to argue an innate right to drive 65mph on any highway, anywhere, simply because that's how it's done in the US.

    AWDStylez, since when does something have to be written to be true? Thankfully, our founding fathers recognized that we do have naturalrights no matter what the government says -the rightsexist. This has been written and said, numerous times, in numerous writings throughout history. Most notably, the Declaration of Independence:


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    They recognized we have the right to life (this includes theright to work to sustain and defend that life), liberty (freedom to think, speak, print, publish, worship, travel), and pursue happiness (To search for and do that which makes us happy, such as education, leisure, raise a family, etc.). We should be free to exercise all these rights unless we interfere withthe rights of others.

    So yes, someone could murder you, but they have no right to do so, and you have every right to prevent it by deadly force (they have relinquished their right to life by trying to take yours). The right to life means the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense means using weapons, if necessary, to equalize or make superior the force used to defend your life. The right to bear arms for self defense was recognized by the majority opinion in DC v. Heller.

    Defense of Liberty is also a legitimate cause for the right to bear arms. Continuing from the Declaration of Independence:


    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
    Without arms, (Which king George tried to confiscate from us on multiple occasions) and our right to bear them, I don't think we would have been successful in declarating anything.

    Claiming that government gives us our natural rights, including our right to bear arms, is a common argument the Anti-Gun people like to use.They continue to use it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If what I've written here doesn't cause you to rethink that position, I would recommend doing your own research. Start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unalienable

    ...Orygunner...

  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Thanks, Orygunner, well said.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    +1 orygunner!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    Claiming that government gives us our natural rights, including our right to bear arms, is a common argument the Anti-Gun people like to use.They continue to use it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If what I've written here doesn't cause you to rethink that position, I would recommend doing your own research. Start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unalienable

    ...Orygunner...
    You haven't made a case for an innate right to bare arms. This right would have to originate somewhere, and for it to be innate it would have to originate from a higher power or be somehow be part of the fabic of the universe like the laws of physics. You've done nothing to prove that it is. You claim the right is innate, but then go on to cite DC vs Heller and the Declaration of Independance as proof that it is innate. With all due respect, that proves nothing aside from the fact that theability to keep and bare arms exists asa government established right in the US.



    Orygunner wrote:
    So yes, someone could murder you, but they have no right to do so, and you have every right to prevent it by deadly force (they have relinquished their right to life by trying to take yours).



    Who says they have no right to murder you other than current US law? Who says you have the right to kill them pre-emptively other than US law? I'll agree that "right to life" as used in the Constitution is a referance to self-defense. But that's just it: as used in the Constitution. Nothing about it is innate. The fact that the founding fathers thought it was innate doesn't make it innate. The fact that the Declaration of Independance say it is innate doesn't make it innate either. No US law or document that implies that is is innate makes it innate. Where is the higher power or authority that declares this right to bare arms to be innate?

    And as a quick aside...
    Let's say it isn't murder. What if you die of natural causes? What of your "right to life" then? No one has a "right" to live because forces that are out of your, or anyone else's,control determine whether you'll wake up tomorrow or not.


    Now you could make the argument that it would be in one's best interest to give people the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and maybe even the right to keep and bare arms, if they wish to create a happy and peaceful society,and you'd be correct. It's proven fact that no one likes being a slave and slaves eventually revolt. But to claim that these rights are innate is a Christian religious idea that,like the rest of religion, holds about as much water as a sieve. Although what I don't see, even in Christian religious doctrine, is the innate right to keep and bare arms. That claim just baffles me.



    Basically, we have a constitutional right to keep and bare arms. Outside of religion, innate rights don't exist. Constitutional rights mean jack outside of the US, therefore this guy only has a right to carry a gun around if the host nation chooses to grant it to him.




  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Whateverr

    I'll bet you've never been in a class when the instructor said, "Not even wrong, Mr. Stylez!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez, so you are an atheist. OK, the constitution gives you that right.This is not the place to argue religious points. I am Christian because I have personally seen miracles of God. I talk to God and He sometimes talks to me.

    I will make a brief statement and let it go.

