According to S E Smith in the Guardian, self-defense is not a human right. You own life, you don't have a right to that, so I guess anyone can take it.
Who is Smith? Some Californian. Does Social Justice.
She said this, and let me highlight the parts that aren't rights, despite what she things:
"A human right has to do with something intrinsic to who you are as a human being, and your most basic needs. Healthcare, food, housing, and water are human rights. They are all critical things that human beings need to stay alive. Access to reproductive health services is a human right. The ability to participate freely in society regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or disability status is a human right. These are things society is supposed to guarantee to us because we are part of society, and these things are integral to our very identities."
Hmm. I should have only talked about what she actually got right. "The ability to participate freely in society regardless" is a right, yes.
"And a gun is not a basic necessity for survival."
Oh? There are times when it is CRUCIAL, lady.
"They can sometimes be helpful for self-defense, but not nearly as often as people like to claim."
You admit it! Good. A little confused... a thing stops being a right because you use it infrequently?
And she descends further into a hot mess after that.
Irons in the Fire had a very similar post, along the same lines, but he scheduled it for yesterday, beating me to the analytical punch. Good on ya, Firehand.
Shorter GOP: Ethics, Shmethics - The Justice Department is investigating California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter for possible campaign finance violations, an allegation the lawmaker dis...
54 minutes ago