Constitutional Civilian Gun Rights: A Rarity Across the Globe

The constitutional right to keep and bear arms has been, for most of human history, an anomaly. Rarely have such rights been included in constitutions or founding documents. However, discussion of the idea itself goes back to before written constitutions were commonplace. In their philosophical and political writings, historic figures including John Locke and Niccolò Machiavelli discuss how an armed citizenry affects the political and economic system of a state.

Machiavelli’s opinion, unsurprisingly, is that the ownership and use of arms is a duty of the state, and allowing the masses to bear arms is a threat to the state. Locke, on the other hand, writes from the viewpoint of those masses – the people. According to Locke, being equally armed as the state is an indication of freedom and liberty. An armed populace, Locke argues, can prevent the state from committing atrocities.

As noted by Bloomberg.com, U.S. Gun Rights Truly Are American Exceptionalism. In 1875, seventeen percent of constitutions included the right to keep and bear arms. However, since the twentieth century, “the proportion has been less than nine percent and falling.”

Since 1789, only fifteen constitutions in nine countries total have ever included the right to keep and bear arms.

The majority of these countries were in Central and South America, and most of the constitutions were from the nineteenth century. These countries were and are the following:

  • United States of America
  • Guatemala
  • Mexico
  • Bolivia 
  • Colombia 
  • Costa Rica 
  • Honduras
  • Nicaragua
  • Liberia

All those Latin American Countries modeled their constitutions after that of the United States. The U.S. founding fathers derived their understanding from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which stated that Protestant citizens of England “have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.” In the eighteenth century, Sir William Blackstone wrote that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” That means the right to keep and bear arms fell within an Englishman’s natural right to defend himself from acts of evil.

The Founders took such meaning from English philosophical views and incorporated it into the American philosophical understanding of inalienable civil rights.

Sadly, today, only three of the world’s nearly 200 constitutions make any direct mention of the right to keep and bear arms.

Those are the constitutions of the United States of America, Mexico, and Guatemala. Two of those are severely limited.

Republic of Guatemala – Constitution, Article 38: Possession and Bearing of Arms (Enacted in 1993)

The right to own weapons for personal use, not prohibited by the law, in the place of inhabitation, is recognized. There will not be an obligation to hand them over, except in cases ordered by a competent judge.

The right to bear arms is recognized, [and is] regulated by the law.

United Mexican States – Constitution, Article 10 (Enacted in 1917)

The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms.

United States of America – Constitution, Amendment II: Bearing Arms (Enacted 1789)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The United States’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms is the oldest listed and currently the strongest. The other six nations that once had such a right individually listed as belonging to the people have lost theirs due to dictatorship, revolution, and despotism. Amazingly, Liberia had this right in its constitution for the second-longest period of time, after the U.S.

The other two nations that currently have such rights listed have watered them down greatly. Really, those rights are more like privileges issued to the politically connected, not civil rights that can be exercised by the masses. We both know that Mexico and Guatemala aren’t exactly bastions of freedom, and their governments aren’t shining exemplars of non-corruption.

The United Kingdom never had a direct listing of the people’s right to keep and bear arms, since Britain has never had a constitution. However, under the customary practice of English Law, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was in force until the UK Parliament passing the Firearms Act of 1920. Since then, it’s been a slippery slope leading to the overbearing and intrusive nanny state we see today.

Even Switzerland doesn’t enshrine the right to bear arms. The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation reads as follows:

Art. 107: Weapons and war material

  1. The Confederation shall legislate against misuse of weapons and their accessories and ammunition.
  2. It shall legislate on the manufacture, procurement and sale of war material as well as the import, export and transit of such material.

Since Switzerland uses a militia system for national defense, the people are armed by the state. Any right relating to arms is directly related to the government’s procedure of arming the nation’s militia. No civilian right to keep and bear arms is included, and it is in fact treated as an entitlement administered by the State. All Swiss gun laws are listed under statute chapter § WG/LArm.