    If you are right and I am wrong, when I die the lights go out and it's over, period, end of discussion.

    If I'm right and you are wrong, when you die you have an eternity in Hell. Probably not an extremely pleasant place to be.

    You say that I can't prove there is a God. But, then, you can't provethere's not.

    Stalemate every time. Except the going to Hell part.

    There are many instances in the Bible that call for self defense and says it is right to do so. I'll get back to you later with some of them if you like. If you have a right to self defense, then you have a right to use any weapon available at the time, hence the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    the right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.
    Well we can agree on that. On your side you use it as proof that it's an innate right. On my side I use it as proof that it isn't an innate right. In reality I don't believe it's possible to prove either one of us wrong or right because I'm notan atheist, I'm agnostic.

    For the record, I was raised Christian and I'm very well versed in it (purely forphilosophical and argumentation purposes)so you don't have to quote anything for me.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    AWDStylez...

    I absolutely see your point. How can anyone PROVE that people do or do not have rights? I don't believe it's tied specifically to religion, because if someone believes God gave rights to them, then they can call them God-given. If one is not such a religious man, then I think one can believe they just HAVE these natural rights at birth.Why does it have to be bestowed upon us by any higher power?I guess whether you believe rights exist with or without government depends on your definition of rights.

    Even quoting the founding fathers is not proof of them. I believe most of them believe in the rights as I describe them. I even referenced the DC v Heller decisionbecause the majority opinion stated that the rights were guaranteed, not given by the Constitution.

    So I guess I can't prove that rights to life, bear arms, liberty, etc. are inalienable or innate. However,a hell of a lot of pretty smart people believed it, wrote about it, put it in our country's founding documents, and even died for this belief themselves. It is their definition of rights that I believe in.

    They founded the current United States Governmentnotjust on the principles that every person has these rights, but that the job of government is not to GIVE those rights to the people, but to protect these rights that they already had. It is their idea of the role of government I believe in.

    The purpose of government in this country is not to give people their rights, but to protect them. That is why there are not laws saying you have a right to life, but there are laws against murder. There are not laws saying you can possess things, but there are laws saying others cannot steal them from you. There are not laws saying you can own a firearm, but constitutional laws saying that right shall not be infringed. It's because these are rights we already have, not rights given to us by our governments!

    Obviously, some states, cities, etc. may vary from that last paragraph with a few messed up laws here and there. I think there ARE few state laws that specifically state you can own a gun (Oregon does not, it only tells you who may NOT own one and how/where you may NOT carry it). I'm sure other states also say you can own things, or other similar screwed up laws, but that's not the point to nitpick. The point is that our federal and state governments, in their constitutions,are designed to LIMIT the power of the government and to protect our rights. These governmentsgive us no rights.

    So, just as I cannot prove to you (yet, but I'm studying on it) my definition that we have rights with or without goverment, I do not think you can prove they are given to us by the government. If your belief was true that government gives us our rights, I think the state constitutions and laws would be phrased quite differently.

    Tell ya what, find me in the federal, or any state constitution, or any court case where it is said the government gives us our rights, and I may give up without a fight True, it may not be "Proof" of where our rights come from, but I think it will show the government does not presume to give them to us.

    ...Of course, for every one you find, I'll find hundreds of examples for my side, butI just want to see if you can find one :P...
    ...Orygunner...



  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    So I guess I can't prove that rights to life, bear arms, liberty, etc. are inalienable or innate. However,a hell of a lot of pretty smart people believed it, wrote about it, put it in our country's founding documents, and even died for this belief themselves. It is their definition of rights that I believe in.

    They founded the current United States Governmentnotjust on the principles that every person has these rights, but that the job of government is not to GIVE those rights to the people, but to protect these rights that they already had. It is their idea of the role of government I believe in.

    I agree and I'm glad they founded it that way because it's why we have the rights we have, but it doesn't mean that in thegrand scheme of thingsit's correct. If the Constitution said, "Everyone give AWDstylez all your money and material goods," I wouldn't question that either. Doesn't make it truth or right though.



