Iraqi civilian right to bear arms

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“Alleycat”]The 2nd amendment is just that–an amendment. It is not a truth that is “self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

The “right to bear arms” is a secondary right, a right to establish or protect “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Now, do the Iraqis not too have these rights? Are they in limbo while the US establishes a government for them?

My “which came first” argument is this: Did the happiness come first or did the right to arm oneself to fight for that happiness?

Evidently not! The fight’s first.[/quote]

No. The right to happiness… came first… Its inalienable. Only when that right was threatened did it become necessary to establish secondary rights, such as the right to bear arms.

Which fight? The one in Iraq? I honestly don’t think so.

I have no problem acknowledging that the rights of the occupier come first (to the occupier), just as everyone’s rights come first to him/herself.

However, as indicated above, I do not think that the US initiated the current fight. As part of the overall war on terrorism, this fight was started on 911, not by the US. But I could make an even better argument that this fight was started by Iraq in 1990 when it invaded Kuwait, and that the US action now is merely the efforts to conclude that war started by Iraq.

Anyway, it just so happens that helping to establish a good government in Iraq is in fact in the interests of the US (in fact, its a vital concern). Thus, while the US “administers” Iraq temporarily, some rights will be restricted… but given that the goal is the establishment of a free and tolerant and law-abiding government in Iraq, I think it is clear that Iraqi rights are more than a mere “cursory” concern for the US.[/quote]

Happiness is secondary. We’re born into the world, a world of limited supply and infinite demand, and to attain happiness we need to assuage our the bottom two tiers of the pyramid. We do so by “conspiring.”

The US in striving for its own basic needs in Iraq; it promises to placate Iraq’s needs, all of them Yet all I see is a little food aid, an attempt to ease Iraq’s physiological needs–its life and liberty–but how can it attain happiness-self-esteem and self-actualization–while an aggressor occupies it? And this aggressor has no real concern for the lower needs of the Iraqis. The aggressor is giving with the one hand and taking with the other.

How are the Iraqis to climb this pyramid?

Happiness: (Love) and (Esteem) and (Self-Acualization)
Liberty& Life: (Physiological) and (Safety)

We

22

This right to happiness and its inalienability… where did it come from? Did it grow from a tree? Is it written in stone by the Unseen Hand? Is it imprinted in our first memory.

We have no inherent rights, no natural rights, no inalienable rights. These ‘rights’ were created with the covenants of men. We made these rights. With what? Power.

Might does make the rights.

And if the Iraqis choose to fight the outsiders, choose to eject them from their own soil, and should they win with blood and iron, they too shall be able to create their own const. rights.

I don’t see why the first question post, the NRA is relevant. Their “rights” are guaranteed by the Const. (arguably). If the Iraqi does not have a 2d. Am. why talk about rights? He has the ‘right’ to his gun if he can defend his right (with his gun).

23

[quote=“jackburton”]This right to happiness and its inalienability… where did it come from? Did it grow from a tree? Is it written in stone by the Unseen Hand? Is it imprinted in our first memory.

We have no inherent rights, no natural rights, no inalienable rights. These ‘rights’ were created with the covenants of men. We made these rights. With what? Power.

Might does make the rights.[/quote]

In that case, I expect that you will never criticize any US action.

24

[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“jackburton”]This right to happiness and its inalienability… where did it come from? Did it grow from a tree? Is it written in stone by the Unseen Hand? Is it imprinted in our first memory.

We have no inherent rights, no natural rights, no inalienable rights. These ‘rights’ were created with the covenants of men. We made these rights. With what? Power.

Might does make the rights.[/quote]

In that case, I expect that you will never criticize any US action.[/quote]

I don’t think you needed to include the last statement. We all have a right to life, liberty and happiness–see my post above.

But is might right?

As you explained the other night Tigerman, one can swing ones arms but they’re bound to hit someone. And that what makes for a civilized society: The idea that one will not attack another, and that the best way to move forward and see to everyone’s needs is but incorporating everyone into the agreement.

The US is swinging more than its “arms.” It is not acting civilized. It has acted contrary to community standards.