Across the globe, the majority of constitutions that mention weapons restrict them within the right of the state to form a standing military. Even the fabled United Nations does not have a standard or listing of the individual person’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Yes, you read that right. No right to gun ownership exists under international law. In particular, there is no human right to self-defense or its means.

Instead, states are under an obligation to reasonably limit access to firearms as part of their duty to protect the right to life. Gun control, not gun ownership, is the standard. We all know how well putting blind faith and trust in the state has turned out in the course of human history.

Take that to heart. The right to keep and bear arms in the history of man is an anomaly, and the freedom that we as Americans hold near and dear to our hearts is priceless. Across the world, the forces working to strip us of our rights are tireless. They do not give up, and they do not quit. Neither should we when it comes to defending our rights.

The Second Amendment is peerless in the world, but on its own, it’s just ink and paper. Our right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in twenty-seven simple words. That’s it. Never forget that, and never give up protecting it.

comments

  1. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher" they think we're making pizza's" Oberst von Burn says:

    My Rights decreed on writ are not rights at all

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they said it all on a bumper sticker….”Fear a government that fears your guns”….

  2. avatar Timothy K. Toroian says:

    AMEN!!!!!!

  3. avatar FedUp says:

    The right to possess in your home, except where prohibited by federal law…

    The Mexican version sounds more like preemption than protection.

    1. avatar DesertDave says:

      Only criminals can own firearms in Mexico, i.e., The Government (all crims) and the cartels.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        which is why some towns and villages have taken it upon themselves to defend themselves…in defiance of the state….

        1. avatar Matt(TX) says:

          Mexico only has one gun shop and it is run by the military.

  4. avatar Freebird says:

    Pennsylvania State House RINOS just joined Florida + Vermont in Betraying voters with passage of flawed gun seizure bill HB – 2060 — The ” NO DUE PROCESS ” restraining order bill , HB 2227 still pending. Now it goes to the PA. senate.
    *****
    Below are just a FEW examples of the Flaws and Traps in these bills: PFA’s (Protection from Abuse Orders) are often “weaponized” or “tactical”. This means that a spouse decides to get a divorce and makes false accusations so as to kick their spouse out of the house and onto the street and take away their ability to have firearms for hunting, target shooting or protection. The kicked-out spouse is branded an abuser without trial and often discovers that bank accounts are drained and credit cards maxed out. The law is badly in need of reform to mandate investigation and prosecution of those who make false statements. This legislation does nothing to fix these abuses and encourages more abuses of the system.
    IF a PFA is issued on you and you don’t turn in ALL your firearms, other weapons ‘and’ ammunition within 24 hours you will go directly to jail for 6 months (HB 2060) Completely ELIMINATES your ability to go to court and use the 3rd Party process to ‘legally’ surrender your firearms to a ‘friend or family’ member to keep them for you until the PFA is terminated (HB 2060)
    Forces you to pay a storage fee on EACH gun kept at a gun dealer or ‘commercial armory’ for up to FIVE years (HB 2060)
    Buy a gun, get reported and have your gun seized without ‘due process’ THEN to challenge this you MUST spend thousands of dollars on an attorney to go to court and ‘prove’ your innocence (HB 2227)
    Lose your rights by being reported by even decades old acquaintances and your property seized ‘without due process’ and forced to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney to go to court and ‘prove’ your innocence (HB 2227)
    ( Firearm Owners Against Crime has much more , this needs calls to senators and coverage )

    1. avatar Protection Order Data says:

      I want to see the actual numbers where women used protection orders to disarm men out of spite or malice versus actual threat of violence or mental illness on the part of men.

      I suspect that, like seatbelts, far more are helped than harmed. I could be wrong, which is why I want to see the hard data.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        It doesn’t matter. 1 innocent man harmed is an intolerable injustice.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey scumbag… explain the biochemistry of how vaccines, when used as intended, can possibly cause the effects you claim. I dare you.

          Better yet, explain what causes autism and go collect your Nobel prize.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          First of all, you have to believe in God. If you don’t, then God given rights aren’t even a concept. The state can do whatever it chooses to do. Might makes right. By the way that also conveniently clears the path to abortion on demand.

          For the rest of us how many examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing does it take, to establish that the God given right of self defense goes hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms? Without the latter the former is nothing more than a philosophical concept. How many tens of millions must die? In Europe, in Africa, Asia and the Middle East? During and following WWI millions of people were killed through genocide and ethnic cleansing by state actors. For the most part, only standing armies had effective weaponry. Their victims did not. This isn’t rocket science.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Go ahead and prove your position you mongoloid retard. There is zero credible evidence that vaccines cause any significant injury or illness to any statistically relevant degree.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… let me pull a scientific study out of my ass that proves a negative… Oh… wait…

          You made the claim. You cite the science. I don’t care what a bunch of congressvermin or activist judges think.

          Show the science that PROVES that vaccines have a statistically relevant chance of directly causing injury.

          Oh, and calling me a pedo just proves you have no argument and are resorting to bullshit ad-hominem attacks because you know you’re full of shit.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          That fund uses the lowest burden of proof legally possible. It is literally proof of nothing beyond correlation. Try again you anti-vaxer piece of shit. You are demanding that I prove a negative. You claim that vaccines cause measurable harm. Cite a study or shut the fuck up.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’ll make it even easier for you. Why don’t you explain the biological mechanism for HOW a vaccine COULD cause the effects you luddite vermin claim?

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Do you know how much mercury it takes to cause brain damage? You eat more mercury in a single can of tuna than you would get over a LIFETIME of vaccines. (Not to mention the fact that modern vaccines don’t use mercury based preservatives.) Encephalitis is a swelling of the brain membrane caused by infection. So… FYI… NOT “brain damage”… That’s a possible effect ANY TIME something breaks your skin. It’s called an infection. But hey, if you’re worried about something with the same chance of causing injury as a paper cut… well… your paranoia is not an argument.

          Same thing for aluminum. You drink more aluminum in an average week than is contained in vaccine. It’s one of the most reactive metals in existence. The first time it’s exposed to oxygen, such as in your blood stream, it immediately oxidizes and turns in chemically inert aluminum oxide.

          You’re basically arguing that because eating a pound of something can kill you, that microgram concentrations that aren’t even detectable with high power spectrometers when diffused throughout a human body can do the same thing. Worse, you don’t understand basic organic chemistry. The chances of enough aluminum making it all the way through your bloodstream to cause ANY damage to your brain without oxidizing into inert compounds is zero unless you’re injecting a banana bag worth of the stuff.

          Do you know how much blood volume is in the human body? To build up to concentrations enough to cause the effects you claim, somebody would need to inject a truckload of vaccine into the kid AND have the kid’s kidneys and liver be completely failing.

          You have failed biochemistry 101. Go home luddite. You’re drunk.

          Though I would love to hear how you think it’s possible for a vaccine to cause a genetic disorder. Autoimmune diseases are hereditary. You can pass them on even if you never developed symptoms yourself. But apparently, vaccines are so evil that they can go back in time and magically change the genes that your kid is born with…

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Let’s summarize point by point.

          “Pedo,[AD-HOMINEM, AND LEGALLY ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION] Every vaccine insert states brain damage(encephalitis) as a possible adverse reaction. EVERY. SINGLE. VACCINE. [CITATION NEEDED] We know mercury and aluminum are neurotoxins. [CITATION NEEDED] The inflammatory reaction vaccines can cause in developing brains is known to cause neurological damage. [CITATION NEEDED] Instead of being a pro-autism, pro-SIDS, pro-auto-immune child hating pedophile, [AD-HOMINEM] why don’t you cite some of the safety science that has led you to form the belief that vaccines are safe? [NOT AN ARGUMENT] You have never cited any. [FALSE] Is it because they don’t exist? [SEE: NUMEROUS CDC STUDIES] Maybe you’ve tried reading some of the industry studies and don’t understand them? Or maybe you did and realize they don’t back your position? [AD-HOMINEM]
          Aside from you being scientifically illiterate, your mentally lazy hypocrisy is a danger to the freedoms we hold dearly, including our gun rights.”

