Newt: Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right

YouTube.com ^ | Apr 13, 2012 | Newt Gingrich

[SoConPubbie]

Newt, showing up the anti-2nd Amendment, lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal on yet another issue important to conservatives.

[SoConPubbie]

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

[BCR #226]

It’s more than a human right, its a Fundamental CIVIL Right. I want a President that will work to bring Federal Code into compliance with the US Constitution. Why is that so difficult for these people who are running for President???

[allmendream]

To use the language of our founders - it is a NATURAL right.

Humans are born with the natural right to be free, to be armed, and to speak their mind, to hold contrary opinions, to resist tyranny, to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Sacajaweau]

And why not a national language, too??? I get sick when I see road signs in another language AFTER ALMOS 200 YEARS.

[GonzoGOP]

So here is an interesting question. If the right to bear arms is a human right, is there any point at which you draw the line? I'm not trying to be a jerk wad or start a flame war, I'm asking a real philosophical question. Is there a line? If so where is it? If not what are the logical consequences?

I'm not talking little stuff the libs get hung up on like assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I'm talking full auto crew served heavy machine guns. How about guided missiles. I mean nothing says get off my lawn like a TOW Missile. What about nukes, chemical and bio weapons?

If the right to weapons is a human right is demanding that Iran give up their nukes a violation of their human rights? I'm sure their lawyers will be quick to point that out so we need to have an answer ready.

Is the right to bear arms am individual right? Hence the line is drawn at crew served since that by its nature is a collective right. Or is the limit at some level of lethality. One person can make a species ending bio weapon, but should anyone be allowed to have unlimited power to end the entire human race?

[ArrogantBustard]

I'm talking full auto crew served heavy machine guns. How about guided missiles. I mean nothing says get off my lawn like a TOW Missile. What about nukes, chemical and bio weapons?

You have the right to own them. You do not have the right to endanger your innocent neighbours with them.

Just like your .22LR pistol

[GonzoGOP]

You have the right to own them. You do not have the right to endanger your innocent neighbors with them.
Just like your .22LR pistol

OK lest work out that logic. In an armed populace there is a fairly tight limit on the damage one deranged guy can do with a .22LR. Heck give him an AK-47 and some spare mags. Still with an armed populace he gets off one burst and is then cut to ribbons by return fire from the people around him.

That doesn't work with a chemical, radiological or especially a bioweapon you don't even know he used it until million are dead. And then there is no good way to track it back to where it came from.

When people think of weapons they tend to think of firearms. Firearms are self correcting in an armed populace. But the right to bear arms as a generic statement is not limited to firearms. Exotic, area effect weapons who's use is not immediately apparent are a situation of a non self regulating issue. If the unlimited right to bear arms is a universal human right then when Mahmoud shows up at the airport with a nuke you have to let him keep it. You can retaliate, but there is no defense. You must always accept the first strike.

[Conservative4Ever]

With rights also comes responsibility.

[ArrogantBustard]

Mahmoud shows up at the airport with a nuke he is endangering his innocent neighbours with it.

[JRandomFreeper]

The founders used privately owned cannons and ships to defend the new United States. And cannons are crew served weapons.

/johnny

[GonzoGOP]

He is endangering his innocent neighbours with it.

Devils Advocate Mode

How so? He is merely possessing a weapon. Just like that 22LR you spoke of. If there are no limits you can't do anything until after he uses the weapon.

/Devils Advocate Mode

Or is there some limit based on the destructiveness of the weapon in question? And if so where is that limit to be set, and who sets it? Because the libs are going to want to set it at pointed sticks. So when they try we need to have our arguments fleshed out and responses ready.

I want to win this argument. To be honest I have never been able to come up with a good way to draw that line. An AK-47 should be legal. A nuke shouldn't be. But there is a lot of gray between those two points on the right to bear arms continuum.

[backwoods-engineer]

Here is the problem with any 'gun control': the knowledge to design and build them is everywhere, and machine tools are everywhere. (Pass that link on, patriots, and grab it for yourself.)

Suck it, gun grabbers.

[GonzoGOP]

The founders used privately owned cannons and ships to defend the new United States. And cannons are crew served weapons.

Good call, so crew served is in. Perhaps the limit could be projectile weapons. The founders were limited to roundshot and canister. Exploding shot wasn't in common use at that point. If it does kinetic damage with a projectile it is legal. That covers everything from a bow and arrow through roundshot, even up to the discarding sabot round from the 120mm on the M1A2. No HE, no nukes, no chem, no bio.

[JRandomFreeper]

. Perhaps the limit could be projectile weapons.

Knives, swords, and pikes are arms, as well.

/johnny

[ArrogantBustard]

A nuke shouldn't be.

Did you know that private ownership of nuclear weapons acutally is legal? That almost every deployed US nuclear weapon was at one time privately owned?

Carrying one, for example, in an airport necessarily exposes other folks to a radiological hazard. Furthermore, the airport owner and the air carriers are no more required to let their customers bring nukes on their property than they are required to let their customers bring .22 pistols on their property.

[JRandomFreeper]

machine tools are everywhere.

Not everywhere. I keep mine out in the shop, and rarely bring them into the kitchen. ;)

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

No HE

Grenades have been around since the 16th century. Hence the term grenadier. Keep the HE. And biowarfare has been around as long as people have been using a trebuchet to throw corpses over city walls.

Wells have been poisoned during warfare since before written history.

/johnny

[Noumenon]

So, what you’re getting at is that I have no right to own and operate a 40MM Bofors auto cannon?

[Arcy]

This is why I supported Newt in the primary. He has political savy and wit that Mitt and the establishment do not.

[GonzoGOP]

So, what you’re getting at is that I have no right to own and operate a 40MM Bofors auto cannon?

Actually the 40mm Bofors would be OK. The question is would you have to obtain and explosive handling permit to store the ammo? A few hundred rounds of 9mm isn't much of a fire hazard. A few hundred rounds of 40mm is. If you need a permit to store the ammo it is not an unrestricted human right. If you don't require a permit the guy next door would be allowed to store a ton of dynamite in a non temperature controlled garage where he does welding. See how complex this gets.