But, again, I hope that some good will come of American imperialism, that it will see that cooperation is better than beating ourselves over the heads when we want something, that if we all work together we will have a better chance of existing in a peaceful society.

25

[quote=“jackburton”]This right to happiness and its inalienability… where did it come from? Did it grow from a tree? Is it written in stone by the Unseen Hand? Is it imprinted in our first memory.

We have no inherent rights, no natural rights, no inalienable rights. These ‘rights’ were created with the covenants of men. We made these rights. With what? Power.

Might does make the rights.[/quote]

[quote=“Alleycat”]I don’t think you needed to include the last statement. We all have a right to life, liberty and happiness–.[/quote].

Alleycat,

I think you may have misunderstood my statement above in reply to jackburton’s statement.

I am disagreeing with jackburton’s assertion that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (note, our right is only to pursue happiness… not necessarily to obtain happiness) are gained only thru the exercise of might.

I understand what he is saying… that sometimes rights are only “gained” by might. He’s right on that.

But, a right is a right, whether possessed or denied.

My reply to jackburton was meant as a kind of Satori-inducing statement… that is, if one really believes that certain rights are only entitled by might, then nobody should ever criticize the USA’s use of might.

That is obviously ridiculous… and thus begs the question… if rights are not derived originally by the use of might… where do they come from?

I believe that the answer is found in the golden rule, as articulated by Confucius and later by Jesus:

“Do not unto others what you would not have others do unto you”

and

“Do unto others what you would have others do unto you”.

The above two rules, IMO, form the basis of all good laws, and in turn, the foundation of all healthy societies. That is why, ultimately, IMO, my right to swing my arm ends at your nose. Conversely, if rights were derived from might, I would be entitled to swing my arms and hit your nose anytime I felt like it, provided my might is greater than yours.

That would be a shitty world, n’est pas?

And of course I disagree with your assertion that the US is swinging its arms… at least unrightfully so. Everyone, including the US, has the right to exercize self defense… it is included in the right to life…

26

[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“jackburton”]This right to happiness and its inalienability… where did it come from? Did it grow from a tree? Is it written in stone by the Unseen Hand? Is it imprinted in our first memory.

We have no inherent rights, no natural rights, no inalienable rights. These ‘rights’ were created with the covenants of men. We made these rights. With what? Power.

Might does make the rights.[/quote]

In that case, I expect that you will never criticize any US action.[/quote]

I dont see the 2 as being necessarily inconsistent/contradictory. in fact i dont see the relevance in your statement.
US is party to “covenants of me” is it not? the US has agreed to a set of rules and principles and agreed to be bound by them, no? Const., treaties, laws, regs?
US does and has contradicted itself (statements contradicted by actions). this has nothing to do with what i was saying.

Mr. TigerDude, can you PM with that beer distributor guy’s info down south? much obliged.

27

[quote=“jackburton”]This right to happiness and its inalienability… where did it come from? Did it grow from a tree? Is it written in stone by the Unseen Hand? Is it imprinted in our first memory.

We have no inherent rights, no natural rights, no inalienable rights. These ‘rights’ were created with the covenants of men. We made these rights. With what? Power.

Might does make the rights.[/quote]

[quote=“jackburton”]I dont see the 2 as being necessarily inconsistent/contradictory. in fact i dont see the relevance in your statement.
US is party to “covenants of me” is it not? the US has agreed to a set of rules and principles and agreed to be bound by them, no? Const., treaties, laws, regs?
US does and has contradicted itself (statements contradicted by actions). this has nothing to do with what I was saying.[/quote]

You stated that might makes rights. I disagree. Rights, IMO, exist even when they are denied.

But if, as you state, rights are derived from the use of might, then whether or not the US has agreed to any particular convention is irrelevant, so long as the US remains mighty. And if the US is thus not bound by any conventions, but only by its own comparative might, then it cannot contradict itself (as those covenants are meaningless in terms of rights). Hence, nobody should be critical when the US exercizes its might in order to gain its rights.

I think that notion is flawed.

pal@ksts.seed.net.tw

28

[quote=“tigerman”]Let’s not forget that the current USA is actually the second manifestation of the ideals America’s forefathers imagined. From 1781 until 1789, the US was run under the Articles of Confederation and from 1789 on, the US has been run as a federal constitutional republic. In 1789, the US adopted the current Constitution (OK, absent later amendments). This Constitution was almost not ratified by all of the states (and commonweatlths)… it was only agreed upon after the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 thru 10) were included. Of course, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms was one of the rights enumerated therein.

My point… the [color=red]present[/color] circumstances in Iraq are substantially different from the situation in the USA in 1789. The USA had 8 years to settle (establish some law and order) after the Revolutionary War. Iraq is basically still in a state of chaos.[/quote]
Right on, dude. The loyalist Tories (cough damn Canadians cough cough :slight_smile: ) had time to move out and settle in some frozen wastelands where they didn’t cause enough trouble to bother about until 1812.

Some of us would say we’re in about the sixth or seventh system – there was the post-1861 and post-1865 situations, the post-1930’s situation, the post-1945 situation, and the post-1960’s situation. Maybe eighth now – the post-2001 situation. All have seen major changes in policy and direction, easily equal to the transformation between the A-of-C and the Constitution.

Alleycat, the Bill of Rights is considered clearly equal to the rest of the Constitution – except for the Second Amendment, which was largely gutted after the Civil War, and again in 1968. But when it was created, the 2nd Amendment was considered the most important of any – it wasn’t an afterthought; the states wanted it to be clearly stated that citizens could own any weapons that the government was allowed, because they wanted to ensure the right to secession and, if necessary, revolution (see the Amistad decision, 1841, for a mention of this by the Supreme Court of the U.S.). These rights were destroyed by Lincoln’s War of Northern Agression.

29

[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“jackburton”]This right to happiness and its inalienability… where did it come from? Did it grow from a tree? Is it written in stone by the Unseen Hand? Is it imprinted in our first memory.

We have no inherent rights, no natural rights, no inalienable rights. These ‘rights’ were created with the covenants of men. We made these rights. With what? Power.

Might does make the rights.[/quote]

[quote=“jackburton”]I dont see the 2 as being necessarily inconsistent/contradictory. in fact i dont see the relevance in your statement.
US is party to “covenants of me” is it not? the US has agreed to a set of rules and principles and agreed to be bound by them, no? Const., treaties, laws, regs?
US does and has contradicted itself (statements contradicted by actions). this has nothing to do with what I was saying.[/quote]

You stated that might makes rights. I disagree. Rights, IMO, exist even when they are denied.

But if, as you state, rights are derived from the use of might, then whether or not the US has agreed to any particular convention is irrelevant, so long as the US remains mighty. And if the US is thus not bound by any conventions, but only by its own comparative might, then it cannot contradict itself (as those covenants are meaningless in terms of rights). Hence, nobody should be critical when the US exercizes its might in order to gain its rights.

I think that notion is flawed.

pal@ksts.seed.net.tw[/quote]

I don’t think the notion is flawed. Some of these notions are from Locke and Rousseau eg Social Contract. (not to mean that they are automatically right, just that you could understand where I am coming from)
Premise: No natural rights, no inalienable rights. Man born in a world where might makes right
Impetus: Men begin to form more complex social networks. the notion of power alone has to be circumscribed in order for this social body to function harmoniously
Change: Men form covenants with one another to form rules and common beliefs to make that social structure work. If I kill your brother, you have right to vendetta, or exact a fine from me (ten cattle)(isn’t that one of the origin of torts? Germanic customs). fast forward: American Revolution, then French, then Declaration of Man= RIGHTS (well, magna carta is one too. Before: the King rule is divine After: King’s rule cannot trample certain rights. Did those rights exist before? Arguable)
Underlying Assumption: without rules and common agreement and covenants whether implied or otherwise (why do most of us allow ourselves to be subjected to police authority?), there will be social chaos. Beneath this level of social networks and covenants is power and might. Look at societies in civil war or social breakdown. People start taking charge of their lives with blood and iron. Where are the rights then? My point is notion of rights are man-made. without social consent, there is only bare naked power.
I see no inconsistency. Why? On a certain level, the US acts unilaterally (without social consent) and is therefore exercising power. However, the US on other occasions consents to international law, customs, lex cogens. You say that US, according to your interpretation of my argument, is not bound to any convention as long as it remains mighty.That in a certain sense is correct. An entity has power, but chooses to be bound to a covenant or subordinate itself to the rule of men and law. But at any time, it can also simply renounce that. Today I pay my taxes, listen to the policeman, wait for the green light. Tomorrow, I may decide to screw everything: not give my money to some government, shoot the policeman, and drive 150MPH if I like.

