Newt Gingrich - Right to Bear Arms a Universal Right

[Grim Reaper]

Newt Gingrich Calls for Universal Right to Bear Arms at NRA Forum

The flagging candidate got a standing ovation with his proposed ‘Gingrich Doctrine’—a promise for a UN treaty to give everyone on the planet the right to bear arms.


If the Republican presidential nomination were decided by the volume and energy of applause from thousands of National Rifle Association members gathered today in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich might yet have a shot at greatness.

Friday’s Celebration of American Values Leadership forum featured speeches by Mitt Romney, recent contender Rick Santorum, plus conservative stars like former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. But members of the influential gun lobby today reserved their greatest enthusiasms not for their presumptive nominee Romney, but for Newt Gingrich, a candidate who perseveres to the wonderment of many and the joy of some.

Romney spoke before Gingrich and focused mainly on general-election themes and descriptions of President Obama’s governing philosophies. “Our founders created a system of government that is limited. Barack Obama is leading us away from that vision,” Romney said. “President Obama is leading toward a government of limited freedom and limited opportunity.”

The stump speech painted the election in broad brush strokes, contrasting the bright hope of freedom, a word Romney used nearly two-dozen times,

against the dark threats of a massive, sun-blocking bureaucracy that he said flourishes under Obama.

Romney cannot claim a life of gun enthusiasm. The director of the NRA’s lobbying branch, Chris Cox, introduced the former Massachusetts governor

as a “life member of the NRA,” but Romney signed up for his lifetime membership just six years ago, when he first explored running for president as a Republican.

Nor can the NRA claim a long courtship of Romney. In 2002, the lobby did not endorse his run for governor, despite his Meet the Press claim to the contrary. In that race, the NRA gave Romney a B grade, but gave his Democratic opponent, Shannon O’Brien, a sterling A.

Today in St. Louis, Romney repeated his support for Second Amendment rights as elemental, and he focused on the power of the judiciary to protect that right. Romney warned that a second Obama term would “remake” the Supreme Court and imperil the future of gun rights. “Our freedoms,” he said, would be in hands of an Obama court “not just for four years, but for 40,” he said.

The crowd was appreciative of the man who will likely court their votes this fall, but the NRA faithful became far more animated for Gingrich. With his characteristic flourish for sweeping and historical ideas, the former House speaker laid out a guideline for an international gun-rights movement that the NRA’s Cox called “the Gingrich Doctrine.”

“The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,” Gingrich said. The NRA “has been too timid” in promoting its agenda beyond American borders. The Bill of Rights was not written only for Americans, he said. “It is a universal document.”

“A Gingrich presidency will submit to the UN a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.” Every world citizen, he said, “deserves the right to defend themselves from those who exploit, imprison, or kill them.” For his latest big idea, Gingrich earned a standing ovation from the crowd of roughly 5,000.

“We don’t need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values,” Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.”

Many establishment Republicans have openly called for Gingrich to give up his quest. His refusal to submit has been described as egomaniacal and destructive. But in St. Louis on Friday, the man who handily won the South Carolina primary but whose campaign is running on financial fumes, seemed as confident as ever.

“This is still a more open nomination process than anyone in the elite media believes,” Gingrich said.

Too bad sending anything to the UN is about as effective as spitting in the wind as far as getting other countries to change their own laws.

[Econoline]

I'm curious whether the NRA and their supporters think Trayvon Martin should have been carrying a handgun on that fatal night (and would the police have decided not to arrest him if he'd gotten off the first shot?)

[Gob]

[

Newt Gingrich Calls for Universal Right to Bear Arms at NRA Forum

The flagging candidate got a standing ovation with his proposed ‘Gingrich Doctrine’—a promise for a UN treaty to give everyone on the planet the right to bear arms.

Dear Newt,

Get fucked asshole.

Love,

The civilised world.

People would actually be so dumb as to fall for this idiot's nonsense?

[rubato]

The Republican party has fallen off the edge of the earth.

They have no one who deserves to run anything.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Just for the sake of discussion, consider the anachronistic little epistle that we commonly refer to as The Declaration of Independence. Although liberals consider it something of an embarrassment, it remains in some respects the "law of the land," in the United States of America.

The Declaration takes a position on human rights that is - in theory at least - at the foundation of our governmental philosophy: Our fundamental human rights are NOT granted by government, but PRECEDE government ("...endowed by our Creator with..."). We form governments to create order, so that those rights can be protected and enjoyed. Government does NOT grant us our fundamental human rights, but only government-related rights, such as the right to vote.

No one disputes that Government has the right to restrict the Citizens' access to instruments of death (e.g., firearms) under some circumstances (large public gatherings, within certain buildings), or when the individual has behaved in such a way that indicates they are a danger to society, or lack the mental and legal capacity to use them properly (as with drivers' licenses).

But absent those circumstances, why should any Government be permitted to deny firearms to anyone? Any government?

Denial of this fundamental right is an invitation to tyranny - as has been demonstrated and continues to be demonstrated every day, all over the globe. Do Cubans have access to firearms? North Koreans?