          Don’t you have an easily preventable disease you need to be spreading to you kids? But I’m sure you’re late for your latest Flat Earth convention where you will totally prove that NASA has been lying to us and that the evil lizard people are poisoning the water supply.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Here’s some actual data about your “aluminum” garbage.

          https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum

          Relevant portion.

          “The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life.”

          But hey… it’s only the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia… What could they possibly know about medicine that a luddite who clearly never finished high school can’t dig up on the internet?

        10. avatar Draven says:

          A tuna sandwich has more mercury in it than a dozen vaccines.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          Draven

          Infinitely more, actually, since US vaccines no longer use mercury based preservatives for the most part.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          Still waiting on that biochem explanation…

          Exactly what chemical process from injected aluminum salts in minute quantities that are almost immediately oxidized and rendered inert in any oxygen infused fluid (such as human blood) can possibly cause auto-immune responses.

          I’d also love to hear your explanation for how a study with 18000 patients receiving MASSIVE dozes of the stuff in question found that the patients who got the injections had a LOWER rate of auto-immune responses than the control group.

          But please, explain how a deliberate negative act is morally equivalent to the inadvertent (and near zero probability) side effect of protecting people from crippling or outright deadly childhood diseases.

          Oh, and don’t even try to argue the vaccine court again. Most of those cases are basically ambulance chasers who stuck the gold mine of not actually having to prove cause in court.
          http://time.com/3995062/vaccine-injury-court-truth/

        13. avatar pwrserge says:

          I already did you lying sack of shit. See above. They had a study of 18000 patients getting massive injections while observing the opposite of the effects you claim.

          Ameratunga R, Gills D, Gold M, et al.

        14. avatar pg2 says:

          @pedo, sorry pedo, do have a life outside of exposing you as a liar, the deficiencies in your citations should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read them. The Ameratunga paper is a retroactive paper that looks at data derived from adults, not children, and looks at very small subset of potential disorders, and compares that data to….other vaccinated people. not a safety study, it’s a retroactive paper that makes the ASSUMPTION that injected aluminum adjuvant is safe because it has been used for decades, despite ZERO safety tests ever having been done.
          The Karwowski paper citation is joke, but expect no less from you. this paper looks at the blood and hair aluminum of 85 subjects……and compares the data to what pedo?
          The most entertaining thing about this is that you’re not even smart enough to use what the industry uses as a aluminum safety paper, the Mitkus paper. It’s the closest thing the industry has, and it’s not even close. The Mitkus paper looks at INGESTED aluminum in adults, not INJECTED aluminum into newborns and infants, and draws spurious conclusions.
          I’ve seen many trolls online, may paid to push these products, and none have resorted to level you have to the point of making blatantly false claims and citing papers that absolutely do not back their positions. What motivates you to lie about this subject? You’re too stupid to be a paid industry mule pushing these products online, are you really that insecure you can’t admit you’re wrong? There are ZERO safety studies for injected aluminum adjuvant, and there are ZERO evidenced based safety tests for childhood vaccines. Feel free to respond, I’ll continue to expose you as a fraud and a liar.

        15. avatar pwrserge says:

          You really want to get banned don’t you pg2?

          You asked for a study, I gave you two. Just because you don’t like the results, doesn’t mean they aren’t valid studies. If Aluminum had the effects you claim, they would have found SOMETHING. Instead, they found NOTHING. In fact, they found LESS THAN NOTHING, aka the OPPOSITE of the effects you claim.

          So to summarize…
          Study 1:
          Blood and tissue aluminum is in no way correlated to vaccine history.
          Blood and tissue aluminum is in no way correlated to developmental defects.