[quote]And if the US is thus not bound by any conventions, but only by its own comparative might, then it cannot contradict itself (as those covenants are meaningless in terms of rights).
Hence, nobody should be critical when the US exercizes its might in order to gain its rights.[/quote]
This is where I think you are wrong. the US can contradict itself. It cannot one day ascribe and subordinate itself to law, customs, etc. to which it has consented and then the next day forego that, and then conveniently switch back and accuse someone else of not playing the rules. It’s like we’re playing chess. Suddenly you decide the rook can move diagonally, then when I try the same you say play by the rules of chess.
your second sentence. Why can’t I be critical? this is a non sequitur. Because of my recognition of X, therefore I must abstain from criticizing X? That is unreasonable.
Nevertheless, the notion of rights, natural or not, is a subjective belief, and you are entitled to your beliefs and I mine.

30

jack, there is no right or wrong in this debate. I am simply stating that I believe that rights exist, that they are inalienable. The fact that societies and nations have striven to protect rights, to me, indicates that they recognize the existence of these rights, which, IMO, derive from most people’s desire to live according to the golden rule.

The fact that the rights of the weak have been protected by the strong is further evidence to me that rights exist, inalienably, or at least that many people believe that they do. I am taking this notion to the extreme… i.e., if only might makes right, then the weak should not ever expect any rights.

[quote=“tigerman”]And if the US is thus not bound by any conventions, but only by its own comparative might, then it cannot contradict itself (as those covenants are meaningless in terms of rights).
Hence, nobody should be critical when the US exercizes its might in order to gain its rights.[/quote]

If might makes right, and I am mightier than you, then I will make the rules however I desire… isn’t that how the game has been played for years and years?

Its not a non sequitor. If might makes right, then anything the mighty do is right. How is that a non sequitor?

Yes.

31

Well in a way, I think we are describing the same thing in 2 different ways.

yes, societies and as you say, the strong creates rights for everyone incl. the weak. but that doesn’t mean that such rights are inalienable or inherent or natural. They require the consent of society, that recognized such a need, in order to create it.

My meaning is that they don’t exist prior to that in the air like some law of nature (hence natural rights); they are made by men and must be protected by men in order to exist. I am not sure you understood my meaning there with regard to inalienable and natural nature of rights. They are only inalienable so long as we believe and make it as such. It requires a Social Compact; without that there are no rights.

I also think you mistook my meaning when I say “Might makes rights.” I said rights originally in the plural to mean human rights. That by our power and authority and consent and covenant, we create rights. I didn’t mean the old adage might makes right as in right or wrong.

and no, it is still a non sequitur in the sense that you said I can’t be critical if I recognize such and such. that is the illogical part I was referring to.

Thanks for the link. whats the guy’s name.

32

Well, as we agreed, this is not an issue that has a “right” or a “wrong” answer. I believe that rights exist… but that they are either denied or protected.

This is where we disagree. Yes, I understand the concepts you are discussing. But no, I believe that rights do exist whether we protect or deny them. I believe that all people have certain unalienable rights… but that men decide either to deny these or to protect these.

No, I understood you. I was half playing with the notion and half using it to illustrate my point… I think it applicable.

Geert

33

You cannot have rights, which are intangible concepts, without first defining them. That is to say it is pointless to talk about, say freedom as an abstract concept that is due all citizens. It is the language of people that gives this abstraction meaning, thus it cannot exist unless it is first given (defined) by society.

