...it is just that most countries do it differently to the USA.
http://ift.tt/2hx6wi0
"What do Guatemala, Mexico and the U.S. have in common? They are among the very few countries throughout history whose constitutions have guaranteed the right to bear arms.
Our study of constitutions going back to 1789 shows that only a minority has ever included gun rights. What’s more, the number has dwindled, leaving a small and motley set of bedfellows......Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well-represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.
If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them. Today, only three out of nearly 200 constitutions contain a right to bear arms."
So hardly any countries have a right to bear arms in their constitutions. Yet, hold on a moment! The vast majority of countries in the word have citizens with guns. For example, India;
http://ift.tt/2hx9cMF
"India law allows citizens to own and carry guns, but it is not a right enshrined in the constitution"
By law, Indian citizens can get a gun. The legislation that imposes restrictions is due to cultural and legal decisions. Those decisions are based on the history and development of India. So India has 4.2 guns per 100 people, which means there are.....wait for it.... 46 million privately owned guns in India.
http://ift.tt/2hxgC2G
Many citizens hold guns without any worry of intervention from anyone to take them away from them. For example, Lebanon. It has strict laws on possession of a firearm
http://ift.tt/2hx126Y
"Firearms control in Lebanon is subject to two fundamental principles: (1) there is no constitutional right to bear arms; and (2) the government has wide latitude and discretion in granting permits to possess and carry firearms."
But the culture and presence of armed groups mean that there are an estimated 750,000 civilian firearms, or 21 for every 100 people.
So there the original cultural right to bear arms has remained, despite attempts to legislate it away.
That combination of a traditional right (as opposed to a written down one in a constitution) and legislation is repeated all over the world. All European countries have gone down the traditional and legislative, rather than the constitution route when it comes to their citizens bearing arms. That does not mean they have no right to bear arms.
The USA has bearing arms in its constitution and then legislates on who can have what gun dependent on what state a person lives in. Europe skipped the constitutional part and has just done the legislative part. But it amounts to the same thing. Citizens in all of those countries can get themselves a gun and have the right to do so.
http://ift.tt/2hx6wi0
"What do Guatemala, Mexico and the U.S. have in common? They are among the very few countries throughout history whose constitutions have guaranteed the right to bear arms.
Our study of constitutions going back to 1789 shows that only a minority has ever included gun rights. What’s more, the number has dwindled, leaving a small and motley set of bedfellows......Constitutions with gun rights were reasonably well-represented in the late 1800s: 17 percent had the right in 1875. Since the early 1900s, however, the proportion has been less than 10 percent and falling. As new countries emerged in the interwar and post-World War II eras, their constitutions reflected a modern set of rights.
If arms were mentioned at all, it was to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them. Today, only three out of nearly 200 constitutions contain a right to bear arms."
So hardly any countries have a right to bear arms in their constitutions. Yet, hold on a moment! The vast majority of countries in the word have citizens with guns. For example, India;
http://ift.tt/2hx9cMF
"India law allows citizens to own and carry guns, but it is not a right enshrined in the constitution"
By law, Indian citizens can get a gun. The legislation that imposes restrictions is due to cultural and legal decisions. Those decisions are based on the history and development of India. So India has 4.2 guns per 100 people, which means there are.....wait for it.... 46 million privately owned guns in India.
http://ift.tt/2hxgC2G
Many citizens hold guns without any worry of intervention from anyone to take them away from them. For example, Lebanon. It has strict laws on possession of a firearm
http://ift.tt/2hx126Y
"Firearms control in Lebanon is subject to two fundamental principles: (1) there is no constitutional right to bear arms; and (2) the government has wide latitude and discretion in granting permits to possess and carry firearms."
But the culture and presence of armed groups mean that there are an estimated 750,000 civilian firearms, or 21 for every 100 people.
So there the original cultural right to bear arms has remained, despite attempts to legislate it away.
That combination of a traditional right (as opposed to a written down one in a constitution) and legislation is repeated all over the world. All European countries have gone down the traditional and legislative, rather than the constitution route when it comes to their citizens bearing arms. That does not mean they have no right to bear arms.
The USA has bearing arms in its constitution and then legislates on who can have what gun dependent on what state a person lives in. Europe skipped the constitutional part and has just done the legislative part. But it amounts to the same thing. Citizens in all of those countries can get themselves a gun and have the right to do so.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2gOPEiM
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire