The rights of man

[Rabarac]

Switzerland is a prime example of guns gone right.  About 1 in 3 of the population have a gun in their home, many times an automatic rifle.  Yet gun crime is so low they don't even keep records for it.  Now, there are a bunch of other factors contributing to that, but I think this at least indicates that heavy prevalence of guns or a 'gun culture' does not make for any kind of violent crime.  Clearly, other factors are to blame, for if gun ownership = violent crimes, then Switzerland must be explained, and it's not.  In science, when a theory or model fails to explain all observable phenomena accurately, it is improved, altered, or altogether thrown out in favor of a model that does explain the phenomena.  With Switzerland and several other countries as examples, we can see that arguing that violent crime is caused in some significant part by gun saturation is a scientifically incomplete, or possibly altogether incorrect, model.

Oops, I realized that that wasn't perfectly on topic.   

Why is bearing arms a right?  It's a check on the government.  It's the right to self-preservation and protection.  Kind of the proactive side of the right to life.  As has been well pointed out, only after disarming their nations has any systematic domestic genocide occurred in the twentieth century.  If you can't defend yourself from your government, you cede the ability to keep or dispense any and all rights to that government.  Knowing how well governments seem to manage everything else they have their hands in, why would you trust them with your basic human rights unless you had some kind of deterrent against abuse?  Regardless of how your government parades itself, you must assume it is a wily dictator in the making, and guard your rights, and those of others, fiercely.  For all dictators at one time or another had the consent of the governed to take the power they later abused to horrific effect.

[Delfos]

it isn't necessary if the right of freedom or choice or something preventing dictators to come is in action.

the only thing that can make guns come out is the right of self-defense, and it doesn't imply guns. So i really doubt bearing arms must be a human right, it's more like a social/political right for what you say. Humans can live free with dignity without guns, no need of them. It's the fact that there's guns that makes people wanting more guns.

Sheep don't kill sheep, wolves do, and last time i saw, Man was on top of food chain, there's no wolves trying to eat you.

Anyway, the only reason bearing arms is in effect is for protection, don't give me the right to revolt crap, that was never used.

You going on good examples with guns? Canada. They hunt deers, not humans. What's the point anyway? That society can live with guns, except USA?

[Rabarac]

Well, yeah, Delfos, if there were no guns, no one would need them, that shouldn't surprise anyone.  But this thread isn't entitled the basic human rights in a state of nature, granted by nature's God or anything, it's entitled the rights of man, encompassing political, social, economic, etc.  Naturally, a treaty for all of these things is silly.  The right to revolt crap was used, Thomas Jefferson went on about it extensively, and armed rebels have risen up against dictatorships all over the place.  Do you think the situation in Myanmar would have come up if the government didn't fiercely regulate the weapons so that only the army has them?  No dictatorship can last very long over an armed populace.  In modern democracies it may seem obscure, but that was where the Weimar Republic was as Hitler rose to power.

[Delfos]

armed rebels normally and illegal possession of weaponry, so no point there. And this is basic human rights, if you want Right to bear arms as a right, write it in your constitution, all we can do here is put a 'Right to self defense' and little more, in my bloody great opinion. Since there's constitutions that do not allow the possession of arms, and others that do, what's the point on trying to force it? I will not sign this treaty if it has anything to do with military or weapons or whatever related to killing tools. This is the basics of human nature to survive, things any government cannot deny to his population: shelter, to live, to choose their own path (prevent slavery)...and if you want to include protection, only if the government cannot supply such protection, and mine can.

[Rabarac]

armed rebels normally and illegal possession of weaponry, so no point there.

I wish I could understand this sentence.

And this is basic human rights, if you want Right to bear arms as a right, write it in your constitution, all we can do here is put a 'Right to self defense' and little more, in my bloody great opinion. Since there's constitutions that do not allow the possession of arms, and others that do, what's the point on trying to force it? I will not sign this treaty if it has anything to do with military or weapons or whatever related to killing tools. This is the basics of human nature to survive, things any government cannot deny to his population: shelter, to live, to choose their own path (prevent slavery)...and if you want to include protection, only if the government cannot supply such protection, and mine can.

The first written constitution (the one in the US) does claim the right to bear arms in its basic rights.  The basics of human nature to survive can be obtained without the aid of government.  Governments exist to preserve these rights from the unjust actions of other men and little else.  I will not sign the treaty for reasons elaborated on above, and I highly doubt a right to bear arms will make it into such a flimsy document that is concerned about a man's or a woman's 'right to conscience.'