34

I disagree. IMO, the only thing that the existence of human rights depends upon is the existence of humans.

To say that something does not exist because it isn’t known doesn’t make sense to me. That’s kinda like saying that sub-atomic particles didn’t exist until we had microscopes to see and then define them.

35

You’ve missed the point. Sub-atomic particles can be known or predicted either from observations or from predictions derived from what is already known of the tangible world. A sub-atomic particle is a measurable entity that can at least be visualised. Freedom cannot. It only has meaning when it is defined by words, which require a human judgment on what it is. It’s the same for many other concepts such as value. These do not exist until humans define them. This is a contemporary philosophical view first stated by Wittgenstein.

36

I disagree. IMO, the only thing that the existence of human rights depends upon is the existence of humans.

To say that something does not exist because it isn’t known doesn’t make sense to me. That’s kinda like saying that sub-atomic particles didn’t exist until we had microscopes to see and then define them.[/quote]

Yes, I think we understand each other’s points, but we cannot argue directly against the other, because our arguments are incongruent. Why? because we both start off with very different assumptions.
You mention science. I know that argument which is why i said “laws of nature.” One can empirically and mathematically show that such things exist (or in theory), but I don’t know how you could say the same of rights. It’s not like you could dissect me and find my rights (exaggeration). This is like the argument of the soul. It can’t be shown empirically (that we know of). so it’s not comparable to sub-atomic particles. It is a matter of faith (though you could argue theoretical sub-atomic physics is that too).

just curious, do you believe in a right to your own life, your privacy? what do you think of the new supreme ct. decisions re: gay privacy rights. Lawrence is the case name i think. (tangent, i know)

37

You cannot have rights, which are intangible concepts, without first defining them. That is to say it is pointless to talk about, say freedom as an abstract concept that is due all citizens. It is the language of people that gives this abstraction meaning, thus it cannot exist unless it is first given (defined) by society.[/quote]

How can society come about without some foundation, without some respect–by which I mean the building blocks of communal living–without some “rights”? You speak of language, yet language is only necessary for and in society. To have become a society some things must therefore have been primary. Why else would we have grouped, other than to procreate? The answer is we did so to make it easier to protect those rights.

There are things to which we, as individuals, are entitled. These “freedoms” must be so self-evident that they are just there, and are not in need of definition.

To see what they are, we’ll have to go back to Maslow. We’ll see that the right to breath, eat, and drink, are inalienable. So is the right to safety–shelter and protection. Without these we cannot live, alone or as a group.

The bottom tier of Maslow’s pyramid can easily be acquired by the individual. He can live free of society, but cooperation is a key to economical use of our resources. And is obviously more fun to work together, to “conspire” for what is best for our group.

Then once those are met, we can climb higher-we can then seek love and esteem, and eventually become self-actualized.

The middle two levels can only be acquired by an individual through some participation in the community.

One can, however, usurp the middle levels and self-actualize without society.

All are rights. And in there, going back to where this started, is the right to defend oneself.

However, and this is a big one, one protects oneself when one is an individual. That’s ones right. But when one is part of a society that has chosen to protect and respect the rights of everyone within that ensemble, the individuals right to self-protection is still present, but the community, most often formally, institutes policing. So why do we, who elect the police, feel the need to arm ourselves when we have chosen others to do this for us.

The right to arm oneself is tantamount as an individual. But as an individual within a society, it is secondary. Society is the protection mechanism.

The second amendment is NOT an inalieanble right within a society. And therefore not such a right in America, which is we know is a community with a constitution. It is a constituted right. An unnecessary right.

Getting abck to the Iraqis and the original crux of this debate: They, the Iraqi people are armed as a group–They’re a militia.

They’re armed not because of a secondary, or constituted right, as I at first thought or got muddled in; they’re armed as a community trying to expel another community.

Their situation is not the same as those carrying private firearms in the States; their predicament is similar to that of the Colonies.

38

I like to think, Alleycat, that this is the basis for the golden rule.