What would be the difference if they did?

Really?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Big RR]

Well Cubans did have access to firearms (legally or illegally) under Batista and the mafiia regime and what did they do--substituted one repressive tyrranical government for another. Ditto for many, many other countries. Indeed, whether firearms are in the hands of the people or not does not appear to make a big difference in how repressive a government is--who wouldn't choose, e.g., to live in the UK (where access to guns (at least some type of guns) are tightly controllled) vs Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, or many other places where it seems like almost everyone has access to these weapons?

[dgs49]

We're talking about LEGALLY possessing firearms, right?

Why should any government be allowed to deny a competent, adult, law-abiding citizen the right to own a firearm?

Someone like you, for example, if you had had the great good fortune to have been born in England. Should the Queen be allowed to deny you the right to own pistol?

If so, why?

[Big RR]

I'm not really arguing that; I do accept the general right to posess firearms within reason (I wouldn't want to let everyone own an atomic bomb, e.g.). However, I don't think that universal access to firearms is really all that much a guarnator of freedom from tyrrany--revolutions don't always result in a "better" government, and legal access to guns does not in and of itself prevent tyrrany. Even in US history, the fabled Old West, where many relied on their own firearms for protection, was hardly a paradise, and many towns welcomed tyrranical "lawmen" to provide protection from the outlaws. The character of a government is based on many factors, and the fact that an armed populace could attack it is hardly a guarantee that it will not be repressive.

[dales]

GOD BLESS THE SECOND AMENDMENT

I cherish my rights as an American citizen to posess firearms in any quantity and caliber.

[dgs49]

I don't think the relevant question is whether it's a good idea for every person to own a gun, but rather whether the government ought to assume the right to prevent gun ownership.

There was an expression that used to be quoted often, "If guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns." Like it or not, it's true.

[Scooter]

Then why should the government be able to assume the right to prevent the ownership of tanks, or nuclear weapons, or anthrax?

You have, in your society, decided on the dividing line between those firearms which are legal and illegal to own, which you believe best for your society. How about trusting other societies to come up with the dividing line that works best for them, without assuming that your values are the only ones that are good and pure and just, and therefore must be emulated by everyone else lest they risk descending into tyranny.

[Sue U]

There was an expression that used to be quoted often, "If guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns." Like it or not, it's true.

It's "true" because it's a tautology and meaningless.

The Declaration of Independence is not the "law of the land;" although it is certainly amoung our "founding documents," it is simply a justification of the colonists' rejection of continued British rule (more than a year into the actual war). Even though it says that we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights," it makes no mention of any beyond "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which certainly must have rung a bit hollow for Mr. Jefferson's slaves, at the least. Is there some God-given fundamental human right to not be kidnapped and enslaved, and have all your descendants be born as mere chattel? Was there such a fundamental right at the founding of the Republic? There is simply no God-given fundamental human right to own a gun; it is simply ludicrous. That such a proposition could even be floated says more about the willingness of a politician to pander to the insanity of the U.S. gun culture than it does about anything else.

[Gob]

Why should any government be allowed to deny a competent, adult, law-abiding citizen the right to own a firearm?

Why would governments be voted in time and time again, who do not support legalizing gun ownership deregulation? Maybe it's due to most first world countries being more civilized than the USA.

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

You are welcome to your second amendment, you are welcome to arm your self to the teeth and shoot yourselves and your fellow Americans as often as you want. But please, don;t for one moment imagine we want to be like you, ok?

[rubato]

In the wingnut conservative movement the right to own guns was given by god right just before he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden.

Yes, they are morons.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

I'm curious whether the NRA and their supporters think Trayvon Martin should have been carrying a handgun on that fatal night (and would the police have decided not to arrest him if he'd gotten off the first shot?)

Martin was 17 years old. Only adults can carry a weapon. Your question is therefore irrelevant.

[Scooter]

Fine, assume he was 18. You think that would have made some kind of a difference?

[dgs49]

The rights that PRECEDE government include the right to own, basically, anything that we can acquire or produce legitimately. In a rational world, government must overcome a significant hurdle to justify preventing law-abiding, competent, adult citizens from owning ANYTHING.

A person with homicidal intent can use a tree branch, a rock, or possibly even his own body to kill another person. Should we allow government to proscribe the possession of branches, rocks, and fists?

We also commonly own AUTOMOBILES and TRUCKS which are much more dangerous than a pistol, and are responsible for many more injuries and deaths than are firearms. We own chainsaws, hammers, and many other instruments that can be used as weapons if the user so chooses.

We are free to produce or own all manner of knives, spears, bows & arrows, slingshots, garrots, pellet guns, and if you want to be exotic atl-atls (a pre-Columbian weapon of choice for some), all of which have as a fundamental purpose the inflicting of serious injury or death. Any competent college chemistry student can easily make a bomb out of materials obtainable at a hardware store or at Sears. Yet none of these items or materials are regulated, to my knowledge. Many are quite portable and easily concealable.

