Holding gun makers accountable

[Abatis]

Certainly individuals have rights under international law- and if you want to claim that there is no redress anywhere, that " individuals currently have obligations and rights but no remedies under general international law " then you'd be wrong on that score too. As examples, the 11th protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1998, 'enables individual victims to seise the Court directly. The same is now possible with regard to the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.'

http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/25.full

I have not disputed that there exists legal mechanisms for persons to seek redress for injuries and violations by governments. Our dispute is whether those mechanisms are available to people who have suffered injuries at the hand of fellow private citizens not acting under any color of law or authority (e.g., criminal attack).

The article you provided confirms my position; that even though a person can be thought to possess an individual right (i.e., to not be killed), the system to enforce those rights is lacking. This is a deficiency directly attributable to the rights philosophy of international law. Instead of considering rights to be inherent and emanating from a plane above the actions (laws) of man, international law surmises rights to exist only because intentional law places obligations on persons not to harm. Your article says (emphasis added):

"Over the last 60 years we have also seen a change in the status of the individual as a holder of rights under international law. How can we deduce these international rights? For Cassese one can assume ‘corresponding rights’ to every individual's ‘strict international obligation fully to respect some important values (maintenance of peace, protection of human dignity etc.)’.10 He claims:

"It would be not only consistent from the viewpoint of legal logic but also in keeping with new trends emerging in the world community to argue that the international right in respect of those obligations accrues to all individuals: they are entitled to respect for their life and limbs, and for their dignity; hence they have a right not to become a victim of war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression, torture, terrorism. At least for the time being, this international right, deriving from general international rules, is not, however, attended by a specific means, or power, of enforcement that belongs to individuals.11"​

In other words individuals currently have obligations and rights but no remedies under general international law." ​

So, under international law, individual rights are mere detritus from the legal prohibitions on collective aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, etc. Under international law, individual rights are merely a derivative legal fiction equatable to corporate personhood in US law . . .


Under international law because an obligation to not kill is placed on nations, an inferior, nebulous, impossible to define and quantify (and thus enforce) "right" to not be killed can be said to exist. This is what you've been babbling about. Problem is, the international legal system was not predicated on the right of individuals so the system has never been employed to protect or enforce the rights of individuals -- but it is trying to catch-up, but it has many, many fine points to discover.

Under US law, the entire governmental system is predicated and founded on the existence of inherent individual rights; the individual right to not be killed, imprisoned or have your property seized are considered foundational and the power of government is framed after those great principles were established. Because each person possesses those rights each individual person has a place of standing under the law . . . That corporations enjoy legal standing is a derivative of the corporation owner's individual rights.

That's the trend. Progress. As I keep repeating, local shysters might well be primed to do the bidding of gun lobbies currently - but change will come. The general right of everybody for protection by the state and the right of redress are the future. It is "consistent from the viewpoint of legal logic " Enjoy your moment.
So please refrain from dependence upon your local examples regarding states and the police- it's an insult to the human spirit. These backwoods legalities have always been evidently flawed even though the rulings have to be respected - for the time being.

Your claim that international law is more advanced, superior or more desirable than the US system is complete fantasy. Your entire argument has no basis in international law; international law hasn't even figured out yet if the rights you claim, even exist for individuals. It is international law that is trying to catch up to the US system and crib together a mechanism to address "individual rights" . . . Come back in a decade or so and give me an update.

Trying to define and explain individual rights and their enforcement under international law is as futile as trying to describe a milkshake to the Sentinelese.

.

 

[Rune]

I don't think that the opinion of a fraudulent navy vet. - who is happy to see the murder of American sailors in international waters glossed over for money - is going to be of worth to anybody at all. Treacherous moron.
http://www.wrmea.org/1993-june/the-assault-on-the-uss-liberty-still-covered-up-after-26-years.html

Looks like international law didn't do much for the American sailors poptart.

 

[iolo]

I really want nothing to do with international law and will donate/campaign vigorously against any political candidate who supports it. Anyone who thinks the UN would look out for the rights and well being of the citizens of the US is fooling themselves.

Hitler had similar views.

 

[moon]

Looks like international law didn't do much for the American sailors poptart.

That was a failure of Americans, not international law, Runt.

 

[Rune]

That was a failure of Americans, not international law, Runt.

Really?
Your article indicated Israelis did the murdering.

 

[moon]

I have not disputed that there exists legal mechanisms for persons to seek redress for injuries and violations by governments. Our dispute is whether those mechanisms are available to people who have suffered injuries at the hand of fellow private citizens not acting under any color of law or authority (e.g., criminal attack).

The article you provided confirms my position; that even though a person can be thought to possess an individual right (i.e., to not be killed), the system to enforce those rights is lacking. This is a deficiency directly attributable to the rights philosophy of international law. Instead of considering rights to be inherent and emanating from a plane above the actions (laws) of man, international law surmises rights to exist only because intentional law places obligations on persons not to harm. Your article says (emphasis added):

"Over the last 60 years we have also seen a change in the status of the individual as a holder of rights under international law. How can we deduce these international rights? For Cassese one can assume ‘corresponding rights’ to every individual's ‘strict international obligation fully to respect some important values (maintenance of peace, protection of human dignity etc.)’.10 He claims:

"It would be not only consistent from the viewpoint of legal logic but also in keeping with new trends emerging in the world community to argue that the international right in respect of those obligations accrues to all individuals: they are entitled to respect for their life and limbs, and for their dignity; hence they have a right not to become a victim of war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression, torture, terrorism. At least for the time being, this international right, deriving from general international rules, is not, however, attended by a specific means, or power, of enforcement that belongs to individuals.11"​

In other words individuals currently have obligations and rights but no remedies under general international law." ​

So, under international law, individual rights are mere detritus from the legal prohibitions on collective aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, etc. Under international law, individual rights are merely a derivative legal fiction equatable to corporate personhood in US law . . .


Under international law because an obligation to not kill is placed on nations, an inferior, nebulous, impossible to define and quantify (and thus enforce) "right" to not be killed can be said to exist. This is what you've been babbling about. Problem is, the international legal system was not predicated on the right of individuals so the system has never been employed to protect or enforce the rights of individuals -- but it is trying to catch-up, but it has many, many fine points to discover.

Under US law, the entire governmental system is predicated and founded on the existence of inherent individual rights; the individual right to not be killed, imprisoned or have your property seized are considered foundational and the power of government is framed after those great principles were established. Because each person possesses those rights each individual person has a place of standing under the law . . . That corporations enjoy legal standing is a derivative of the corporation owner's individual rights.



Your claim that international law is more advanced, superior or more desirable than the US system is complete fantasy. Your entire argument has no basis in international law; international law hasn't even figured out yet if the rights you claim, even exist for individuals. It is international law that is trying to catch up to the US system and crib together a mechanism to address "individual rights" . . . Come back in a decade or so and give me an update.

Trying to define and explain individual rights and their enforcement under international law is as futile as trying to describe a milkshake to the Sentinelese.

.

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing- or you wouldn't be emphasizing in red that which I have already posted.

 

[Rune]

Hitler had similar views.

Yes, Hitler was a proponent of unarmed civilians.
Worked well for him.
Not so good for his victims.

 

[moon]

Really?
Your article indicated Israelis did the murdering.

Certainly- and AIPAC-controlled Americans failed to do anything about it.

 

[leaningright]

Hitler had similar views.

Don't you just love how if someone doesn't view thing the way you do immediately they want to put the Hitler label on you? I've heard it all my life.

Democrats want to disarm you...Hitler disarmed the population then killed the Jews.
Bush inspired a feeling of nationalism...Hitler inspired a feeling of nationalism.
Hillary suppos sly said the same thing as hitter about the individual and society
Hillary compares Putin to Hitler
Trump is Hitler-esque ...