          Study 2:
          18,000 patients got injected with doses of aluminum salts orders of magnitude larger than what’s in a vaccine on a regular basis. In that study, the patients WITH the injections had FEWER autoimmune instances than those WITHOUT the injections.

          You’ve cited exactly NOTHING.

          What motivates you to murder millions of children by encouraging their ignorant parents to ignore centuries of medical science? Maybe you just just bought stock in a teeny tiny baby coffin company?

          You’ve been given evidence. Your “debunking” of the evidence is complete illogical bullshit.

        16. avatar Pg2 says:

          Crying like a baby to TTAG to ban me for calling you at as liar and a fraud is priceless. Exactly what the liberty and gun grabbing lefties try to do….ban speech that exposes their positions as fraudulent. You made 2 citations, neither show the safety of injected aluminum adjuvant. Keep wordsmithing it as much as you want. Anyone with an IQ over 80 who takes the time to read them will realize you’re making arbitrary citations which do not show the safety of injected aluminum.

        17. avatar pwrserge says:

          1. You keep calling me a pedophile… That’s actually actionable defamation. Quite a brave thing to do when hiding behind a keyboard as you know full well that in the real world, that would earn you a collapsed trachea and a visit from my lawyer to collect all your worldly possessions. Here, it will just get your banned.

          2. BOTH STUDIES COVERED INJECTED ALUMINUM. Did you even BOTHER to read them? In the first, they compared vaccine (aka INJECTED ALUMINUM) history to tissue aluminum levels and found NO correlation. In the second, they had 18,000 patients some of whom were getting, wait for it, INJECTED ALUMINUM in doses orders of magnitude larger than vaccines. and yet… they found NONE of the effects you claim.

        18. avatar pwrserge says:

          How about citing an actual reputable source rather than an anti-vaxer conspiracy theory page? Do you have a SINGLE study that demonstrates the effects you claim that hasn’t been thoroughly discredited?

          If you did, you’d have cited them by now.

        19. avatar Pg2 says:

          Alright, I’ll stop with the pedophile. I lowered myself to your level of name calling, and it was wrong. My apology for that. Your rebuttal is a joke, you don’t attempt address the blatant flaws and inadequacies of the Karwowski paper. The paper in no way, shape or form shows the safety of injected aluminum. If you really don’t understand this, you shouldn’t be having conversations on this subject. You would need a large sample size of people who have never had an aluminum injected compared to a like size sample of people who have had the aluminum injection. This paper fails on multiple levels.

        20. avatar pwrserge says:

          So 18,000 patients is not a “large sample size”? It doesn’t matter if they were EVER injected. It matters if they were injected vastly MORE than the control. That’s what Ameratunga looked at. If injected aluminum had any effects at all, you would expect to see SOMETHING rather than the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

        21. avatar Pg2 says:

          You just used tobacco science as your gold standard. Recall the tobacco industry comparing people who smoked 1 pack/day vs people who people who smoked 2 pack/day? They used this comparison to claim smoking was safe and didn’t cause cancer because the cancer rates in both groups were…..similar. Surprise, surprise. This is exactly what you are doing. Again, if you don’t have a financial motive for pushing this nonsense, you’re a bigger fool than I thought.

        22. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… except the difference here is someone who smoked 1 cigarette at some point 20 years ago and a person who smokes two packs per day. You have no idea what the treatment used as the baseline of the study actually involves, do you? I do. Basically, it’s a series of regular injections designed to desensitize your immune system to specific allergens. Over the course of the treatment you would get more aluminum in your system than a hundred people with normal vaccinations. The difference isn’t a factor of 2, it’s two orders of magnitude.

          What you’re advocating would require a Mengele style study where you withhold life saving medications from your “control” group. I hate to break this to you, but no sane doctor is going to use Nazi style medical testing to disprove a conspiracy theory which is backed by zero evidence and an utter lack of understanding of basic organic chemistry.

