XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.philosophy
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:28:14 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "26B.X938" <
26BX938@zoq24q.net> wrote:
An "effective MEANS" of self-defense goes along with
the right to live and repel would-be assassins. 20,000
years ago "effective means" would have been a club or
crude spear. Not anymore. You have to have something
like "They" have.
And I've always liked the term "equalizer" - with a gun a
80-year-old 4'11" woman is the equal of a 6'6" thug/rapist,
maybe several.
My definition of a human right is that it is intrinsic to the human
experience, indelible, and universal. An example of a human right is
the right to one's own individual theological beliefs (or the lack
thereof.) Simply because I believe that the most "effective means" to
worship my deity is over a pyre of burning tires doesn't extend the
human right to my bonfire.
The definition I gave above wouldn't necessarily include defense as a
human right because it is a property of all living organisms. Every
human will act in self defense, but so will every insect. If defense
is a human right, then so is an acceleration of 9.807 m/s^2 toward
Earth's center.
I wouldn't have a problem if you included defense in the set of human
rights. You could argue successfully that defense is intrinsic,
indelible, and universal. You make a logical leap, though, when you
extend the human right to any means you believe facilitates that
right... my theological *beliefs* are protected human rights; however,
my altar of burning tires is not.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)