UDHR includes the right to bear arms/right to self defense?

Artillery was definitely considered a military weapon to be kept out of private hands. You wanted a distinction between sporting and military weapons.

Damn, I'm in a tight spot.:eek:

I think it is safe to assmume that the founding fathers were refering to small arms when the constitution was written. That being said, who knows what they might think about a private citizen owning a cannon. There are plenty of cannons and mortars in civilian circulation. Pay yer $200 tax and you can own practically anything.
 
I've got a feeling that the Founding Fathers would have a problem with a private citizen claiming they needed an artillery piece with grape shot to protect their home.

Perhaps not their home, but their sailing vessel? Definitely, since privately owned sailing ships were armed with cannon in that period.
 
Damn, I'm in a tight spot.:eek:

I think it is safe to assmume that the founding fathers were refering to small arms when the constitution was written. That being said, who knows what they might think about a private citizen owning a cannon. There are plenty of cannons and mortars in civilian circulation. Pay yer $200 tax and you can own practically anything.

I added a quote to my post that is kind of silly and off topic, but it's from Laurence of Arabia. I think it holds true to the idea that the modern day government is only granting people the ability to maintain arms that are not really threatening to the state. In the 18th century, muskets were really pretty ineffective the major deciding factor on battlefields was Artillery. Providing stores of black powder and stockpiling shot, was obviously a job only the state could do.

Now in modern days all sorts of small arms allowed in US, and as our military has proven in Iraq and Afghanistan small arms practically mean nothing. Drones, smart bombs, and sattelites are what gives a people independence.
 
On a personal note, having spent many long days with soldiers at firing ranges, the idea of civilians having acess to mlitary weapons without a proper licensing/trainning program is very unnatural to me...

Want to fire a M4? Join the National Guard.

Machine guns have been heavily regulated by the Federal Government since the 1934 National Firearms Act was enacted. You pay a one time $200 tax and then wait 6-10 months while the the feds do a background check on you and process your form.

In the 78 years of NFAs existence, only a handful of crimes have been committed by registered machine guns and one of them was by a police officer.

I wish to see the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act would be repealed so machine guns aren't so $$$ to purchase.
 
.22LR? Why not go all the way and claim they did it with indoor target air pistols?

Rifles - Keep them bolt or lever action with 3 rounds max for civilians
Allow them only to registered members of hunting/target clubs.
Handguns - Ban all semi autos for civilian use. Limit them to revolvers with calibers up to .38special in terms of power.

Every weapon you mentioned could be used effectively by irregular forces. At close enough range, an air pistol can kill. I've sent a .177 pellet half way through a large phonebook with a $30 pellet gun. Hunting airguns will definately kill a person, quietly too. OOOOH!!! LOOK AT THAT! WE GOT TO BAN AIRGUNS NOW TOO!!!!!

Trying to impose made up restrictions on weapons is utter nonsense. Guns are guns, whether or not it is classified as a sporting arm or a military arm. They can all do the same thing if need be. "Registered" hunting or target rifles can be stolen from shooting clubs, revolvers in .38 special can still kill people, none of it really matters. Hell, if you have any basic knowledge of metalworking can just make own weapons. Sten guns aren't hard to make.:D
 
Last edited:
The "people" and "individuals" is not the same thing. The UN recognizes the right, for example, of the people of Syria to raise in armed rebelion against an opressive regime. It does not recognize (to quote from those liberals in The West Wing) the right of a couple of guys in Texas to carry an AK47 in their Dodge Durango.

Rebelion and Resistence either mean a faction of the Army is willing to join the rebellion or weapons in the hands of civilians only raise the level of bloodshed.

On a personal note, having spent many long days with soldiers at firing ranges, the idea of civilians having acess to mlitary weapons without a proper licensing/trainning program is very unnatural to me...

Want to fire a M4? Join the National Guard.

If have fired one; not much of a kick, but still loud. I prefer the Mac-90. It's easier to aim with the old fashion sight than with a fancy scope. Besides, you don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself. In case of home invasion, a shotgun loaded with bird- or buck-shot is more than sufficiant. I prefer knives since the apartment I live in is so small that anybody breaking in will be stabbed before they can manuever in firearm into position to fire. Self-defense is just that: to defend one's self. I'm not surprised something like the UN, who doesn't believe any one person has a right to claim a piece of ground off Earth would also not believe in the right of a person to defend themselves.
 
Every weapon you mentioned could be used effectively by irregular forces. At close enough range, an air pistol can kill. I've sent a .177 pellet half way through a large phonebook with a $30 pellet gun. Hunting airguns will definately kill a person, quietly too. OOOOH!!! LOOK AT THAT! WE GOT TO BAN AIRGUNS NOW TOO!!!!!

Trying to impose made up restrictions on weapons is utter nonsense. Guns are guns, whether or not it is classified as a sporting arm or a military arm. They can all do the same thing if need be. "Registered" hunting or target rifles can be stolen from shooting clubs, revolvers in .38 special can still kill people, none of it really matters. Hell, if you have any basic knowledge of metalworking can just make thier own weapon. Sten guns aren't hard to make.:D

I have handled a lot of those handmade guns. We have them in most of our museums, since they were used in Africa against our people. Our guys really apreciated them using those weapons, since most of the times they blew up in their hands and saved us a lot of trouble:cool:. It was when those damm commies started giving them AK47s that the locals became dangerous.

I am a rifleman. I'd rather fight guys armed with 30$ .177 airpistols than with FN FAL rifles. But maybe its just me.
Criminals will always have guns. Just allow the cops to open fire on sight on anybody out of a firing range or legal hunting area who is packing a gun and not wearing a uniform. Saves a lot of judicial work...
 