    As for your challenge, try skimming through this. It's very long.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

    He's the part thatmost directlyapplies this discussion.


    Existance of Human Rights:
    The most obvious way in which human rights exist is as norms of national and international law created by enactment and judicial decisions. At the international level, human rights norms exist because of treaties that have turned them into international law. For example, the human right not to be held in slavery or servitude in article 4 of the European Convention and in article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights exists because these treaties establish it. At the national level, human rights norms exist because they have through legislative enactment, judicial decision, or custom become part of a country's law. For example, the right against slavery exists in the United States because the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and servitude. When rights are embedded in international law we speak of them as human rights; but when they are enacted in national law we more frequently describe them as civil or constitutional rights. As this illustrates, it is possible for a right to exist within more than one normative system at the same time.

    Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in which human rights exist. But many have suggested that this is not the only way. If human rights exist only because of enactment, their availability is contingent on domestic and international political developments. Many people have sought to find a way to support the idea that human rights have roots that are deeper and less subject to human decisions than legal enactment. One version of this idea is that people are born with rights, that human rights are somehow innate or inherent in human beings. One way that a normative status could be inherent in humans is by being God-given. The U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) claims that people are "endowed by their Creator" with natural rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." On this view, God is the supreme lawmaker and enacted some basic human rights.

    Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply to thousands of years of human history, not just to recent centuries. But contemporary human rights are numerous and specific (the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of religion, the right to equality before the law, etc.) Even if people are born with God-given natural rights, we need to explain how we get from those general and abstract rights to the specific rights found in contemporary declarations and treaties.

    Attributing human rights to God's commands may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a very diverse world it does not make them practically secure. Billions of people do not believe in the God found in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If people do not believe in God, or in the sort of god that prescribes rights, then if you want to base human rights on theological beliefs you must persuade these people of a rights-supporting theological view. This is likely to be even harder than persuading them of human rights. Legal enactment at the national and international levels provides a far more secure status for practical purposes.

    Human rights might also exist independently of legal enactment by being part of actual human moralities. It appears that all human groups have moralities, that is, imperative norms of behavior backed by reasons and values. These moralities contain specific norms (for example, a prohibition of the intentional murder of an innocent person) and specific values (for example, valuing human life.) One way in which human rights could exist apart from divine or human enactment is as norms accepted in all or almost all actual human moralities. If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms prohibiting murder, these norms could constitute the human right to life. Human rights can be seen as basic moral norms shared by all or almost all accepted human moralities.
    This view is attractive but filled with difficulties. First, it seems unlikely that the moralities of almost all human groups agree in condemning, say, torture, unfair criminal trials, undemocratic institutions, and discrimination on the basis of race or sex. There is a lot of disagreement among countries and cultures about these matters. Human rights declarations and treaties are intended to change existing norms, not just describe the existing moral consensus. Second, it is far from clear that the shared norms that do exist support rights held by individuals. A group may think that torture is generally a bad thing without holding that all individuals have a high-priority right against being tortured. Third, human rights are mainly about the obligations of governments. Ordinary interpersonal moralities often have little to say about what governments should and should not do. This is a matter of political morality, and depends not just on moral principles but also on views of the dangers and capacities of the contemporary state.

    Yet another way of explaining the existence of human rights is to say that they exist in true or justified moralities. On this account, to say that there is a human right against torture is just to say that there are strong reasons for believing that it is almost always wrong to engage in torture. This approach would view the Universal Declaration as attempting to formulate a justified political morality. It was not merely trying to identify a preexisting moral consensus; it was also trying to create a consensus on how governments should behave that was supported by the most plausible moral and practical reasons. This approach requires commitment to the objectivity of moral and practical reasons. It holds that just as there are reliable ways of finding out how the physical world works, or what makes buildings sturdy and durable, there are ways of finding out what individuals may justifiably demand of governments. Even if there is little present agreement on political morality, rational agreement is available to humans if they will commit themselves to open-minded and serious moral and political inquiry. If moral reasons exist independently of human construction, they can when combined with premises about current institutions, problems, and resources generate moral norms different from those currently accepted or enacted. The Universal Declaration seems to proceed on exactly this assumption. One problem with this view is that existence as good reasons seems a rather thin form of existence for human rights. But perhaps we can view this thinness as a practical rather than a theoretical problem, as something to be remedied by the formulation and enactment of legal norms. After all, the best form of existence for human rights would combine robust legal existence with the sort of moral existence that comes from being supported by strong moral and practical reasons.




