Human Rights vs.

Civil Freedoms
Surely this title sounds rather senseless. Still, recent US gun violence events and
sparked talks about ban of guns are very good representation of question of human
rights vs. civil society rights in 'free world' and as such, it is surely tough dilemma
to deal with.
Tragic mass shooting in Newtown !", #$%#&, and following pro ' anti ( gun news
debates are placing great challenge on president )bama*s leadership. )bama
renewed his call for +ongress to pass a series of measures, including a ban of
assault weapons, limit on high,capacity maga-ines, e.pansion of the criminal
background check system and enhancement of penalties for firearms trafficking,
but there is also opposition in form of National /ifle !ssociation N/!, #$%0& and
question of constitutional rights.
1eing raised in 2uropean environment, my reaction to above question was instant
( what do you need guns for. 3n the same time numerous US people are pro,guns
and find it to be part of !merican core values. To my big surprise, after reading
more 3 got myself challenged by same dilemmas )bama must be facing and 3*m
not sure what the best way forward is.
This isn*t first time !merica is discussing this matter nor first law to regulate
weapons. 4rom the automatic weapons ban of %506 to +linton*s assault weapons
ban of %556, there were numerous regulations and dilemmas. 7otivation to do
something about it usually came after violent crime episodes as nicely presented in
7ass Shootings in the United States 8iolence "olicy +enter, #$%0&.
)n the pro,gun side we have something called second amendment , part of first
ten amendments also known as United States 1ill of /ights. These limitations serve
to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. 3n times of /evolutionary 9ar
the fear of a dominating federal government led many to demand assurances that
specific rights and liberties were going to be protected. :! well regulated 7ilitia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear !rms, shall not be infringed.; US +ongress, %<5%& , so reads the Second
!mendment. !lthough !merica is for many symbol of modern it looks like on the
question of freedom they are e.ercising some rather legacy thinking.
=ence, )bama*s dilemma here is more than pro'anti gun ( it is rather question of
essential human right to live against core value of citi-ens for civil freedom to carry
weapons. 9hat in eyes of many other western world countries may seam silly,
today*s !merican sees )bama*s push as form of constitution infringement and
direct attack on his guarantied freedom.
3n his book !narchy, State, and Utopia, No-ick favours minimal state >limited to the
narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts,
and so on.> No-ick, %5<6&. 9hen a state takes on more responsibilities than
these, No-ick argues, rights will be violated. 9hen supporting UN,like globalisation
anti,gun views, are !mericans getting it wrong? 3s than pro,gun stand more proper
path to vote for? 3 would say no. !s history proved, humans did choose 'chains' in
order to keep social values preserved.
So what is freedom then? !s nicely commented by "rest in his blog "rest, #$%#&,
it all depends on the point of view. 4reedom is surely of a great meaning to slave
seeking basic necessity , freedom, while same surely doesn*t apply to gun
ownership in modern world. @o people really want democracy, that is, rule by
maAority? 3 guess not. 4rom the old Breek times of first democracies and republics
it is clear that set of rules has to be defined to protect all people rights from rule of
maAority. !nd the constitutional laws are subAect to change when moral values do
change. !s 3 see society moral values changed, it is legitimate to e.pect
amendments to change as well.