And if the Hitler comparison isn't enough let's call our opponents racists...

The simple fact of the matter is that I believe in the individual citizen's (my) right to own firearms. You do not. Right now what you would have happen and those who support some sort of international law on the issue would like has no bearing or jurisdiction on me as a citizen of the USA. I will fight, campaign, vote, etc. to keep it that way. But I am not Hitler and I am not racist.

 

[Airstrip One]

Don't forget that Iola is a Marxist (LOLZ). Whenever he pipes-up about McCarthy or Hitler, just remind him about Pol Pot and Stalin.

 

[Abatis]

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing- or you wouldn't be emphasizing in red that which I have already posted.

The difference is that I understand what it is saying.

Article 34 of the 11th Protocol compels the court to, "receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a
violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto."

I knew what you were arguing and I saw through your disingenuousness. That's precisely why I first said:

I have not disputed that there exists legal mechanisms for persons to seek redress for injuries and violations by governments. Our dispute is whether those mechanisms are available to people who have suffered injuries at the hand of fellow private citizens not acting under any color of law or authority (e.g., criminal attack).

When this article speaks of "individual obligations" and "criminal law" it is in the context of the "individual as the bearer of individual obligations under international
criminal law in the context of international armed conflicts. . . . the idea [can also be] applied to individual criminal responsibility for certain violations of humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflicts" (i.e., ethnic cleansing).

Your article's "criminality" discusses heads of state and the military using their office / command / authority to commit war crimes, genocide, terrorism etc. It is not discussing murder between private citizens thus it speaks to NOTHING pertaining to our discussion of a "right to protection / safety" vs. legal indemnity of governments for failure to protect (in the context of armed self-defense / concealed carry).

The subject of the individual under international law is interesting though and I sincerely thank you for bringing it up and pressing your point because I have learned that the condition of the individual under international law is even more pitiful and sad than I originally thought. Your article even treats Article 34 of the 11th Protocol as an untested hypothetical, merely a thought experiment.

Here is the brutal truth about individual rights under international law:

The thought that any individual "right" can be said to exist under international law is not the outcome of any higher respect for individual rights or any sense of moral obligation to protect individuals; it is simply a confused theory that persists after a logical quandary is considered -- how can we hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity in our court without recognizing some level of individual redress for victims?

That's it . . . That's the full and complete consideration regarding the origin and enforcement of "individual rights" under international law.

Face it, as your article states, the protection doctrine of the rights of the individual under international law is just now being cribbed together. The ambit of international law was only intended to fall upon nations. The system was grounded in the collective at the cost of the individual and the attempts to reverse-engineer individual protections are profoundly lacking.

Any claim like you are making that it is now being done out of some high-minded concern that is morally and in action, superior to and more advanced than the US system, is duplicitous and contemptible and in the final analysis, laughable.

.

 

[moon]

You're actually not disagreeing with me at all. In fact, you're tagging the principles and applications that I've produced and offering them as your own- which is in stark contrast to your original position that people don't have any rights to protection and even if they did it would not apply to individuals. That's fine with me- but you don't have any humanitarian offerings of your own - quite the contrary. Your own view is mean and bleak and offers nothing for the population as a whole let alone for individuals. It's the position of the gunman.
So I'm happy to have shown you a different viewpoint and the buds of a better system being introduced internationally. As for the fare you're serving- I don't want any, thank you very much.

 

[Abatis]

You're actually not disagreeing with me at all.

That's some funny shit right there . . .

In fact, you're tagging the principles and applications that I've produced and offering them as your own- which is in stark contrast to your original position that people don't have any rights to protection and even if they did it would not apply to individuals.

You've misrepresented what international law is and lied about what it does; you don't know what your position is so you can't be an authority on what mine is. You are prevaricating into utter meaninglessness.

That's fine with me- but you don't have any humanitarian offerings of your own - quite the contrary.

I made no statements about the justness or how nice the law is . . . I just said what the law is.