    So to sum that up, the God idea obviously doesn't fly and you made note of that yourself. So what you're left with is the Kantian idea that morals are not man-made, but are something that exists empiricallyas part of the fabric of the universe, like physics and math. That's the only possible foundation for universal, innate rights. Whether I agree or disagree with it I honestly have no idea. I'll let you know when I've studied enough philosophy to make an educated decision.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    As defined Merriam Webster's Desktop Dictionary

    in-nate : adj 1: existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : NATIVE 2 : INHERENT, INTRINSIC - innately adv

    I see no reference here of a higher entity (such as a God) or government bestowal of any rights. By the above definition, it appears that "innate" rights are something humans are naturally born with. Religious followers (Normally Judao-Christian) may claim that these Natural born rights are "God given" if they want, but I think that is a matter of opinion. I lean towards the "nature of the beast" theory, myself.

    Governments, such as ours, have createdbinding documents that protect these "innate" rights from infringement. Governments don't give you anything.

    As for our Constitutional Rights or our laws extending beyond our borders, they don't. As a visitor to a foriegn country, we have to abide by the laws of that country (except on sovereign grounds such as embassies or military outposts). We can complain all we want about human rights violations in other countries, but unless we want to mount up the troops and force change in foriegn lands there isn't much we can do. By the same token, visitors to our countryare supposeto abide by our laws, while here. Too bad we don't enforce our laws as well as other countries enforce theirs.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    You haven't made a case for an innate right to bare arms.
    Maybe you should ask Larry the Cable Guy.



  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Show me where that is written, suggested, or even implied, anywhere.Our right to bear arms is granted by the constitution, nothing else.
    The Constitution does not grant usthe rightto keep and bear arms, it merely protects it.
    +1

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    You haven't made a case for an innate right to bare arms.
    Maybe you should ask Larry the Cable Guy.



    Sorry grammar queen. :P Care to add anything to the discussion while you're here or are you just around to criticize my late-night grammatical errors?

  24. #24
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    A "right" to self-defense is impossible to infringe because you can always fight back somehow, but a right to self-defense and a right to bearing arms aren't even on the same planet, let alone the same ballpark.

    I disagree. Firearms are necessary for proper self-defense in today's world because, well... good luck with your self-defense if you are unarmed and being shot at.

    Banningadequate tools for self-defense is making self defense very difficult. In fact, I would say that as humans, arms are the natural route, and have existed since pre-historic times in the form of spears, bows etc. Arms are what give humans the ability to be superior to beast, and also what makes a weak human equal to a strong human. Depriving men of arms therefore is depriving them of a human right. I do not see this as a religiousissue.

    revolt. But to claim that these rights are innate is a Christian religious idea that,

    Human rights/Natural Rightsdo NOT necessarily stem from religion.I do not see it as a religiousidea. I simply think that there are certain freedoms that all people should have and that is what makes it a human or a natural right. It is unnatural to deprive a human of certain tools since humans naturally rely on certain tools.

    In my opinion banning arms for humans is like declawingan animaland then releasing it back into the wild, which I would consider cruel.


  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Human rights/Natural Rightsdo NOT necessarily stem from religion.I do not see it as a religiousidea. I simply think that there are certain freedoms that all people should have and that is what makes it a human or a natural right. It is unnatural to deprive a human of certain tools since humans naturally rely on certain tools.

    In my opinion banning arms for humans is like declawingan animaland then releasing it back into the wild, which I would consider cruel.


    So because you think it is, it is?

    I don't disagree about the man over beast stuff and firearms as tools for defense, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove the existance of innate humans rights ("I think," "I feel," "It's always been that way," "The Declaration says so," none of that cuts it for real proof or even for establishing a point of origin), otherwise your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •