Hey fags, I'm trying to make a list of the ten most important rights for the citizen of a free nation

hey fags, I'm trying to make a list of the ten most important rights for the citizen of a free nation
I'm not entirely satisfied, because I think there's maybe some redundancy when it comes to self defense and the defense of property (especially if you own yourself)
Also I feel like I'm missing something in terms of protecting private business
So help me out you fucking nerds, let's figure this shit out


FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

1) FREEDOM TO BELIEVE
>THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN ANY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, ECONOMIC SYSTEM OR RELIGION, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

2) FREEDOM TO EXPRESS
>THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION, BELIEF OR EMOTION, VERBALLY, WRITTEN OR VISUALLY, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

3) FREEDOM TO BE ARMED
>THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED AND KEEP ARMS AND TO USE ARMS WHEN APPROPRIATE, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

4) FREEDOM TO DEFEND
>THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THE LIVES OF THEMSELVES OR OTHERS FROM HARM WITH RISK OF DEATH, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

5) FREEDOM TO JUSTIFY
>THE RIGHT TO JUSTIFY ONES ACTIONS, IN A COURT OF LAW, FROM ACCUSATIONS OF ILLEGALITY, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

6) FREEDOM TO CHOOSE
>THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ONES REPRESENTATIVES IN GOVERNMENT, IN A DEMOCRATIC MANNER, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

7) FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE
>THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE WITH ONES PEERS, IN A RESERVED LOCATION OR PUBLIC AREA, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

8) FREEDOM TO OWN
>THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY AND DEFEND IT, WITH APPROPRIATE FORCE, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

9) FREEDOM TO SELF-OWN
>THE RIGHT TO SELF-OWN AND DEFEND ONES SELF-OWNERSHIP, WITH APPROPRIATE FORCE, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

10) FREEDOM TO BE FREE
>THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM INFRINGEMENT ON THEIR RIGHTS, FROM INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS, FOREIGN OR AT HOME, BY THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, WITH APPROPRIATE FORCE, LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATION.

pol pls

>right to be armed

literally no country in the world has being armed as a fundamental right. Having guns is a privilege that should be taken away from irresponsible individuals. Just as driving is a privilege.

>what's the second amendment

end your own life right now

whoops. no country other than the united states.

I'm not even anti-gun but why is having a gun a fundamental right? You could choose any material possession in the world to be a fundamental right and you choose weapons.

No one says you can't own a gun, but you bare the responsibilities that comes with owning a gun. I just believe that the privilege to carry firearms can be revoke if the individual is irresponsible.

Having a gun isn't a fundamental right, it's not like the government issues us a rifle at birth. Rather, we have the right to arm ourselves as we choose. So it is the right to the OPTION of arming oneself that is important, because without arms, all other rights can be infringed upon with impunity.

And of course it can be revoked in the case of irresponsible behavior--namely criminal behavior. Convicted felons cannot purchase firearms, they have waived that right through their actions. Neither, I believe, can the mentally ill.

Actually, the Freedom to Own covers all material possessions, including land

Weapons is explicitly mentioned because as long as the people are armed, they are able to rise against a tyrannical government. In fact, most of these rights are to make sure the people are able to fight back against tyranny

You see I agree with that too. Having a car is not a fundamental right and we don't give people cars as soon as they are born. An individual has the right to drive a car if he obtains the correct licenses, is of driving age etc. And his privilege to drive a car is revoked in the case of irresponsible behavior - DUI, etc.

This should be analogous to owning guns. I just don't see why people insist that everyone has a fundamental right to own guns and that even the notion of the government stepping in to remove a gun from the possession of someone is considered tyrannous.

wew.

So you're a typical libertarian delusional retard kek

Start reading any political thought son. You can start with de Tocqueville or french counterrevolutionaries

Without gun rights you have no actual ability to protect yourself from a gov't running wild. The gov't will let people protest and complain but when it comes down to it they decide how much you can. If they get tired of it they send in their dogs and shut it down. Only in the USA when people have armed protests do you see the police stay back and not roll over everyone. For better or worse that makes all the difference. Look at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations as an example. If they were all fully armed that would could have turned out much different. Now it may as well not have happened, it didn't accomplish anything but make them feel like they did something.

