It’s a creative new argument, and also one that’s very wrong. I can see why people are doing it: there’s a growing sensitivity to human rights, and suggesting that something is an inalienable entitlement makes it seem ironclad. It’s an example of how the right attempts to use the language and tools of the left against it, often highly effectively. After all, the logic goes, if marrying anyone you want is a human right and we frown upon any attempts to abridge or interfere with that right, then surely if gun ownership is declared a human right, then the left will be forced to defend that “right”.
Gun ownership is not a human right – The Guardian
Holy crap is she pissed or what? I almost feel for her and her decomposing belief that gun nuts are dumb and easy to fool. She cannot stomach the fact that the stupid rednecks ain’t so and she is being over-matched by us. But in her rage to denounce our “manipulation,” something a bit shady popped out.
A human right has to do with something intrinsic to who you are as a human being, and your most basic needs. Healthcare, food, housing, and water are human rights. They are all critical things that human beings need to stay alive. Access to reproductive health services is a human right. The ability to participate freely in society regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or disability status is a human right. These are things society is supposed to guarantee to us because we are part of society, and these things are integral to our very identities.
Did you notice what is missing? Self-Defense. The most basic right to save our lives, something hardwired in nervous our system, something even animals have. And Ms. Smith does it on purpose for one simple reason: Admitting one has the unalienable right to defend ourselves also means to have the best tools available to do so and those tools would be guns. Let’s continue:
Owning a gun does not place one in a protected class of society.
True, but then again we do not need to have Daddy Government come to the rescue which it is usually very late for anything else than drawing chalk lines around the corpses. What scares Ms Smith is the idea of independence from their clique in both physical and intellectual ways. You can tell somebody armed what to do, but it does not mean he or she will obey and that pisses SJWs to no end.
It’s not integral to the inextricable identity of a human being. You can put a gun down and no longer be a person holding a gun.
And here is where you know SJWs and assorted Anti Gunners are still making the mistake of believing in their own propaganda. Owning a gun does not make you a Gun Owner the same way owning an electric guitar makes you Jimi Hendrix (somebody said once, I fail to recall who). But the gun is just the tool that, if you are smart, opens the door for a whole new world of self-reliance. Here is more on their mistaken vision of us:
You cannot become unMuslim for an afternoon, or take off your black skin to walk through the streets. While a gun owner may participate in gun culture, may enjoy interacting with guns and fellow gun owners as a recreational activity, may even integrate that activity heavily into daily life, gun ownership still isn’t about identity.
Notice how she immediately goes to classify people into small groups that cannot mix to dismiss us. I always stated that Shooting Matches are the most shinning examples of gun ownership: you have hundreds of people with guns and ammunition grouped together regardless of color, religion, nationality, etc under the stress of competition and nothing happens. You will see the most diverse and polite people gathered together, sharing jokes, meals, tips and companionship. You will rub elbows with the elite shooters just as if you were shooting the shit with you buddies back at home and the novelty (and amazement) will wear out after the first 5 minutes because they are normal people just like anybody else. Ms. Smith’s Royalty does not want to mix with the peasants because they smell funny and have cooties.
We call it Gun Culture for a reason. It is not just pull the trigger and make the gun go bang, but a whole lifestyle of preparation and independence. It is understanding that no matter how much a police department is filled with men and women who really want to keep you from harm, simple physics of space and time make that impossible. We learn and train to respond to SHTF situations while they won’t even react with anything other than “Please Daddy Gov! Help me!” We will rebuild, they wait for FEMA to get started. We survive, they use the bodies of those who followed their instructions to collect more funds and create more bodies. But we are the blood-thirsty ones.
Checks on gun ownership, to varying degrees, are perfectly acceptable because, again, owning a gun isn’t a human right, and it’s not a civil right either when its ownership infringes upon the enjoyment of life for other people.
Mostly criminal, rapists, murderers and the sort. But we know you like them better than us. And that slight hint that Gun Owners are no better than criminals? People have not been buying it for a long time now.
