Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Speaking of Guns...
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, September 25, 2006

I meant to highlight this article last week, but never got around to it. It's from the New York Times, and it highlights the progress being made by pro-gun groups to short-circuit the UN's anti-gun ideology by explaining gun ownership in terms of rights.
Around the world, the N.R.A. is finding that a rights-based approach translates into many languages. As the N.R.A.’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, says: “They made the rights argument [in Brazil.] They made the argument that this was being taken away from the people.” He pauses. "It caught Iansa" — the International Action Network on Small Arms — "by surprise. They already had the Champagne on ice." In the mid-1990’s, the N.R.A. became a nongovernmental observer at the United Nations and helped form a global coalition of pro-gun groups to match disarmament coalitions. At U.N. conferences, this coalition then uses success in national referendums to argue against global treaties. "The vote in Brazil on last Oct. 23 was a mandate," the head of one gun-advocacy group argued at the U.N. conference this July. "The international anti-gun community, especially powerful NGO’s, was intimately and extensively involved in supporting the gun-ban referendum. They lost. They did not receive the mandate."..

Going global also can provide a defense against the influence of international law, which judges like Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer have increasingly introduced into American courts. Conservative legal organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund have headed to countries like Sweden to combat international precedent on issues ranging from human cloning to home schooling. And conservatives now realize that by co-opting the language of rights, traditionally employed by the political left, they can export their own ideas of universal rights, whether that means the White House’s democratization program or a universal right to bear arms.
In addition to the theoretical right to bear arms, the pro-gun groups are also making powerful utilitarian arguments. For the past century, governments have, in many part of the world, had a free hand hand in engaging in, or supplying "militias" that engage in, genocide against recalcitrant populations. Darfur is only the most recent of these types of horrific transgressions. The pro-gun groups argue the obvious: it's much harder for a tyrannical government to commit genocide on an armed citizenry than an unarmed one. And, it inculcates a far more salutary political environment when the government is terrified of its citizens than it does when the reverse obtains.

It's always best, after all, when governments realize that they are servants, not masters.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Government as servant? Where did you get such an absurd idea...from an outdated document like the U.S. Constitution? Tool!

Sometimes I imagine how great this nation would be if we had adhered to the foundation laid by the founders. I smile and realize that we would be the crown jewel of all nations, our open markets would ensure prosperity and my job as a cop would be so much easier. Then I return to reality, sigh deeply and carry on.
 
Written By: Joab
URL: http://joabsblog.blogspot.com
And, it inculcates a far more salutary political environment when the government is terrified of its citizens than it does when the reverse obtains.

I sort of agree with this, but I think it would take more than rifles.

For the past century, governments have, in many part of the world, had a free hand hand in engaging in, or supplying "militias" that engage in, genocide against recalcitrant populations. Darfur is only the most recent of these types of horrific transgressions. The pro-gun groups argue the obvious: it’s much harder for a tyrannical government to commit genocide on an armed citizenry than an unarmed one.

Of course, the rampant distribution of the small arms created the problem in the first place. One of the inherent logical problems of the pro-gun lobby is the idea that the solution to the problem (gun violence) is... more of that which seemingly is the fundamental of the problem.

It’s very similar to the argument that giving both sides of an international conflict nuclear weapons tends to leads to more restrained conflicts. It may be true, it may not be true, but either way, people have a built-in resistance to trusting the idea. More nukes = peace and more guns = peace are in the same logical corner.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Glasnost, what’s the alternative? Guns exist and they are not going away. If it were possible to make all guns (weapons) disappear forever and without any chance of reappearance, that most likely would lead to a more peaceful world. But since that’s not possible, I prefer to stayed armed until the day comes – if ever – when evil people who seek to take advantage of the innocent are eliminated – something that seems harder and harder to do.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I sort of agree with this, but I think it would take more than rifles.
I dunno why. At the end of the day, IRA men armed with little more than rifles got the British government to sit down with them and work out a modus vivendi.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
"theoretical right to bear arms"? Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" dont you understand? Theoretical? I don’t hardly think so.
 
Written By: Carl
URL: http://
I think guns would be great to have if outlaws didn’t have them already. They just increase the chance of you provoking a gunfight by threatening the safety of a criminal, or shooting an unarmed assailant if your finger happens to itch. If an attacker wants something other than my life, I prefer wetting my pants.
 
Written By: SJC
URL: http://
If guns do nothing to prevent crime then why have crime rates gone down in every state that passed a concealed carry law? SJC, if you are serious with your comment and not being sarcastic then you could apply the same logic to the military: If the enemy has weapons then we risk inciting them to use them if we possess weapons ourselves.

The best tool in anyone’s arsenal is an effective brain. Second to that is a gun with which you are proficient, which means in part not having an ithcy trigger finger.
 
Written By: Joab
URL: http://joabsblog.blogspot.com
"theoretical right to bear arms"? Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" dont you understand? Theoretical? I don’t hardly think so.
Since we are referring, in the main, to a world community that does not accept the existence of a positive right to bear arms, your constitutionally based objection is irrelevant. Outside of the US context, the right to bear arms is, indeed, theoretical.

We might wish it were otherwise, but there it is.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
"If it were possible to make all guns (weapons) disappear forever and without any chance of reappearance, that most likely would lead to a more peaceful world."

Not too likely. Humans fought with sticks and stones before real weapons were invented, and teeth and hands before then.


" If the enemy has weapons then we risk inciting them to use them if we possess weapons ourselves"

I seem to have heard this argument before. Often. But not so much now that the Soviet Union collapsed.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well timactual, it’s entirely academic since it’s not going to happen, but I’d guess fighting with sticks and teeth is less likely to result in the same death rates as from guns, ergo, more peaceful. But, whatever, that’s not the point of my earlier comment, which was to inquire from glasnost just what alternative he thinks is possible. I suspect he doesn’t have much of an answer.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
It’s a signalling game: the criminals don’t know who has a gun, but know who is more likely to and thus who they should avoid. It’s not the same between armies because it’s alot easier to know each other’s armaments (and it’s pretty easy to figure out if they have guns...). Whether resisting an attacker increases your chances of getting hurt is something for statistics to prove, although I personally believe in the affirmative.
 
Written By: SJC
URL: http://
You know, it has always said a lot to me about the character of people who insist that if people have guns they will wind up using them. I’ve carried for decades now - literally. Have yet to even clear the holster. Unsnapped it a few times.

And I certainly don’t assume anyone with one on their hip is a threat.

I guess that’s because I don’t hold that in my own heart.
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider