Reply #115: I've had the debate about "rights" before......... [View All]

I don't actually believe that bearing arms should be considered a "right". In the UK it was always something allowed by law, but never (as far as I know) an actual "right" of the individual...more of a privilege.

I accept that in the US bearing arms is legally a right, because that is how it is enshrined in the constitution - you have the right to bear arms. However, I don't think that it can be a right in the true sense of the word.

Rights are "good in themselves" and are the whole point themselves, e.g. the right to free speech, the right to freedom of assembly etc. would be reasonable and appropriate rights in any society. Now I might concede that something like "the ability to defend yourself" could be considered a right, but the means by which you do that (i.e. guns) isn't.

Arms can be described as one means by which to obtain an end, viz the right to defend yourself, and guns are one type of arm that could be used.

Unless you believe that arms/guns are truly a universal good to which people should be entitled in all circumstances, I struggle to understand how they can be considered a "right" in the true philosophical sense.

I actually think that the whole "rights" issue is annoying and distracting. Essentially a bunch of well-meaning guys decided that bearing arms was a right (in very specific historical circumstances). This leads to tortuous and pointless arguments about the government removing individuals' rights, when you should be talking about whether allowing gun-ownership is a necessary, sensible or laudable thing in a civilized country.

Incidentally, all rights are actually controlled or restricted to some extent e.g. the right to free speech doesn't allow you to joke that you've got a bomb in your trousers as you board an aircraft.....