          The effects you claim are literally impossible due to the way the chemicals in question behave once they are introduced into a human bloodstream. Aluminum salts are highly reactive, that’s why they are used as a preservative in vaccines. The amounts used are sufficient to negate any minor contamination from the manufacturing and administration process, but would basically instantly react to the chemicals in the human body when introduced in the amounts present in a vaccine injection. It’s simple organic chemistry, you’re basically introducing enough reagent to process a cc or two of relatively sterile material to three thousand times that volume with far greater levels of contamination. It makes exactly zero sense.

        23. avatar Pg2 says:

          I do sincerely apogize for the pedo insults. Your arguments are so flawed I do t don’t have the time to address most of them. You claim vaccines and their ingredients (aluminum, etc) are safe. You provide ZERO double blind, true placebo RCT studies to back your opinion. You claim testing for these would be somehow immoral by it’s moral ok to inject the same untested biological agents, metals, etc into infants and developing infants. You’ll make citations that do not back your opinions no matter how much you wordsmith them. You ask me for citations after I’ve stated the adequate safety tests have never been done…::

        24. avatar pwrserge says:

          Claiming an absence of testing for something requires evidence for the necessity of its presence. You have to at least present a theory of how your process would work. One supported by underlying basic science. We don’t safety test lots of things in isolation simply because there is zero logical reason to do so. Provide a logical reason for how the organic process that you claim happens could occur and we can talk.

          The fact that over 20 years the vaccine court you yourself have claimed is a credible source has only been able to dig up less than 5000 even vaguely credible (not proven to any serious scientific or legal standard, just credible) cases of ANY significant side effect would seem to indicate that either your process is physically impossible or is so rare and case specific that testing is an exercise in futility. That’s less than 5000 cases from billions of doses of vaccine administered to hundreds of millions of people.

        25. avatar Pg2 says:

          Lol, right, why test the safety for any pharmaceutical? What’s the point? Good logic serge. And the vaccine court is literally a kangaroo court, the vast majority of people filing claims are denied outright, and the few that make it through the near 10 year process are unlikely to recover the 10a of thousands they have spent pursuing the claim for their injured child. You’ve repeatedly stated your position for mandatory vaccines. Luckily your arguments are transparent and over the top pharmaceutical company biased. The more you post the more you discredit your position.

        26. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… because the FDA totally lets new pharmaceuticals onto the market without any testing. Do you read your own comments?

          But sure, round up 20,000 parents who are ok with their children having a 50/50 chance of getting actual medicine against a disease that killed hundreds of people every year before vaccination became common. The sort of testing you demand is literally impossible. Its lack is a sign of nothing other that most parents aren’t batshit insane.

          What medical school did you go to? Where did you do your residency? Where did you do your specialty training? Exactly what qualifies you to speak on the matter of what is and is not appropriate safety testing? Nothing? Ok. I on the other hand have a biomedical engineering degree (among others) and have worked with dozens of pharmaceutical companies that do this sort of thing all day, every day.

          You have provided no evidence of anything. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that every medicine you put in your body has to go through years if not decades of safety testing by the FDA. All you come up with is tinfoil hat conspiracy theory bullshit that you can’t even properly explain. My personal favorite is you claiming that encephalitis is “brain damage” or that absurdly reactive aluminum salts can magically stay active for more than a few seconds in a human bloodstream. (The latter is something that someone who has taken even an undergraduate level organic chemistry course knows is utter bullshit.)

          I’m done with you. You fail basic chemistry, basic medicine, basic regulatory procedure, and basic contact with reality.

          I’m done trying to explain freshman organic chemistry to someone who clearly never finished high school. Keep popping up screaming about this topic again, and I will keep reporting you for targeted harassment. You want to talk about guns? Sure we can talk about guns. But medicine and immunology is something that the average chimp has a better understanding of than you do. You want to learn why you’re wrong? Go to medical school and do your residency. Then you might at least be tangentially qualified to even have this conversation. Until then, leave me the hell alone.