If have fired one; not much of a kick, but still loud. I prefer the Mac-90. It's easier to aim with the old fashion sight than with a fancy scope. Besides, you don't need an assault rifle to defend yourself. In case of home invasion, a shotgun loaded with bird- or buck-shot is more than sufficiant. I prefer knives since the apartment I live in is so small that anybody breaking in will be stabbed before they can manuever in firearm into position to fire. Self-defense is just that: to defend one's self. I'm not surprised something like the UN, who doesn't believe any one person has a right to claim a piece of ground off Earth would also not believe in the right of a person to defend themselves.

Two barrel shotgun, over and under is better. Load the first barrel with Number 4 shot and the second with a full bore slug.
Firing a high powered weapon in an apartment will likely pierce walls and kill the wrong people next door...
 
I have handled a lot of those handmade guns. We have them in most of our museums, since they were used in Africa against our people. Our guys really apreciated them using those weapons, since most of the times they blew up in their hands and saved us a lot of trouble:cool:. It was when those damm commies started giving them AK47s that the locals became dangerous.

There is a big difference between a black powder shotgun made by some illiterate tribesman and a weapon made by a skilled machinist. A home-made sten gun made by somewhat who knows what they are doing is pretty close to the original in quality.
 
Last edited:
I will assume, whether wrongly or rightly, that you are saying this from an idea about the American right to bear arms that it entails the right to rebellion or is purposed for that. Though it is not. And the reason it is not, and the reason that such a "right to rebellion" would be problematic as an actual right is basically in the name. You would be giving a right to sedition, rebellion and treason. Every single nation stands because of the idea that it is the one to define the organization of the citizenship of it (and how that looks and to what extent and in what ways that is depends on the form of government), and that it is the one with authority of law. If you make it a right to topple your government, you've completely undermined everything about that, opening the doors for total anarchy. The idea of rebelling against tyrants is a good idea, but establishing a right to rebellion against your government, a right to treason and sedition, is unbelievably dangerous.

This is a good argument, which is why nobody responded.
 
I will assume, whether wrongly or rightly, that you are saying this from an idea about the American right to bear arms that it entails the right to rebellion or is purposed for that. Though it is not. And the reason it is not, and the reason that such a "right to rebellion" would be problematic as an actual right is basically in the name. You would be giving a right to sedition, rebellion and treason. Every single nation stands because of the idea that it is the one to define the organization of the citizenship of it (and how that looks and to what extent and in what ways that is depends on the form of government), and that it is the one with authority of law. If you make it a right to topple your government, you've completely undermined everything about that, opening the doors for total anarchy. The idea of rebelling against tyrants is a good idea, but establishing a right to rebellion against your government, a right to treason and sedition, is unbelievably dangerous.

Agreed. Giving the right to rebel is a horrid idea. But the right of self to self defense or RKBA does not necessarily mean the right to rebellion. It grants the individual the right to defend themselves or their property against harm or unlawful seizure. Now that does not mean that an individual has the right to use force against creditors or law enforcement evicting an individual from property. Nor does it mean that an individual can use force if law enforcement are attempting to arrest them.

If the government is commiting gross violations of human rights, or of it's own internal law (clear voter fraud,corrupt state institutions I.E. County Sheriffs) it is perfectly reasonable for the right to self-defence or RKBA to apply to those situations. Arguing that "duh gubment can't tax mee" is NOT an appropriate situation for the right to self-defence or RKBA to be employed.
 
The idea of a right to bear arms is archaic and not in the proper context for this, which is the problematic thing to having it be in the UDHR. The reason for a right to bear arms, in the American context at least (which is the only one I know; the English common law right may have been more expansive to simply personal reasons, but I don't have expertise there) is for the civic duty of joining and having a right and duty to join an organized militia for defense from enemies foreign and domestic when you are needed. Mind you, this being at a time when the nation was nothing if not disunified and the existence of a standing, formally trained national army for the United States was severely lacking. You're bearing arms against the enemies of the republic, and it is your right to do so.
Yes! Gawd, I've been saying just this on here for years now... finally, someone else gets it!
What is a military weapon? When the constitution was first written, there was little distinction between a military weapon and a sporting weapon. Just because firearms technology has advanced doesn't mean that basic principle of the 2nd amendment has changed.
Well, the Feds have to right to interpret just how far the rights in all of our Amendments go... not just the 2nd, but all of them. The right to free speech and free press doesn't mean that slander and libel are legal. The right to freedom of religion doesn't mean that human sacrifice is legal, or that you can carry out holy crusades to kill the heathen. Thus, the fact that the Feds restrict some types of arms is fully in keeping with the way that they handle the rest of the Constitution. So long as they don't ban or severely restrict the right to own firearms, it's all Constitutional.
I think it is safe to assmume that the founding fathers were refering to small arms when the constitution was written. That being said, who knows what they might think about a private citizen owning a cannon.
I think that private citizens did own cannons at various times, although I can't come up with any specifics right now. IIRC, it happened several times when Americans were moving into the new western territories early in the 19th Century. Also (again, IIRC), a lot of civilian ships had cannons on them back in the bad old days of piracy...
 
"Newbies walk in where angels fear to tread"...

The thread title, "UDHR includes the right to bear arms/right to self defense". I think most of the signatories would see these as two seperate and different things, whereas in the US they often treated as synonymous. That difference would probably scuttle its inclusion.
 
Owning a canon or any other artillery piece is legal in most states here in the US. Finding live rounds to use is difficult at best and if one did find one, they would have to pay the NFA tax stamp and go through background check for each one.
 
Top