Gun ownership could better be compared to driving a car. Everyone has the potential to drive a car, but not everyone knows how to drive.
Gun Control people are still using the car thing? How many times do they need to be slapped across the intellectual face till they figure out it is a dumb comparison to make?
And she closes with:
The right wants to cheapen the notion of human rights with this kind of rhetoric, while also trying to score points. It’s a pretty pathetic line of logic, and hopefully they’ll figure that out sooner rather than later.
Don’t forget this as it is the crux of what they think about people: The ability and the tools to defend oneself from the criminal element, an out of control government run by people like Ms. Smith is to cheapen Human Rights somehow. And we get this from the same people who wants to ban individuals buying guns without due process and have stated over and over that Gun Owners are terrorists who should be sent to concentration camps as soon as possible.
And that is why Gun Ownership is a Human Right.
If you look at her byline, it says: “SE Smith is a writer who lives and works in northern California, covering social justice issues.”
That says a lot. Any firearms-related article/op-ed by folks like that is essentially guaranteed to be ignorant, off-base, and anti-firearm.
IMO, The Guardian had been going great by having a dedicated firearms reporter, Lois Beckett, doing their firearms reporting.
Food,healthcare and housing are NOT “human rights” they are commodetys(spell check) duh. Food housing and healthcare are leftist agenda rights. Someone needs to study history.
“commodities” 😉
Anything that demands someone else to provide a service or thing for you is not a right; it’s slavery. A person alone in the woods a thousand years ago had all the same rights that still exist today. Somehow now people think it’s a right to force a baker to make a cake against his will or make a doctor treat someone for free.
She should try being a Jew and walking through parts of Europe or even a California college campus right now. The unholy alliance of SJW and pro palestinian Muslim groups has made it feel like 1930s Germany. I am a gun owner because I am a Jew and her cohorts would just about lynch me for being who I am an supporting my ancestral homeland.
Typical SJW claptrap.
They mix/distort the result with the actual right.
As you mention, the right is for self defense against threats, both personal and political. The tools used to exercise that right are irrelevant to the right itself. And, that is applicable to any other inherent human right.
She talks about housing and food, healthcare, etc… None of which are a right. On the other hand, an inherent human right is life or health. All of which can be supported by a good diet, shelter, and regular visits to a doctor.
Every time I see a SJW pushing for a “right” I have to double check to see if they are actually talking about the basic right, or if they are focusing on the tool, or outcome of that right. Invariably, they are talking about the result, or a tool used to carry out that right.
Exactly what this entire article is doing. You are no different from her.
Okay then REPORT ME to your local P.D. Shall I send you my address? I’m sure you can make up a story that sticks!! Go ahead GO FOR IT!!!
It depends where you live,Ametica is full of dumb violent people. Most civilised countries don’t feel the need to carry arms for ‘self defence’
Says the guy who can’t spell “America” or use proper punctuation.
Yes, we call those dumb, violent people “criminals.” I wouldn’t say America is full of criminals, but as you so correctly pointed out, it depends upon where one lives. Inner city urban areas, generally, have far more than suburban or rural areas. But, it is a given that those criminals are out there, and those criminals have the ability and the will to do harm. What is a good, lawful, upstanding citizen to do? Lay down and cower? Punish those who have the fortitude to fight back against the criminal element?
Say, that’s what England does.
How’s that working out for you? Are your criminals getting bolder and less concerned with the resulting penalties for committing crimes? Are your good, lawful, upstanding subjects (I almost typed “citizens”…) getting longer prison sentences than their attackers? (Those are rhetorical questions, in case you aren’t sure.)
At what point does it become okay to fight back, if ever?
As for your second point, most civilized countries don’t have the option of carrying arms for self defense– much to their detriment– as they are now realizing in places like Amsterdam, Germany, France, Sweden, etc. Keep your British spelling and poorly thought-out ideas of citizenry and human rights on that side of the Atlantic, please. We have enough Progessives and Socialists here already.