        27. avatar Pg2 says:

          Replied yesterday but my comment is not here, I’ll make this simple. No reasonable parent would ever state that vaccines do not require adequate safety testing. You have just stated this, so I’ll assume you don’t have any kids. What kind of person demands infants and children play Russian roulette with untested vaccines so he can FEEL safer?

      2. I sense a “communist ” presents!

        1. avatar Phil says:

          That deteriorated quickly, didn’t it?

      3. avatar Matt(TX) says:

        @protection order data “I want to see the actual numbers where women used protection orders to disarm men out of spite or malice versus actual threat of violence or mental illness on the part of men.”
        My ex tried this with me. I luckily had already divested myself of guns. That’s one.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      @ Freebird

      Since you mentioned Pennsylvania and Vermont,this is a interesting bit of states history where and how those two states and others version of the 2 nd. amendment came into being,written by David Kopel.

      http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm

      1. avatar Freebird says:

        TY – saved

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      It was bad before in PA…(TRUST ME!)…this will make it infinitely worse!…..

  5. avatar anon says:

    I believe the Czech Republic. Recently enshrined a right to arms as well.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I believe you are correct. If I understood it properly they have a shall issue system. And FA weapons were allowed.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      Nope, the Czech Constitution was never amended. Their Senate didn’t pass it in December of 2017.

  6. avatar jwm says:

    No right to self defense recognized world wide. That’s simply because amongst the leaders of the world there are more hitlers, stalins and maos waiting in the wings.

    And in this country their enablers work for the democrat party.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      jwm…….do not leave out a few rinos as well.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      most prefer you be relegated to torches and pitchforks!…just watched the last episode of Versailles…the one where the peasants decided to pay the king “a visit”….and guns made all the difference…..

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    Yet another reason why not voting or voting for Demokkkrats is infinitely worse than voting for pliable RINOs. At least with the RINOs, you get the POSSIBILITY of having your rights defended. The Demokkkrats want to straight up kill you and take your shit. (When their fellow traveler’s aren’t busy explaining how gulags are a good thing.)
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/11/soviet-labour-camps-compassionate-educational-institutions-say/

  8. avatar Nanashi says:

    Doesn’t the Czech Republic have one now? A toothless bit like Mexico’s, but they actually respect the right in practice.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      The Czech Republic does not. Their Senate never passed the Amendment to their Constitution back in December 2017.

  9. avatar Sian says:

    As demonstrated in Mexico, constitutions don’t matter without both the will and ability to defend them.

    Find yourself lacking in either, and the words aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

  10. avatar arc says:

    IIRC the Czech republic also allows civil gun ownership… Where is ole Czechoslovakia ?

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Czechoslovakia doesn’t exist anymore. It ended during the Velvet Revolution and Divorce on January 1, 1993. It dissolved and became the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Two independent nations.

      Also the Czech Constitution was never amended. Their Senate didn’t pass it in December of 2017.

  11. avatar Gman says:

    What is the difference between Venuzuela and the US? Guns. Socialists destroyed what was once a shining star of capitalism and freedom whilst the disarmed population had no recourse. Socialists are gaining support in the US now and if they again take power we will follow Venuzuela until we reach that tipping point. Then, our armed populace will put an end to this nonsense. Our 2nd Revolution (pun intended) is already a foregone conclusion. It is just a matter of time.

  12. avatar Bob says:

    I see everyone keeps mentioning the Czech Republic and the 2016 Constitutional Amendment Proposal to Constitutional Act No. 110/1998. It never became law.

    On December 6, 2017. Only 28 out of 59 Senators present supported the proposal, failing to reach the 36 required votes necessary. The proposal was thus sacked and 110/1998 was never amended.

    Thus, the current Czech Constitution is still based on the idea of the State having the collective right to control the ownership of arms. The “Constitutional Act on the Security of the Czech Republic” defined the ways in which the Republic would respond to imminent threat. It defined the obligations the constituent parts of the Republic, and even its citizenry, had towards national defense. It allowed for compulsory military service to be instituted by further statute, required regional governments to offer material aid to the national defense, and defined the response to a non-military state of emergency, such as an ecological or industrial disaster. It also set up a State Security Council, headed by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, it required, during times of imminent military threat or war, that legislative debate be shortened to just 72 hours from the time of a bill’s introduction, and that the president’s veto power be temporarily suspended. Finally, it allowed for up to a six-month extension of electoral terms during the time of a declared state of emergency.