Your own view is mean and bleak and offers nothing for the population as a whole let alone for individuals. It's the position of the gunman.

No other system and certainly not international law, respects and protects the rights of the individual and affords the individual more access to the courts than the US system. You ahve yet to demonstrate any instance where a government can be held liable for failure to protect a person from crime or to keep them safe. If you think you have that's only because you haven't a clue about what we are discussing.

So I'm happy to have shown you a different viewpoint and the buds of a better system being introduced internationally.

At least you recognize that respect and enforcement of individual rights is in its infancy under international law. Perhaps in a couple decades your claims there can be revisited and discussed but for the immediate future any claims that it is "better" is pure fantasy.

As for the fare you're serving- I don't want any, thank you very much.

And that's fine. I have no desire to force you to accept anything you don't want . . . See, that's the most important difference between us; statist authoritarians like you need to force compliance and conformity and need to repel individuality and individual rights of conscience and self-determination.

It is that core need to be control (and be controlled) that forces you to accept authoritative, centrally controlled political systems.

So just stay where you are, enjoy your diminished existence and please, keep your joyous need to control focused on your fellow subjects . . . We on this side of the pond threw off your shitty attitude quite a while ago; we have no interest in regressing.

 

[moon]

Having , on several occasions , emphasized that Americans have no right to protection by the police you now claim that US law is superior , worse, that it represents some imagined zenith. Where is your appreciation of Human Rights Acts practiced elsewhere ? Are you aware that individuals in European countries can not only take breaches of their rights to their national courts but can also appeal to higher international courts if unsatisfied ? Europe- whose population dwarfs that of the US- has a dedicated Court of Human Rights which, like national courts , is open to individuals.

No other system and certainly not international law, respects and protects the rights of the individual and affords the individual more access to the courts than the US system.

You say ? This is a nonsense. To which international court can Americans appeal if wronged by their own ?

Europeans, of course, enjoy a Right to Life under their Conventions and their police swear under oath to uphold their rights. Should anybody search online for ' Police duty of protection ' they will find page after page describing how US law neglects to provide them with protection by the police. How is this a better legal protection than others enjoy ? It clearly is not- and I feel I'm relating the obvious to a patriotic windbag.

What are you doing to improve the rights of individual Americans- which you appear to enjoy diminishing- apart from seeking to provide them with deadly weapons ?

 

[Abatis]

Having , on several occasions , emphasized that Americans have no right to protection by the police you now claim that US law is superior , worse, that it represents some imagined zenith. Where is your appreciation of Human Rights Acts practiced elsewhere ? Are you aware that individuals in European countries can not only take breaches of their rights to their national courts but can also appeal to higher international courts if unsatisfied ? Europe- whose population dwarfs that of the US- has a dedicated Court of Human Rights which, like national courts , is open to individuals.

Individuals can only petition the international court to redress injuries caused "by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention".

You are not being honest or forthright in arguing your position.

The court would refuse argument brought by an individual against another individual who was not acting under governmental authority.

Nor would entertain any claim against a municipal police force for failure to protect (even if said police force took an oath to protect - as you previously claimed) because that police force would not be, "one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention".

You continue to fail in making your point that international law affords redress for individuals who have been harmed by other private individuals or claims against a police force for failure to protect.

You choose to ignore (purposely I would guess) that the court's jurisdiction is limited to hearing claims of violations by nations and individuals acting under official authority and that is fatal to your argument.

Europeans, of course, enjoy a Right to Life under their Conventions and their police swear under oath to uphold their rights.

And I keep asking you to stay on topic and provide any example of this court being used to secure for an individual, redress for not being protected from criminal attack. Your expansion of the discussion to a protection doctrine for war crimes and genocide, is disingenuous at best given the starting point of this discussion and the limited scope of the US law indemnifying government officials.