[Pachamama]

This is a experimental proposal.
Please comment, expand and change upon it.
I am no good in formulating legal matters.
So maybe some people on this forum could assist me in making this sound right.

The right to live
Every human being has the right to live.
This right may not be taken away because of disabilities, religious or political position, color, race or creed.

It is understood that this right can not be guaranteed nor enforced in case of natural disasters, natural terminal illnesses (Such that are not based on the use of weapons like Nuclear, biological or chemical warfare devices) or accidents.

Every government must in these cases take what reasonable steps  lie within its abilities and possibilities to ensure the safety of all peoples lives threatened by such circumstances.

It is understood that a government can not be held responsible for the loss of live in such circumstances except in cases of direct neglect despite it's ability to assist.

It is the right of all human beings to defend this right in case of an unprovoked, direct and present attack were neither a governmental nor non governmental organization is available to do so.
It is understood that an attacker in this case may forfeit this right by his attack.

The right to bear arms for the case of self-defense is not considered a basic human right but lies within the discretion of individual governmental bodies.

[Myroria]

The first written constitution that survives to this day and is still law is San Marino. Though I still agree with Rabarac.

[Glomin]

The right to bear arms could never be included in the rights of man if it was to be universally accepted (or even accepted by any reasonably sized group of nations) because not every nation agrees with it.  Therefore it is up to your government to decide upon (my nation for example has gun control but only restrictions on calibre, automatic capabilities and explosives (if your of sound mind semiautomatics in lower calibres are fine)).  Switzerland only had/has (not sure how recent my information is) low rates of gun crime compared to the number of guns, they had some of the highest (I think in europe) compared to population, and anyway that is to do with their armed forces they still have strict gun control laws for civilian use.

[Khem]

how about...

every man has the right to reasonable ability for self defense.

[Delfos]

yes, very precise! I think it's reasonable to defend myself from such right with a umbrella.

[Glomin]

basically the right to bear arms should be left up to the individual nations, the rights I laid out were just the ones I thought no one would have a problem with.

If anyone wants to impose more rights on themselves then this treaty would require then feel free, but the rights of freedom of thought and freedom of liberty (i.e. the right not to be arrested for no reason) I thought were pretty universal (at least in what governments say if not in how they act).

[Xyrael]

Freedom of Thought will be banned when it can be. Freedom of Speech isn't universal, thought is just unspoken Speech. So yes, it's universal, for now. And don't call me barbaric or far fetched. When it can happen it will, maybe not in Europe or America, but Europe and America aren't the world.

As far as I am concerned, the Right to Life is the only universal Right. Life, as a basic, would start with cognitive reasoning abilities, the beginning of Freedom of Thought (and could be change based on a nations views). However, you must be able to balance one man's right to life with the deeds he has done. Therefore, in all honesty, I believe there are no fundamental human rights. You earn the Right to Life, you earn the Right to Freedom of Liberty. You break a law, you lose your Right.

[Pachamama]

It is interesting to see how easily human rights are pushed off the table.
Especially by people who in RL live in countries were they get several of this "unnecessary human rights" by birth.
Reminds me of Starship Troopers
"Something given has no value"
That sentence seems to be proved right once again.
I wonder how this discussion would go if we lived not under such cozy conditions.

And yes I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Namely the first one who can't understand why all those Africans are complaining about not having any bread. Cake tastes so much better anyway.

[Delfos]

Freedom of Thought will be banned when it can be. Freedom of Speech isn't universal, thought is just unspoken Speech. So yes, it's universal, for now. And don't call me barbaric or far fetched. When it can happen it will, maybe not in Europe or America, but Europe and America aren't the world.

As far as I am concerned, the Right to Life is the only universal Right. Life, as a basic, would start with cognitive reasoning abilities, the beginning of Freedom of Thought (and could be change based on a nations views). However, you must be able to balance one man's right to life with the deeds he has done. Therefore, in all honesty, I believe there are no fundamental human rights. You earn the Right to Life, you earn the Right to Freedom of Liberty. You break a law, you lose your Right.

laws are made for societies. You break a law you are expelled from society. You never lose your human rights, because you are still human, always. But it's the other factor, if you are American as a member of American society, if you break a law, you must be kept away from America, in a prison for example. American law goes further and kills the human being, more often than God Himself.

[Glomin]

we can't have the right to life as that precludes the death penalty, legal suicide and depending on your point of view abortion.