    Thus, it is the same as Switzerland.

    Can you folks mentioning the Czech Republic do some research before spouting off the wrong information.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Well excuse the hell out of us for not meeting your standards of excellence.

      1. avatar john in AK says:

        “. . .The Czech Republic, in Central Europe, is a country that’s known for its ornate castles, native beers and long history. Prague, the capital, is home to grand 9th-century Prague Castle, a preserved medieval old town and statue-lined Charles Bridge. Český Krumlov, a small town in the South Bohemia region, is notable for its wealth of Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque buildings, many of which house restaurants and shops.
        Its primary exports include vehicles, machinery, electronics, plastics, and raw materials, and account for 75.4% of its global shipments, to which it owes its $192.9 Billion GDP (as of 2016).”

        Any other trivia that we must know before making any further comments on the Czech Republic, or will this do? We’d HATE to offend any anal-retentive people who have nothing better to do.

  13. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Our exceptionalism in this regard is frequently cited by the media and progressives as how uncivilized and barbaric America is. Why can’t we repeal the second amendment, it is outdated, Australia and the UK and France are better than us, gun violence only happens in America, etc etc etc.

    Note also it says arms, not guns- we need to fully restore knife rights, stun guns and tasers, and be ready for whatever the next technological advancement in arms is. I could see the police and armies going to some new weapon that is not allowed for civilian use, and we are stuck with conventional guns.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they work for us…sometimes they need to be reminded of that….

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    “Machiavelli’s opinion, unsurprisingly, is that the ownership and use of arms is a duty of the state, and allowing the masses to bear arms is a threat to the state.”

    Machiavelli was right. The best reason to own guns is for defense against the almighty, all powerful and completely unprincipled State. And it’s certainly why statists and Commiecrats want us disarmed.

    Oppression of the defenseless is what governments do best.

  15. avatar Zhang says:

    What about Pakistan? It is, as far as I know, perhaps the only other country on Earth besides America where civilian ownership of full-auto firearms is legal. And it’s a lot easier in Pakistan than in the USA. You don’t even have to go to the black market for it. The previous Prime Minister, Shahid Abbasi, tried to ban full-autos, but the Pakistani courts had more common sense than him and a judge in Lahore declared the ban was void.

    Although, if this forum discussion is anything to go by, the Pakistani federal government is still fighting the courts of Lahore against it…

    http://www.pakguns.com/showthread.php?9678-Today-s-News-(related-to-Media-News)/page164

    1. avatar Luis Valdes says:

      A number of countries allow the ownership of fully automatic firearms. In regards to Pakistan, full auto ownership is actually illegal the hardly enforced in the tribal areas.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        where are these guns coming from?….doubt they have much of a domestic firearms industry…

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Caves and shovels. There is a video somwhere.

        2. avatar Luis Valdes says:

          Correct. Pakistan has a very strong domestic gun industry.

  16. avatar Ark says:

    The lack of respect for rights around the world is not an argument for why WE should give up ours.

    “But the rest of the world doesn’t allow guns”? That means the rest of the world is wrong.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      wouldn’t be the first time…as history has proven over and over again…

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    This is why the USA should have nations borders. But Libertarians Liberals and the Left prefer letting more serial rapists and serial murderers into this country.

  18. avatar Michael says:

    I live in Arizona. Karate sticks are prohibited. You can buy them in any smoke shop. I can legally carry anything I want from a single shot Braverman pen pistol to a krinkov pistol with a 90 round drum full of 7.62 X 39 Yugo ball, open or concealed. I’m jealous, in Alaska, I’m pretty sure they can also have the sticks.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email