All that needs happen to know that you have inalienable rights is to have someone either deny them or protect them. Even if they were never known of prior to that, the existence of the same will be crystal clear when either of those events occurs.

[quote=“Alleycat”]All are rights. And in there, going back to where this started, is the right to defend oneself.

However, and this is a big one, one protects oneself when one is an individual. That’s ones right. But when one is part of a society that has chosen to protect and respect the rights of everyone within that ensemble, the individuals right to self-protection is still present, but the community, most often formally, institutes policing. So why do we, who elect the police, feel the need to arm ourselves when we have chosen others to do this for us.

The right to arm oneself is tantamount as an individual. But as an individual within a society, it is secondary. Society is the protection mechanism.[/quote]

Alleycat, US case law is clear on the issue… the police have no duty to defend individual citizens. Their function is to act as a deterrent and to apprehend after the fact. Sometimes, they are on the scene and are able to prevent a crime… but they are not obligated to do so (that is, they are not obligated, nor able, to be on the scene). Undoubtedly, this stems from the fact that there simply are not enough police officers to provide protection for everyone all the time. Thus, knowing that even with the deterrent that the police provide, there are still bad people out there who will seek the weak and unprotected in order to do them harm, many Americans prefer to arm themselves.

I agree it is not an inalienable right, but it is often necessary for the protection of those inalienable rights… which is why it was included in the BORs.

[quote=“Alleycat”]Getting abck to the Iraqis and the original crux of this debate: They, the Iraqi people are armed as a group–They’re a militia.

They’re armed not because of a secondary, or constituted right, as I at first thought or got muddled in; they’re armed as a community trying to expel another community.[/quote]

Well, I don’t think so. I think they (most of them) are happy to have saddam’s regime on its heels. I think the only ones attacking coalition soldiers are the remnants of Saddam’s Baathist regime.

Not exactly. The colonists rebelled against an outside force that was perceived to be oppressive. The US went to Iraq only in response to actions taken by the Iraqi regime.

39

I have always been a little bemused by the US’s insistence on the right to bear arms, given that so many people die each year because of them.

So, I was eager to watch “Bowling for Columbine.”

Did anyone else find this the most confused piece of documentary ever filmed?

Basically, he zips through every argument as to why the US suffers so many fire-arm deaths, without resolving any of them. (Along the way he films a few self-conciously self-aggrandising scenes and tries at the end to hang everything on an obviously ill (Parkinson’s?) Charlton Heston.

All in all, his only comment seemed to be that the US has a culture of fear that is deliberately perpetuated by the Government and capitalists for profit.*

Still, the one thing I got from it is that some countries are suited to having a right to bear arms - some not. Canada seems to manage with very few killings and widespread gun ownership; the US does not.

Even if we look at it from the point of view of individual rights, then it is not straightforward. its not an absolute right. individual rights (as is implied by tigerman’s confucius/Jesus quotes) also require individual responsibility. Children are not granted the same rights as adults because they are not yet responsible.

If we look at the matter from the point of view of individual rights going hand-in-hand with individual responsibility, i think the Iraqis must demonstrate they have such responsibility (and, no, I do not believe in the case of guns that such a right is automatically conferred at the age of 21.)

I think that its hard for notions of individual civic responsibility to have taken root under a dictatorship. (Hence the scale of the looting, etc)

Therefore, no, i do not think the iraqis have demonstrated that they have the right to bear arms as individuals.

*Why would people spend more if they are fearful - wouldn’t they just hoard???

40

Yes. Different situations logically call for different rules.

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]If we look at the matter from the point of view of individual rights going hand-in-hand with individual responsibility, I think the Iraqis must demonstrate they have such responsibility (and, no, I do not believe in the case of guns that such a right is automatically conferred at the age of 21.)

I think that its hard for notions of individual civic responsibility to have taken root under a dictatorship. (Hence the scale of the looting, etc)[/quote]

Yes again. This is why the plan is to nurture the establishment of democratic institutions and the rule of law… which, IMO, is ultimately based on the notion of the golden rule.