why do we have the right to bare arms

Halbrook, Stephen P. (1994). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. p. P8. P. P. ^ Ginsburg, Tom; Elkins, Zachary; Melton, James (7 March 2013). Bloomberg. Retrieved. ^ Elkins, Zachary (4 April 2013). New York Times. Retrieved. Ginsburg, Tom; Elkins, Zachary; Melton, James (2016). CCP: Comparative Constitutions Project. Retrieved 2016. (. The National Archives (UK). Retrieved
July 2,. bbc. co. uk. BBC. 2002. Retrieved July 2,. Avalon. law. yale. edu. Retrieved. Dictionary. com. Dictionary. com2015. Retrieved. Harper, Douglas Harper. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved. Thefreedictionary. com. Retrieved. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved. ^ Marshall, Michael. New Scientist. Retrieved. Spitzer, Robert J. (2012). "Policy Definition and Gun Control". Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm. P. Hessbruegge, Jan Arno (2017). Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law. Oxford University Press. pp. P235292. P. constituteproject. org. 6 June 2017. p. P20. pp. PArticle 10. Retrieved. McAffee, Thomas B. ; Quinlan, Michael J. (1997). Scholarly Works. Paper 512. Volokh, Eugene (2008). law. ucla. edu. Wills, Garry (September 21, 1995). The New York Review of Books (Book review). NYREV. Retrieved. Lammi, Glenn G. ; Chang, James (December 17, 2004). Legal Backgrounder. 19 (46). Unknown ID:10563059. Milestones! 200 Years of American Law: Milestones in Our Legal History. By Jethro Koller Lieberman. Published by West, 1976. Original from the University of California. Digitized June 11, 2008. P, P, p. 16 ^ Alpers, Philip, Marcus Wilson, Amlie Rossetti and Daniel Salinas (2015-04-29). Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney. Retrieved. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list ( Kopel, David (1995). Michigan Law Review. Michigan Law Review Association (93): 133362. Retrieved. British Library. Retrieved October 7,. John Pate (1903-08-11). Dvc. org. uk. Retrieved. CBS. October 7, 2017. Lott, John R. (October 2, 2003). National Review. Retrieved March 17,.


Logistikbasis der Armee, Eidgenssisches Departement fr Verteidigung, Bevlkerungsschutz und Sport. Retrieved. 27 September 2007. (Press release). Small Arms Survey. September 2011. Retrieved January 27,. Retrieved. International Firearms Injury Prevention Policy. 27 June 2012. Retrieved. Swissinfo. 20 June 1997. Retrieved. 13 February 2011. Wright, David (April 22, 2007). ABC News. November 29, 2007. Archived from on November 29, 2007. December 1, 1999. Killias, Martin (1993). In Alvazzi del Frate, Anna; Zvekic, Ugljesa; van Dijk, Jan J. M. Understanding Crime, Experiences of Crime and Crime Control - Acts of the International Conference, Rome, 1820 Nov 1992. Rome: United Nations International Crime Justice Research Institute (UNICRI). pp. P289306. P. ^ Killias, Martin (1993). In Alvazzi del Frate, Anna; Zvekic, Ugljesa; van Dijk, Jan J. M. Understanding Crime, Experiences of Crime and Crime Control - Acts of the International Conference, Rome, 1820 Nov 1992. Rome: United Nations International Crime Justice Research Institute (UNICRI). pp. P289306. P. During the 1989 and 1992 International Crime Surveys data on gun ownership in eighteen countries have been collected on which WHO data on suicide and homicide committed with guns and other means are also available. The results. based on the fourteen countries surveyed during the first ICS and on rank correlations. suggested that gun ownership may increase suicides and homicides using firearms, while it may not reduce suicides and homicides with other means. Killias, M. ; van Kesteren, J. ; Rindlisbacher, M. (2001). 43 (4): 429448. At the United Nations, the governments (and the dictatorships) of the world are conspiring to deny their people a means to defend their families and their liberty. The Small Arms Treaty and the U. N. s project on International Small Arms Control Standards seek to impose global restrictions on gun ownership that would apply to Americans and the citizens of every country that ratified the agreements. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to support the treaty, an excuse for governments everywhere to empower themselves and limit their citizens instead of the other way around.


As long as we re limited to fighting over the Left s gun control agenda we re debating on their terms. We have to go on offense. The Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We already have the right, because it doesn t come from government it comes from God. Our founders understood this right is essential to the defense of liberty. It was a lesson they learned firsthand at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, 237 years ago this week. As David Hackett Fischer s Paul Revere s Ride recounts, in order to quench the beginnings of the American Revolution, British soldiers marched to confiscate gunpowder and other militia supplies, an act that they hoped would incapacitate the colonial rebels. Thus, it was in defense of the right to bear arms as a means of securing the other liberties that the first battle of the American Revolution was fought. As the Second Amendment implies, the right to bear arms isn t given to us by the government, and it isn t just an American right. It is a human right. As a fundamental component of self-defense, the right to bear arms is intimately tied to those universal truths expressed in our Declaration of Independence that all men have rights to life and liberty, with which they are endowed by their Creator. And they have not just a right but a duty to throw off despotic government. These truths are universal. The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind. Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them. Far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed, far fewer towns would be destroyed, and far fewer dictators would survive if people everywhere on the planet had this God-given right to bear arms recognized. Mass killings and rapes like those that took place in Darfur might have been prevented if the people had the right and the means to defend themselves. When citizens have the power to defend themselves against a violent and tyrannical regime, governments think twice about trampling the lives and liberty of the people.


The United Nations has an extensive Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to join a labor union and the right to social services and security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood or old age. Nowhere does it provide for the right to keep and bear arms that in many places around the world is so critical to self-defense. And the Small Arms Treaty is a deliberate attempt to restrict these human rights. I believe the United States should submit to the U. N. a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet. It is critical not just for those living under oppressive regimes, but for the many people who live in conditions in which the government cannot secure their safety. From dangerous neighborhoods even here in the United States to lawless regions of the world run by gangs and warlords, firearms are often the only means of personal security. When criminals have weapons, taking away the right to bear arms is nothing less than eliminating the right to self-defense. Only the elites, who ve never had to live in a dangerous place or fear for their own lives, could be so confident that denying ordinary citizens the right to bear arms would make everyone safer. It isn t enough to watch people move from one dictatorship to another, nations lurching from disaster to disaster. In submitting a treaty to the U. N. guaranteeing that right, America can represent its trust in the basic decency of millions of people around the world and our belief that the God-given rights in the Declaration of Independence apply to them, too. We can let them know that if they had a government that recognized their inherent rights; a government that understood that they were a citizens, not subjects; a government that understood it is government which is to be limited, not people, they too would the chance to pursue happiness and live in safety. That s the message our president and secretary of state should be standing up for, not a document designed for the protection of dictators.

  • Views: 128

why do you always make me cry
why do we have daylight savings time wikipedia
why do they call the canadiens habs
why do redskins fans wear pig noses
why do redskin fans wear pig noses
youtube when calls the heart episode 1
you remind me of who i am