Should visitors from the U.S. to Iraq (or any country) be allowed to KBA

Doug.38PR

Moderator
The answer of course is yes since it is a universal right, not something any state can give or take away. But legally, I think it used to be common to travel with a pistol in your luggage. What can be done to get governments to change this? Of course we occupy Iraq so de facto we could make them (as much as I am against us being there in the first place)

What prompted this was thinking about the hostages taken over the past 5 years in Iraq and beheaded and reading in Ed Lovette's book The Snubby regarding his thoughts on how things might have turned out different for William F. Buckley had he had a snub nose pistol on him (not William F. Buckley, Jr. who started National Review) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Buckley
 
No way. We must give full faith and credit to the laws of whatever State we visit. And if foreigners visit one of our States, they are bound by our laws. I don't buy this "carrying a gun is a universal right" theory.
 
I agree we are subject to their laws an us to them. They are sovereign nations just like we in the Union are (supposedly) sovereign states. But the right to self defense (carrying a weapon) is a universal right. I'm not advocating Dubya going around the world and making sure each country be made to let everybody carry guns, but should countries do away with these laws banning it?
 
I think that's a stretch, Doug.38. I agree that self-defense is an inalienable right, but the method of that defense isn't. Each government (ostensibly representing the wishes of its people) has the power to enact laws for their own society.
 
sure they do. But, it's a given that people have a right to defend themselves and in order to do that they need to carry weapons. that's what the 2cond amendment is all about.
Now each society is free to choose what kind of system they want, right or wrong, it's not a question of should they be made to acknowledge the right of self defense (that's up to their own people) it's a question of should they acknowledge it and allow me, their people and foreign visitors to KBA as is our right as free men. (of course for countries like Red Chinia free men don't exist in their minds)

Ted Nugent said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo
 
Doug.38PR said:
But, it's a given that people have a right to defend themselves and in order to do that they need to carry weapons. that's what the 2cond amendment is all about.

I can't fully accept your statement. While people have the inalienable right to defend themselves, they may not need to carry weapons to do that. A weapon is a tool. There should be other tools in our self-defense toolkit.
 
Likewise.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing the citizens of a foreign country (let alone their government) that the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution somehow applies to their sovereign state...much as we wouldn't accept foreign nationals doing whatever the heck they want in our country (those under diplomatic immunity notwithstanding...)
 
Philisophical mumbo jumbo aside the reality of the matter is you must obey the laws of the land you are in. That applies today, 10, 100, 1,000, and more years ago.

If you are simply looking for people to agree that "yes, we should be able to have our guns everywhere" then you are preaching to the choir. If you are looking to make a valid point with the realistic expectation that the US Government would work to make other countires obey the right you have to KBA elsewhere then you are ignoring all reason.
 
If you are looking to make a valid point with the realistic expectation that the US Government would work to make other countires obey the right you have to KBA elsewhere then you are ignoring all reason.

^. Save and Except the word "realistic." I do not realistically expect in 2007 that the U.S. Government will work with anyone and will in fact cooperate with govenrments to TAKE AWAY my RTKBA. I do not, however, believe it to be a static situation. True rights always come back as a necessity. Free Markets are returning in China because the Communists can't afford to be Communists anymore. Areas in the U.S. that were once 100% gun control are now adopting ways for people to KBA (via CHLs) because crime is so bad.
 
so your saying that unless the state gives you a slip of paper, you don't have the right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to life liberty and property unless the state gives you a permit? All authority comes from the United States Government or the Japanese Government or the British Government or the Indian Government or the Austrailian government. All these things these states grant you or take away at their pleasure and you must give homage to them to keep theri good graces and like it.

No. These things are universal rights. We have a right to life. We have a right to liberty. We have a right to property. All of these things put together means we have the right to pursuit our labors and be fruitful in them and enjoy those fruits. THis also follows that we have a right to protect and defend them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thos. Jefferson
 
These things are universal rights.

In whose view? Yours, polluted as it may be with Western thought :)? Ya got the same universal rights in China? Not? How can they be un iversal then?

We have a right to life

He he I'll stay away from that one


WildcomeongivemethesourceoftheserightsAlaska
 
I recently noticed that South Carolina, in 1778, created a BOR which declares "That no freeman of this State be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, exiled or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land". What do you make of that?
 
Doug,

You have the right to do whatever you please. Governments have the right to punish your violation of their laws. The reason you are not prosecuted for calling a politician a jerk in the USA is because of the 1A. The reason you are not prosecuted for owning a gun that complies with the regulatory restrictions in place is because of the 2A. These restrictions on the Government are not present on other governments except as they have established them.

You are no more right in telling the people of the UK that you should be able to own a gun there as they would be in telling you that you could not own a gun here. Every nation has their own laws established by MAN. You may not like it but that is tough luck.