Firearms are capable of inflicting injury and death, both intentionally and accidentally, but so are some of the items mentioned above. Firearms are used for hunting, target practice (which is harmless fun), and potentially for self defense. Indeed, in the case of militias as mentioned in the [fucking] Constitution, they can be used to defend one's country. The fact that they can also be used to commit felonies is not unique to firearms.

In a free society where any malefactor is "free" to victimize any citizen by assault & battery, robbery, rape, and all manner of other insult, what sane principle of governance would permit the Government to prevent its citizens from owning and carrying the best technologically available means of self defense?

The possibility that some citizens will mis-use them?

Baloney. The ONLY difference between firearms and the other instruments of death I've mentioned above is efficiency. Not really a justification for putting firearms in a uniquely controllable category.

As usual, Mr. Newt is right.

[Sue U]

We are free to produce or own all manner of knives

Since I am pressed for time, this takes the least to demonstrate as an obviously false statement:

United States of America
Federal laws
Under the Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 (amended 1986, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§1241-1245), switchblades and ballistic knives are banned from interstate shipment, sale, or importation, or possession within the following: any territory or possession of the United States, i.e. land belonging to the U.S. federal government; Indian lands (as defined in section 1151 of title 18); and areas within the maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the federal government.[65] In addition, federal laws may prohibit the possession or carrying of any knife on certain federal properties such as courthouses or military installations. U.S. federal laws on switchblades do not apply to the possession or sale of switchblade knives within a state's boundaries; the latter is regulated by the laws of that particular state, if any.

Occasional disputes over what constitutes a switchblade knife under federal law has occasionally resulted in U.S. Customs seizures of knives from U.S. importers or manufacturers.[66][67] In one case the seizure of a shipment of Columbia River Knife and Tool company knives resulted in an estimated US$1 million loss to the company before the shipment was released.[68][69][70]

Amendment 1447 to the Switchblade Knife Act (15 U.S.C. §1244), signed into law as part of the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill on October 28, 2009 provides that the Act shall not apply to spring-assist or assisted-opening knives (i.e. knives with closure-biased springs that require physical force applied to the blade to assist in opening the knife).[71]

State and local laws
Each American state also has laws that govern the legality of carrying weapons, either concealed or openly, and these laws explicitly or implicitly cover various types of knives. Some states go beyond this, and criminalize mere possession of certain types of knives. Other states prohibit the possession and/or the concealed carrying of knives that feature blade styles or features sufficient to transform them into "dangerous weapons"[72][73] or "deadly weapons", i.e. knives either optimized for lethality against humans or designed for and readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.[72][74] These frequently include knives with specific blade styles with a historical connection to violence or assassination, including thrusting knives such as the dirk, poignard, and stiletto, and double-edged knives with crossguards designed for knife fighting such as the dagger.[72][75] Some states make the carrying or possession of any dangerous or deadly weapon with intent to unlawfully harm another a crime.[72]

[and on and on about prohibitions and regulations]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legi ... of_America

[Rick]

There was an expression that used to be quoted often, "If guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns." Like it or not, it's true.

It's "true" because it's a tautology and meaningless.

The Declaration of Independence is not the "law of the land;" although it is certainly amoung our "founding documents," it is simply a justification of the colonists' rejection of continued British rule (more than a year into the actual war). Even though it says that we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights," it makes no mention of any beyond "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which certainly must have rung a bit hollow for Mr. Jefferson's slaves, at the least. Is there some God-given fundamental human right to not be kidnapped and enslaved, and have all your descendants be born as mere chattel? Was there such a fundamental right at the founding of the Republic? There is simply no God-given fundamental human right to own a gun; it is simply ludicrous. That such a proposition could even be floated says more about the willingness of a politician to pander to the insanity of the U.S. gun culture than it does about anything else.

Preface: I own guns, however I don't consider myself a gun nut.

Sue I understand yer point, now do the same thing to the 1st amendment...

[Sue U]

Preface: I own guns, however I don't consider myself a gun nut.

Sue I understand yer point, now do the same thing to the 1st amendment...

And I do not consider all gun owners "gun nuts," either.

As for the First Amendment, it is quite obvious that in 1787 there was no universal agreement that fundamental rights included the right to be free of a state religion, to freely exercise one's own choice of religion, to speak or publish without restriction or to mount public assemblies or to petition the government. However, there was a growing sentiment (particularly in the American colonies and in France) that these ought to be considered basic rights. They are not rights "granted by God"; they are rights secured by general agreement of a particular society and its respect for the rule of law. Even today, this distinctly American vision of rights is not accepted in most of the world, including the democracies of Europe. By the same token, things considered basic human rights elsewhere in the world (e.g. healthcare, education) are not considered "rights" here.

Slavery provides an excellent contrast. It seems to me that the most fundamental human right should be the right to be free of violence, forcible coercion and involuntary servitude. Yet even in the United States in 1787 there was no universal agreement on this (although by that time Britain was certainly coming around). Fundamentally, "human rights" is a concept that is highly dependent on the social and political conditions of the particular period at issue.