Should anybody search online for ' Police duty of protection ' they will find page after page describing how US law neglects to provide them with protection by the police. How is this a better legal protection than others enjoy ? It clearly is not-

It's better because it is the only legitimate standard to enforce. It hasn't been arrived at out of hostility for individual rights but the legal reality of what a right is and who can be held responsible for its violation.

As I've said before, claiming a right exists means an entity has been assigned liability / legal responsibility for its violation.

This is an easy assignment when the right is a recognized immunity from government action and a government official or agency exceeds its legitimate powers and violates said right . . . As we see, this can run the gamut from banning a book to an unjustified killing by a cop . . . Fine, bring your claim against government, state your case, the court decides.

Our present discussion has none of those qualities. You can't demonstrate that this international court will hold liable any government entity for actions of a non-governmental individual.

I can't even imagine how a society or governing system would function if a citizen could sue the government for being harmed by another private citizen . . . For not being kept safe or "protected". Please, I'm begging you, pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top, explain how that works, show me how it works. You say it is how things are under international law but you have yet to offer any proof that it is so . . .

and I feel I'm relating the obvious to a patriotic windbag.

And I feel like I'm trying to explain to a four year old who is demanding a unicorn for his birthday, that they just are not real. Problem is though, you are an adult and quite adept at misrepresentation; you have glued a horn on a pony and are demanding I recognize it as a unicorn.

What are you doing to improve the rights of individual Americans- which you appear to enjoy diminishing- apart from seeking to provide them with deadly weapons ?

Sigh.

My argument can be boiled down to, since no government can provide absolute safety to its citizens, it is illegitimate for a government to forbid the citizens the possession of the means of self-defense.

 

[moon]

‘Ready to fire’ cellphone-shaped double-barrel handgun could be released

A new two-shot, double-barreled handgun can be neatly folded into the shape of a box resembling a smartphone – and its release is making police nervous.

The concept handgun, patent pending, would be manufactured by Ideal Conceal, a Minnesota startup. The .380 caliber pistol is small enough to be folded into a palm-sized square that can be easily slipped into a back pocket. Because it looks similar to a smartphone, it could be left out in plain view on a shop counter without arousing suspicions

https://www.rt.com/usa/336512-cellphone-like-handgun/

The American public should be given protection from irresponsible and malignant capitalist gun manufacturers. Repeal the 2005 Act.

 

[moon]

No comment from the manufacturers' fans ?

 

[Abatis]

Shouldn't you be working for the victims of yesterdays attack to sue in international court to enforce their horribly violated "right to protection" and "right to safety"?

But no, still posting complaints about a nation thousands of miles from you and their governmental system you are profoundly ignorant of.

Your message is not compelling and it so bucks the flow of American sentiment it just is laughable.

Go meddle in some issue on your side of the pond; your interest in the US holds no interest for us.

 

[moon]

Shouldn't you be working for the victims of yesterdays attack to sue in international court to enforce their horribly violated "right to protection" and "right to safety"?

But no, still posting complaints about a nation thousands of miles from you and their governmental system you are profoundly ignorant of.

Your message is not compelling and it so bucks the flow of American sentiment it just is laughable.

Go meddle in some issue on your side of the pond; your interest in the US holds no interest for us.

Has this ' cell-phone ' gun caused you some doubts or is your blanket support of lethal design and the rights of malignant manufacturers still intact ?

 

[Abatis]

Has this ' cell-phone ' gun caused you some doubts or is your blanket support of lethal design and the rights of malignant manufacturers still intact ?

Absolutely no doubts whatsoever because I actually have some knowledge.

The concept of a disguised firearm is not new.

Under federal law the ownership of such disguised guns is very regulated, in fact by the same law that regulates the acquiring and owning of a machine gun, sawed-off shotgun, a silencer or flame-thrower.

The transfer tax on such a weapon (considered an "any other weapon" -- AOW) is lower though, $5 IIRC, as opposed to $200 for a machine gun.

Has your histrionic over reaction caused you some doubts or is your Euro-weenie irrational fear of Americans and their guns and your irrepressible urge to give your uninformed opinion still intact?