I you do not want to comply with the laws of other nations then don't. If caught then you shouldn't expect me or any other American to fight for you because you saw fit to violate the laws of another nation.

End of agrument. Laws are written by man and enforced against man when violated according to the society he is living in. If you don't like it found your own nation then wage a war of conquest on the rest of the world.
 
so there really are no rights then according to what some in here and on the other thread believe. There are only privleges that the government allows you to have and may withdraw or limit as they see fit. Those of you in this camp are entitled to your belief of course, but let's just call it what it is.

A right is something given by God, it is absolute and unchanging throughout time. (as Jefferson said "...endowed by their CREATOR..") They either exist or they don't. If you don't believe in God or don't believe in moral absolutes, then you can't very well believe in rights of any kind.

No doubt that myself or anyone violating unjust laws would be arrested in such countries. I wouldn't expect the U.S. to declare war on said country and remake it in our image. Personally, if I had a say, I would have privateers or volunteers of some sort plan a rescue operation and I would certainly not extradite people charged by said country for such violations that had excaped to their home on U.S. soil
 
A right is something given by God, it is absolute and unchanging throughout time. (as Jefferson said "...endowed by their CREATOR..") They either exist or they don't. If you don't believe in God or don't believe in moral absolutes, then you can't very well believe in rights of any kind.

Basing your rule of law on God will never work long term unless you purge your society of "non-believers" and other heretics. You will also always be at odds with nations that don't share your view of God. That is why this nation was not founded as a religious nation or even pretended to be founded on any one religion.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
From the Treaty of Tripoli. Ratified by the Senate June 7, 1797, signed by John Adams, 2nd President of the USA, June 10, 1797

Jefferson also referred to CREATOR in the Diest sense. I can serve up quotes all day from the founding fathers decrying religion and its need to be kept away from government. If Jefferson wanted to say GOD he would have said it. Saying CREATOR is a simple way of saying they believe all men are born with these rights. For any who wish to argue they can then consider CREATOR to be their God, Jehova, Yawee, Allah, Ganesh or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Why do I take the time to point out this religious disconnect? Because it is important that we understand that the "Rights" some care to believe are given to us by God are, in the eyes of the law and logic, NOT. The only rights (against abuse by the governemnt) you have are the ones that have been written into law and defended, by yourself and or others. If it were simply a matter of God making up the rights then why would Jefferson and company need to write them down in a legal document? Why put them into Amendments in a specific legal method, have them voted on and leave them subject to further amendment? No, those wise men believed all men should have certain rights from birth and to protect those rights from Government usurption they created a document that stated such. You have those rights because those men thought ahead to do so and others fought and shed blood to defend them. You do not have them because God said so. They also believed the governemnt of the people should be abel to change them or add to the powers of Government so they left the mechanism where additional amendments could be enact to change or add to the COTUS. Perhaps you may need to defend those rigths one day. If you do not then they will be lost and all the crying about God having given them to you will mean nothing.

Those who founded other nations feel differently and established laws in accordance with their views of the world. If you maintain that your rights are from God and therefore more valid than the ability of another nation to have their own law then you are no better than the Mullahs in Iran calling for Fundamentalist Islam to be the law of their land and every other. Both of you claim some sort of justification for your acts under God. Both are wrong.
 
Doug.38PR said:
so there really are no rights then according to what some in here and on the other thread believe. There are only privleges that the government allows you to have and may withdraw or limit as they see fit. Those of you in this camp are entitled to your belief of course, but let's just call it what it is.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- Thos. Jefferson

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- yes we have the right to self-defense...to protect our life and liberty...but the law stipulates that the means to that self-defense are not unlimited. A firearm is a tool. So are clenched fists or improvised weapons (sticks, bricks, etc.).

Doug.38PR said:
If you don't believe in God or don't believe in moral absolutes, then you can't very well believe in rights of any kind.

Hmmmmmm.........the state of Colorado allows me the privilege of operating a motor vehicle (after passing an exam and paying several fees) or running a business (after paying more fees). I certainly don't think of either as a God-given right.

Doug.38PR said:
No doubt that myself or anyone violating unjust laws would be arrested in such countries. I wouldn't expect the U.S. to declare war on said country and remake it in our image. Personally, if I had a say, I would have privateers or volunteers of some sort plan a rescue operation and I would certainly not extradite people charged by said country for such violations that had excaped to their home on U.S. soil

As has been stated by others, if you don't like/approve of the laws of a country, you may choose (have the right?) to not visit there and not spend your hard-earned money supporting their economy. But if you do go, please remember you're a visitor to their country/culture and should act respectfully of both. Thank you.
 
If you don't believe in God or don't believe in moral absolutes, then you can't very well believe in rights of any kind.

There is no god.

Now what do you do.

And Moral absolutes? You dont need god for morals...

WildithinkillbecomeapagantodayAlaska
 
Back
Top