Guns As A " God-given Right"

[NotreDame]

I've never said firearms or the ownership of them are inherently evil. Guns are morally neutral. Saying a gun is inherently evil is like saying chocolate chip cookie dough is inherently sinful (though it is, however, inherently delicious.) I just question that the ownership of a gun is a God-given right like life, education, and medical care are, which is clearly stated in the Catechism passage that seems to no longer exist.

 

when people speak of a god-given right to fire-arms, they are probably speaking of a "natural right" in the enlightenment sense of the term:

 

According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent. As the Declaration of Independence asserts, natural (or “inalienable”) rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”   (not the best definition, but the shortest and most concise I could link to quickly)

 

The right to life would also then be a 'natural right' by this definition.

 

When you start talking about rights to education and health care these are probably not going to be understood as natural rights in the enlightenment sense.  In the secular sense they are "human rights" and people can arrive at that various ways.

 

Now as for the church, I'm not sure if and/or where they define these things as "rights" nor on what basis they define them as rights.  Please do go look for them and share them with us. 

 

As for the difference between "natural rights" and "human rights"...  Natural rights are generally things we have innately that some feel not be taken away from without; life and free-will (liberty) the most obvious examples.  These social 'Human rights' like education and healthcare are different.  These are things we don't have via 'nature', but some feel are necessary to enjoy our natural rights. 

 

As for guns.... We by nature have the right to property and the right to defend ourselves.  This would include the right to weapons.  Some enlightenment philosophers believe that we could as a people decide to cede that right to the government.  That's part of the reason why there was a bill of rights:  to set a minimum standard on freedoms that couldn't be infringed later on by majorities.  That's also why so much discussion today revolves are the 2nd amendment. 

 

So that is why people say it's a "god-given right". 

[polskieserce]

To elaborate on this, you believe it's the right of people to have weapons to defend themselves in the cases of tyrannical governments, ergo guns?

 

Even broader than that.  Tyrannical governments certainly count as a situation where people have the right to use guns, and even heavier weapons for that matter.  However, that is not the only situation.  If a person breaks into your house and tries to kill you, you have a right to defend yourself.  If there is a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina and society temporarily (or permanently :unsure: ) breaks down, then the same principles apply.  In a lot of cases, it simply won't be possible for the average person to defend him/herself without a gun if 3 people with bats and machetes are after you.

[Socrates]

The means to self-defense, and defense of one's family, etc. is a God-given right, and the Church teaches that protecting the lives of those entrusted to one's care is in fact a duty.  (Maybe I can pull up the relevant Catechism passages when I get more time.)

 

Today, being able to defend oneself and family generally involves firearms.

 

If we ban guns, we monopolize lethal force in the hands of the state, and of lawless thugs, and leave everyone else defenseless.

 

The right to life implies a right to defend it against unjust aggression.

[Winchester]

Unless someone else is claiming there's a god-given right (whatever that is) to prevent others from owning guns, it doesn't matter. 

 

Assuming one believes in rights, at all. If there are no rights, then it's just a matter of force. But neither side uses that argument. It's always some kind of morality thing, although gun control advocates tend to be more shrill.

[NotreDame]

Assuming one believes in rights, at all. If there are no rights, then it's just a matter of force. But neither side uses that argument. It's always some kind of morality thing, although gun control advocates tend to be more shrill.

 

Actually, I don't think natural law theory involves morality to arrive at rights - at least not in the sense you are using it (although I could be wrong.)

 

I also don't think gun rights advocates use morality in their main arguments, do they?  Maybe I'm missing something.

 

On the other hand, 'human rights' (excepting those that fall under 'natural law') are, almost by definition, moral principles.  From where I stand they also seem pretty arbitrary, but that's my perspective - I'm sure some PHD somewhere has written a paper explaining why they're not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Winchester]

Actually, I don't think natural law theory involves morality to arrive at rights - at least not in the sense you are using it (although I could be wrong.)

 

I also don't think gun rights advocates use morality in their main arguments, do they?  Maybe I'm missing something.

 

On the other hand, 'human rights' (excepting those that fall under 'natural law') are, almost by definition, moral principles.  From where I stand they also seem pretty arbitrary, but that's my perspective - I'm sure some PHD somewhere has written a paper explaining why they're not.

My point is that neither side uses force as their justification. Although only gun control advocates are proposing aggression, they do not appeal directly to force as the justification. They don't point out that the entities which will enforce gun control are willing to initiate violence and use it disproportionately in enforcing the personal desires of the gun control advocate. It's always an appeal to safety, to legality, to emotion. Inherent in the gun control argument is a claim of a right to control others, but that's not stated explicitly.

[NotreDame]

To elaborate on this, you believe it's the right of people to have weapons to defend themselves in the cases of tyrannical governments, ergo guns?

 

Or in case of corrupt governments, like Mexico, where the people can't count on the government (local/state/federal) to protect them. 

 

[NotreDame]

My point is that neither side uses force as their justification. Although only gun control advocates are proposing aggression, they do not appeal directly to force as the justification. They don't point out that the entities which will enforce gun control are willing to initiate violence and use it disproportionately in enforcing the personal desires of the gun control advocate. It's always an appeal to safety, to legality, to emotion. Inherent in the gun control argument is a claim of a right to control others, but that's not stated explicitly.

Make sense regarding gun control advocates.

 

As far as gun rights, speaking hypothetically, how would/could those advocates use force as their justification? Isn't "you'll pry my guns from my cold dead hands" an appeal to force? 

 

[EmilyAnn]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

[PhuturePriest]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

 

If it makes you feel better, I live in America and I still find it fundamentally bizarre. :P You always told me I was British at heart, though.

[CrossCuT]

I prefer non-lethal force whenever possible. 

 

:hippie:

[KnightofChrist]

"Those who possess arms are the persons who enjoy constitutional rights" - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book II

"It is from oligarchy that tyranny derives its habits of distrusting the masses, and policy, consequent upon it, of depriving them of arms." - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book V

Edited April 9, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

"Those who possess arms are the persons who enjoy constitutional rights" - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book II

"It is from oligarchy that tyranny derives its habits of distrusting the masses, and policy, consequent upon it, of depriving them of arms." - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book V

 

You're telling me. You definitely have an effed up tyrannical government if they're chopping everyone's arms off.

[Winchester]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

 

But do you believe in a right to prohibit people from owning them and the right to use violence to enforce that prohibition?

[Winchester]

Make sense regarding gun control advocates.

 

As far as gun rights, speaking hypothetically, how would/could those advocates use force as their justification? Isn't "you'll pry my guns from my cold dead hands" an appeal to force? 

Someone could claim that they have a right to own a weapon based on their ability to maintain its ownership, and also claim a right to take other peoples' weapons. I believe this is the typical State position, although it's not stated as such. Might is the justification in a democracy. Democracies never limit their power to the electorate. When a State is established, it never obtains consent of all those to be ruled, it just assumes. In the case of the US, the democracy came in the form of a republic, and consent of the many who were never consulted or were legally excluded from objecting were automatically found to be subject to whatever rules the minority saw fit to impose. There is no legal standing for citizens to either consent or object. All they can do is beg. This is a position of brute force, nothing more. I contend that gun rights of the State rest solely on force. There is a lot of rhetoric about it, but stripped of all that, in the end, the State relies on might and does not know any restraint save that which might anger the masses enough, but the State is adept at marginalizing those who reject its claims to exemption from the normal moral order.