No Right to Self Defense...

[Guest Ghostrider]

I finally have a story for this forum. And this is another of those "strap in and take your motion sickness pills" trips of "logic" from our "friends" at the UN...

Fred Thompson vs. The UN's anti-self-defense campaign Earlier this week, Sen. Fred Thompson wrote to Field & Stream magazine, criticizing the UN's campaign against the human right of self-defense. The Thompson campaign touted the letter on its website, and the letter got a favorable reception among many pro-Second Amendment bloggers.

The Thompson letter, including its quotation of the great Dutch philosopher of international law, Hugo Grotius, appears to have used as a source the Kopel/Gallant/Eisen article "The Human Right of Self-Defense," which is forthcoming in volume 22 of the BYU Journal of Public Law. (We're in the middle of the cite-check right now, so the draft on my website is not the final version. And kudos to the BYU staff for its hard work on a monstrous cite-check with hundreds of sources, many of them not in the collection of an ordinary law library.)

Sen. Thompson's letter prompted criticism from Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Stephen Benen, both of whom relied on a refutation written by UN Dispatch, a weblog funded by the UN Foundation.

Today, the Knoxville News reports that it was UN Dispatch that got the facts wrong. The Special Rapporteur's Report which Thompson criticized (and which was adopted and endorsed by a submcommission of the UN Human Rights Council) quite explicitly says that personal self-defense is not a human right.

It's been a long time since a major presidential candidate quoted Grotius, and my view is the more Grotius in America's public debates, the better. I hope Pufendorf starts to get some attention too.

It's rather telling that the UN's American defenders fail to directly address an indisputable fact: U.N. Human Rights Council's subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has endorsed a report denying the existence of a human right of self-defense, and the subcommission, pursuant to the report, has declared that all national governments are required by international human rights law to implement various gun control provisions--provisions which, by the UN's standards, make even the gun control laws of New York City and Washington, DC, into violations of international law because they are insufficiently stringent. (See page 14 of the draft BYU article.)

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_10_28-2007_11_03.shtml#1194117113

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

So, you have to be so incredibly "humanitarian" that you have to take peoples rights. Sounds a little oxymoronic to me. Save lives by denying someone the right to keep theirs.

[The Rabbi]

I also dont think there's a natural right of self-defense. But Fred isnt going to lose any votes taking on the U.N. Thats preaching to the choir.

But he lost me when he went to Iowa and declared for ethanol mandates. I'll probably end up voting for him anyway though.

[Marswolf]

I also dont think there's a natural right of self-defense.

Well Rabbi, you lost my vote there. In my view, if you don't have a natural born right of self-defense, any other rights are meaningless.

I'll probably end up voting for him anyway though.

I don't know. The more I read of his positions on other stuff, the less I like him.

[The Rabbi]

Good thing I'm not running for anything then.

I dont think a person has a natural born right to anything. And no one has been able to prove otherwise. I think society is wise to accord a right to self defense, and legislate it into existence. And I would be balls-out opposed to any attempt to interfere by the UN in our legal rights.

[Guest looneeetunes]

I also dont think there's a natural right of self-defense.

ill have to agree with mars here . like to elaborate rabbi?

[Guest looneeetunes]

natural born rights is a wide subject, but to narrow down the field to what we are talking about here. i think in the least, you have the right to preserve your own life. self preservation is what countries are born from. i cant at all understand that way of thinking.

[Guest Len]

What's lost in the discussion here is the complete mis characterization of the UN position and the supposed "requirement" all nations have to comply.

An analysis appears here:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13429.html

The actual report is here: http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf

Here's a quote from the report: “20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “rightâ€. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another. “

Also, the UN charter -article 51- specifically allows for self-defense as a legitimate behavior for both states and individuals.

The UN report in question argues that SD is not an inherent right, but rather a means of protecting an inherent right (the right to life). So, while the inherent right may not exist, it is certainly an acceptable behavior as it defends an inherent right. The UN is NOT attempting to take away any human rights.

Next, let's turn to Rabbi's comment: "I dont think a person has a natural born right to anything. And no one has been able to prove otherwise. I think society is wise to accord a right to self defense, and legislate it into existence. And I would be balls-out opposed to any attempt to interfere by the UN in our legal rights."

I see nothing here to disagree with or get all fired up about. The idea of natural rights of man is the basic under-pinning for a great deal of western political philosophy, but it is a presupposition, nothing more. Natural rights of man are IMPLIED by certain religious doctrines, certainly, and form an excellent foundation for certain types of government, but they are not "proven." I suppose the only way to prove such would be to find God and ask Him: "So Creator, did you endow man with certain unalienable rights?" I can't speak for others, but I have not found Him and so can't ask the question. I also can't be convinced that anyone else has found Him either.

(Rabbi's basis for his statements may be completely different than mine, so this is not an attempt to put words in his mouth. This is merely an elaboration of my rationale if I were to have made a similar statement.)

All that being said, I find a certain elaboration of basic human rights to be an acceptable basis for the foundation of governments (and the preservation of said rights to be the primary reason for the existence of governments). I would argue the right to life is one such basic human right, and the act of defending that right (self-defense) to be philosophically and legally reasonable. The US Constitution would seem to agree with me.

[The Rabbi]

I also dont think there's a natural right of self-defense.

ill have to agree with mars here . like to elaborate rabbi?

There;s not much to elaborate. People claim there is a right to all kinds of things that is inalienable. But other than quoting from the Declaration, which is not even a legal document for the purposes of American law, they cannot prove it.

My view is that rights are generally determined by society. When a right is not recognized, it ceases to exist. No one has explained the difference between a right that is denied and one that doesn't exist.

[Guest DaG]

But other than quoting from the Declaration, which is not even a legal document for the purposes of American law

I'm assuming that you are speaking of the Declaration of Independence?