If you’re not permitted to defend yourself, you don’t live in a civilized country. You live on a plantation or manor, and are slave or serf, depending on how kindly the masters think of you.
Her article epitomizes Brandolini’s law.
Howdy Miguel,
I believe you were thinking of Jeff Cooper,
“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/Cooper_Quotes.htm
Thanks! For some reason I was thinking Clint Smith, but since I wasn’t sure…
Mark is right. I also recall Cooper’s use of that analogy. He seemed to like the music analogies; he also said that “skill with a violin makes more difference than skill with a shovel” and that guns fall somewhere in between. Clint Smith has probably used it as well. I certainly have: “You’re not able to defend yourself just because you have a (weapon under discussion) any more than you’re a musician because you own a (guitar, grand piano, etc.).” It also applies to big dogs.
She, and most of the left, is confusing positive rights (the obligation have receive something…. food, water, healthcare, etc) with negative rights (the obligation to not be interfered with… speech, life, religion, self-defense). If we really have these positive rights, which the SJW concern themselves with, then they aught to be obliged to give it to us… for free, when ever I want.
ParryM, you are partly correct but you have not gone far enough. “Positive/negative rights” is SJW wordplay. What they call “negative” rights are what is historically called a right, such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms. They are things that the goverment must not stop you from having. “Positive rights” are not rights at all but entitlements, things the government must provide, always by infringing some other right of someone else’s such as property (the “right” to someone else’s food for example) or free speech (providing the “right” to participate in society by silencing criticism).
Scrappy beat me to it, and it’s the typical conflation of ideas, mixed with ‘assignment’ of castes to denigrate us. NOTHING close to reality, as usual.
“Your dead child, does NOT negate my right to defend my children with the most effective tools available”. Al Lammers
Please use as needed. The accreditation is not necessary.
She argues that healthcare is a right (it is not).
By her logic, you need all of the instruments and equipment to support health such as an EHR, X-rays, MRI machines, pharmaceuticals, IV solutions, wheel chairs, gurneys, and so on. This supposed right is utterly dependent on the tools that are used to provide it.
Self defense is a right. It is the MOST fundamental right. No other rights exist without it. If you are dead, you do not get to practice your religion, or avail yourself of your free health care (well, in this case, maybe an autopsy). So, anything that can be a weapon used for self defense is legitimate and cannot be taken away from an individual without denying them their right to self defense.
She needs to avail herself of logic and critical thinking. She is the one with a defective and small bigoted mind.
Oh my fucking god. Fight stupid with stupid? And you think pro gun people are different to social justice whack jobs. ….. how?
Basic health care not a right…. but guns are. The stupidity of you people hurts so much.
So is self defense a human right or not? Yes or no? Please explain it to us stupids.
Bad troll. No baby. Back under the bridge.
Healthcare and health are two very different things.
Healthcare is a service. It is doctors, specialists, or administrators providing knowledge and labor to support your “right” to health.
Guns are not a right either.
They are a tool used to ensure the fundamental human right of defense against threats, both political and personal.
Not sure why you cannot recognize the distinction.
[…] Full Story CLICK HERE […]
“Healthcare, food, housing, and water are human rights.”
None of those are “rights”, as providing them requires someone’s labor.
Unless the left wants to admit they really are in favor of slavery, they’d better learn what rights really are…
But, they really are in favor of slavery. No, not that kind of slavery. (Okay, they were in favor of that kind of slavery too, but times have changed.) The new slavery is the economic class-warfare slavery. The hoi polloi, the poor, minorities of all stripes are below them, so it’s okay to subjugate them with burdensome rules and economy-killing laws. Heck, even the moderately wealthy and rich aren’t really accepted unless they are the right kind of rich (nudge nudge, donate donate, wink wink). None of those “deplorable” people belong in the same room as them, and they’d best learn their place at the feet of their Democrat/Progressive/Socialist masters. Only the most favored of the dogs is allowed to get on the lap, but even that dog is still just a dog serving at his master’s beck and call.
[…] Full Story CLICK HERE […]