You could always just respond with actual substance

>wew
are you going to actually post something worthwhile or what?

The reason that firearms are held sacrosanct is because they are a measure by which all other rights are protected. The right to keep and bear arms is not analagous to owning a car--you cannot fight a revolution with a car, nor can you repel and invading enemy. A car is a tool of convenience, a gun is a safeguard against oppression.

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is that it makes tyranny far more difficult to establish, as, theoretically, when the government oversteps itself 30,000,000 people with guns will rise up and start shooting public figures.

In this context, are you surprised that the government confiscating the only safeguard we have against tyranny looks suspiciously to us like a prelude for tyranny?

No I'm not going to write anything worthwhile to your pile of shit constitution.

No country in the west lives under a dictatorship. The answer to corrupt government is not armed rebellion it is through democratic process and appealing to the functions of government that are set in order to limit the power of the head of state. Brazil did not erupt in civil war or massive armed conflict. Our governments have impeachment processes. If that does not work, the military has protocols to reject the command of the head of state. The military does not hold oath to the head of state but rather to the country.

This nightmare scenario of tyrannous government does not hold up to scrutiny.

>No I'm not going to write anything worthwhile to your pile of shit constitution.

then leave the thread and stop making it about gun rights

i'm just trying to have a decent discussion on the fundamental rights necessary to ensure optimal political freedom for citizens

Decent discussion the countless people that replied to your thread?

In an ideal scenario, yes, the way to resist a corrupt government would be through legal channels. The 2nd Amendment exists in case of less than ideal scenarios.

It is easy as pie to say "it will never happen here," but why can't it? A society can suffer a moral and structural sink in one generation, we have seen it happen before. Why should we predicate the freedom of hundreds of millions of people on the hubris that we are immune to the societal ills that have destroyed other empires?

At that point, admittedly, it is a bit optimistic to hope that an armed populace would even think to resist, but it is the closest thing to a strong measure that can be taken.

And, as we've discussed numerous times in the past, there's no real reason not to keep firearms legal and available, they don't really make things worse, they just make the violence that already happens louder.

>You could always just respond with actual substance
To what? To general, naive thesis?

You know that the constitution of the Soviet Union protected free speech? It was written in there

It's not like law has any definitive power in itself, because law has to be enforced

It all sounds like a typical, liberal bullshit

This is why I encourage you to read anything

If you're not interested in actually contributing to the thread, then why even post?

Why waste your time?

Okay. If we are going to have this question, I don't want it to be about the US mainly because you guys have an inflated crime rate compared to other Western countries and also I don't know that much about American gun politics. Guilty on that.

There is also the reasoning that guns reduce violent crime. If there is a shooter, someone can shoot him back etc. I don't even remember the last time something like that happened in Canada and if it did happen, I'm sure any logical person can agree its an extremely niche case compared to what happens in the US especially during 2014-2015.

In this less than ideal scenario, having an armed populace does make sense. But again, no one is saying that an individual cannot own a gun. People can own guns. I can own a gun in Canada if I wanted to. I may not be allowed to carry it in the street but I can own a gun. I am just just arguing that there is a big difference between passing a law to completely disarm an entire population and removing weapons from those who are undeserving of carrying weapons for the safety of the public.

I am not sure I buy into the armed society polite society business either, the data is incomplete on that. Certainly it's true that assault rifles and stuff don't impact crime meaningfully at all, nobody actually shoots people with automatics here, they're too expensive, most killings are done with $200 mexishit pistols and garbage like that.

And I agree that criminals and the mentally unfit should not be allowed to keep arms, but the devil is in the detail. What does "undeserving" mean? We define it as people who are insane or who have a history of criminal behavior, but what if the government were allowed to arbitrarily pick people out for having the wrong political opinions and disarm them?

The point is that having a blanket rule to which confiscations must be the exception (and to which making changes is extremely difficult) is the safest way the founding fathers could think of to secure the rights of the American people. We're very protective of it because it is our trump card against our worst nightmare.