You can read the UN's Declaration of Human rights at www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Although many dismiss the views the UN as just, again, the US- they have been wrestling with the question for over 50 years,crafting articles seeking a universal definition.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

As Griff points out, the newly sanctioned US military courts need to be addressed here too- it all goes fuzzy and out of focus in the name of war.:(

Read it, and as a [bonehead] small-l libertarian I would have to say that the US itself doesn't adhere to all that stuff. And we have no excuse; we came up with a lot of those ideas. A declaration based on natural rights that starts by declaring all equal before the law... seems mighty familiar.

The problem with declarations upon high is that societies will pretty much do what they want to do anyway. The pressure for people to behave according to their society, as opposed to their laws, is tremendous. This would be doubly true in cases where the law comes from some distant authority. At its best, the law is a set of guidelines and a gentle nudging. The best enforcement is the neighbor, the family member, the civic association and the church. If none of those believe in the declaration on high, the society will not change.

Very true. Declarations articulate values that sometimes can lead to laws which sometimes can lead to action and maybe eventually societal change. Eventually. Unfortunately this works equally for good and evil.

It is still being played out in the long messy wake of legalized slavery in the US.

Wel that is the problem: Who si going to enforce these measures. THe UN? Is powerless in msot places, and ot my knowlegde has never waded in anywhere*purely* to stop an international law being broeken becuase in the end, they are not binding.
Until you have some kind of *real* world goverment international sutff liek this is pretty pointless, Australia is as bad.

Democratic Republic is an oxymoron - What the US is a Constutional Republic, but we know what you meant

Charlie

past tense Charlie

More and more every day.

Democracy: 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what to have for dinner
Republic: 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on WHO to have for dinner
Constitutional Republic: The wolves finding out the sheep are armed

Well, we have a few old documents down in Washington that make a stab at it, which I vastly prefer to the relativism above.

And here's a point of view that brings this thread full-circle too: http://www.a-human-right.com/


http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_protects.jpg

.......................................................................................................................................................................................O, so if everyone carrys a gun we're safe?
Either that or you're gonna spend allota time doging ricochetes every time someone gets tapped on the should while in a bad mood.

Easy there, jag. I'm a big fan of gun laws, but even I wouldn't take it that far. Although, that pic is pure fear factor material. ;)

Democratic Republican IS an oxymoron. There are alot of moderates that are ox-morons too.. not that that's a bad thing.


(hehe)

I'm ell aware of the emotional manipulation element of the pic - its the message =)

I spent a month in cambodia, *everyone* has a gun, mostly assult rifle type things, net result: Allot of people, animals etc got shot. I psoe its a bit liek MAd theory - if everyone is equally armed noone is going to shoot for fear of being shot. Guns aren't nukes tho. Ordinary carrying Beretta 92Fs in underarm holsters ain't gonna do much good, even in somehting like a bank robbery the msot liekly net result is that they are mosre likely to get shot unless they've done cop training or the like.

And how anyone can defend o jsutify ordinary people being able to purchase chainguns, heavy assult rifles etc is well beyond me..
*odd image of farmer in chopper taking out predatory with 30mm chaingun*

The message isn't "everybody carries and we're safe". It's "some of us carry and we're safer". Along with "If nobody but the cops can carry legally, only the bad guys will, and they'll know their victims are all disarmed". The cops can't be everywhere.

I'm licenced, I carry, and I train better than most cops. Licenced gun owners are a very law-abiding bunch...more so than the general population, in fact. They don't walk down the street potshotting at things--that's a really fine way to lose your licence.

I don't think your Cambodian experience is really relevant, even if "a lot of people animals etc got shot". Theres's a lot of other wierd shit going on in Cambodia.

Speaking of rights: PA constitution Article 1 Section 21: "The right of Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

I just read the UN rights list. Now I'm no lawyer but off-hand I'd descibe that text as loop-hole filled. Alot of indefinates. Oh well, I guess I should claim that backs up my point... Oddly, I'm starting to wonder if maybe I honestly believe in the "live and let die" approach. Sounds harsh but maybe deep down inside I'm a hard core Darwinist.

Blast, I just got an email saying there's another post on this thread. Better read it before getting into the gun part...

ya know, I guess this is off-topic, but I can't turn that e-mail feature off! I try turning it off in my preferences and hitting 'save prefs', but the resulting page never loads. Any ideas, undertoad?