DaG

[The Rabbi]

I'm assuming that you are speaking of the Declaration of Independence?

DaG

Right, the Declaration of Independence.

[Guest Ghostrider]

Perhaps I'm just dense, as has been pointed out numerous times, but how is this

has declared that all national governments are required by international human rights law to implement various gun control provisions--provisions which, by the UN's standards, make even the gun control laws of New York City and Washington, DC, into violations of international law because they are insufficiently stringent.

not interfering with my US rights by a "world court"?

[Guest Phantom6]

Perhaps I'm just dense, as has been pointed out numerous times, but how is this

[/b]

not interfering with my US rights by a "world court"?

I'd have to say that you are spot on with your assessment here. The UN is determined to overturn or over run the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the united States

[The Rabbi]

I am not sure how much more stringent gun control laws could be than DC's. They already ban outright all handguns and require all long guns to be disassembled at home. And they all have to be registered. I guess they could ban all long guns outright too.

But why anyone thinks this will actually make life any better is beyond me. It is a demonstrated failure, nevermind an infringement on the US constitution.

[Mike.357]

I dont think a person has a natural born right to anything.

Rabbi, what?

So are you saying if someone is going to beat you that you will just let them?

Are you saying people have no right to hold their hand up to deflect a blow by an attacker?

I can't believe it , I gotta be missing something here, gonna go back and re-reread this thing.

[Marswolf]

I don't think re-reading it will make it any more sensible.

Natural rights are an a priori thing. They exist just because they do.

From a practical aspect, if you won't accept my right of self preservation, I won't accept that you have any rights at all. That sounds fair.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, what?

So are you saying if someone is going to beat you that you will just let them?

Are you saying people have no right to hold their hand up to deflect a blow by an attacker?

I can't believe it , I gotta be missing something here, gonna go back and re-reread this thing.

No, I am saying your right to do that does not stem from some amorphous concept of "natural rights" which are unproven but from common consent of society.

[molonlabetn]

Rabbi, I can see where you're coming from in terms of the difficulty of proving an idea such as natural rights... But, if you prescribe to the idea that there is a Deity Creator who has formed nature itself, then there is no higher authority than this, and anything which is allowed in the natural realm is done so purposefully. So, you argue that natural rights are unproven... I say in response that because I do indeed exist, intentionally, by the will of God, and no reason or law of humanity holds sway over that pure fact, because there is no higher authority than the source which causes me to exist and eventually cease to exist.

[The Rabbi]

Unfortunately, appeals to Divine Will tend not to carry much water in today's political climate. Further, plenty of clergy will blab about peace and turning the other cheek, etc. That's their problem, not mine.

My point is that people who want to sit around and fart about 2A and natural rights are going to find themselves with no rights, as the anti's win the debate through sheer numbers. It is an attitude thing (which is exactly my point). Go to NY or Chicago and tell people there you are an avid gun owner and shooter. They look at you like you're crazy. No sane person owns guns, only criminals. 2A? Thats for militia. etc etc.

Only when society agrees on rights in general do those rights exist. So we have to keep getting out there and beating this thing about a right to self-defense and RKBA. If people believe there is such a thing, then there will be. If they don't, there won't. Its pretty simple.

[molonlabetn]

Unfortunately, appeals to Divine Will tend not to carry much water in today's political climate. Further, plenty of clergy will blab about peace and turning the other cheek, etc. That's their problem, not mine.

My point is that people who want to sit around and fart about 2A and natural rights are going to find themselves with no rights, as the anti's win the debate through sheer numbers. It is an attitude thing (which is exactly my point). Go to NY or Chicago and tell people there you are an avid gun owner and shooter. They look at you like you're crazy. No sane person owns guns, only criminals. 2A? Thats for militia. etc etc.

Only when society agrees on rights in general do those rights exist. So we have to keep getting out there and beating this thing about a right to self-defense and RKBA. If people believe there is such a thing, then there will be. If they don't, there won't. Its pretty simple.

I wasn't appealing to the government with that argument, I was appealing to you. Do you not think that Divine Will which causes you to exist is the ultimate authority on whether or not we may exist? Does the government have the last word when it comes to your life?

[The Rabbi]

Depends. If you are asking about my religious views then yes, life ultimately depends on the Creator.

If you are asking about my political views, then no, there are no rights that stem from the Creator. In fact Hebrew has no word for rights as we understand them.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Natural instinct for self preservation is all the indication I need that self defense is a natural right.

[molonlabetn]

Depends. If you are asking about my religious views then yes, life ultimately depends on the Creator.

If you are asking about my political views, then no, there are no rights that stem from the Creator. In fact Hebrew has no word for rights as we understand them.

Fair enough, but, the religious and political views are not independant... for instance, what if the majority of the population, and the government, decided to round up all uncompromising gun-owners, force them to be publicly branded as such, stripped of their possessions, and shortly thereafter trucked off to be incarcerated, forced into hard labor and then executed?

Would that not be a horrific violation of rights, regardless of whether you were looking at it from a political or religious point of view?

[The Rabbi]

Natural instinct for self preservation is all the indication I need that self defense is a natural right.

There's a natural instinct to have sex. Does that make rape a natural right?

[The Rabbi]

Fair enough, but, the religious and political views are not independant... for instance, what if the majority of the population, and the government, decided to round up all uncompromising gun-owners, force them to be publicly branded as such, stripped of their possessions, and shortly thereafter trucked off to be incarcerated, forced into hard labor and then executed?

Would that not be a horrific violation of rights, regardless of whether you were looking at it from a political or religious point of view?

No, it would not be a horrific violation of rights because obviously such people ceased to have rights, for whatever reason.

I doubt the individual action would be moral, however, but that's another issue.