Reply #46: and obviously [View All]

"Obviously, in the UK, you don't have the equivalent of constitutional rights, and there is no legal concept of natural rights, so you are limited to civil rights, those rights enshrined in law."

... some people really just don't have a clue what they're talking about, but do it incessantly anyhow.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm


"That accounts for much of the difference in our perspectives."

There are other theories for what accounts for what differences there may be, I assure you. One would be based on the thought that you have quite obviously got the cart before the horse: the differences in perspective account for what differences there are in the expressions of it. Another would be that the differences in perspective on the part of a few account for the attempts to interpret similar expressions of similar perspectives on the part of the society as if they were different.


"In my opinion, the natural right to 'life,' includes the right to self-defense."

As does, and not simply in my opinion, the constitutional right to life.


"In the US, we find the acknowledgement of that inherent right to self defense in the 2nd Amendment constitutional right to keep and bear the tools to make the right to self defense meaningful."

In point of fact, the acknowledgement of the right to self-defence (however that right is characterized) is found in the right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process, which is set out in your constitution. That right makes it imperative that a self-defence justification be available to a charge of assault or homicide, for instance, as it in fact is.

That right, the right of self-defence, would be complete without anything resembling the 2nd amendment. Exactly as it is in Canada and anywhere else that a right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process (or the more stringent "fundamental justice", in Canada) is accepted.


"So, the UK has infringed on your natural rights to life, liberty, and property, by taking away every tool you have to defend yourself, your liberty, and your property."

And as far as I and all the Brits hereabouts are concerned, the state protects our right to life by prohibiting other people from walking around armed with things to kill us with. Just as it protects our freedom of speech by prohibiting other people from shouting "fire" in the crowded hall where we are planning a political protest. Amazing what a different perspective does, isn't it?

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2000/vol1/html/2000scr1_0783.html

Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), <2000> 1 S.C.R. 783

The Firearms Act constitutes a valid exercise of Parliament's jurisdiction over criminal law. The Act in "pith and substance" is directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms. Its purpose is to deter the misuse of firearms, control those given access to guns, and control specific types of weapons. It is aimed at a number of "mischiefs", including the illegal trade in guns, both within Canada and across the border with the United States, and the link between guns and violent crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. The purpose of the Firearms Act conforms with the historical public safety focus of all gun control laws. The changes introduced by the Act represent a limited expansion of the pre-existing gun control legislation. The effects of the Act also suggest that its essence is the promotion of public safety. The criteria for acquiring a licence are concerned with safety. Criminal record checks and background investigations are designed to keep guns out of the hands of those incapable of using them safely. Safety courses ensure that gun owners are qualified.

There are very many things that a person may do in the exercise of the right to life, or liberty, or freedom of speech, or what have you. Not all of them are, or have to be, legal. Where the things people do can be shown to interfere with an important public interest (like safety, i.e. the ability of other people to exercise their own rights without being harmed) and further a valid public purpose (like reducing the incidence of death and injury in the population), and where the limitation on the exercise of the right is rationally related to the goal and not disproportionate to the goal, and all that jazz, those activities may be prohibited or limited.


To many rational minds, the logic of the argument that everybody needs a gun in order to protect him/herself from everybody else with guns just isn't quite obvious.

.