OK, for one to claim that armed self-defence is a right, there needs to be some form of supporting document that clearly states that proposition. It can’t just be claimed or people can claim whatever bizarre right they wish. For example, I can claim that the Sixth Amendment guarantees me a 7 figure income.
But other than some US citizens making this claim, there isn’t such a beast as a right to armed self-defence. Additionally, there is no legal authority for making this claim that armed self-defence is a human right. Anyone who questions this article MUST provide their legal authority for such a claim.
On the other hand, there is one for gun control! In the words of pro-gun author Dave Kopel:
Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said “no”—that international law recognizes no human right of self-defense. To the contrary, the Human Rights Council declares that very severe gun control—more restrictive than even the laws of New York City–is a human right.
That is a very amusing statement coming from this source: a pro-gun author. And if we do a survey of international law, we find that indeed, gun control ranks as far more important a right than armed self-defence. In fact, the right to life is more important than armed self-defence in international law!
Anyway, per the UN:
The principle of self-defence has an important place in international human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession. Rather, as this report shows, there are wide areas where States should, can, and do regulate possession of firearms consistent with principles of self-defence. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the life of others. It is the basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. International law does not support an international legal obligation requiring States to permit access to a gun for self-defence. The principle of self-defence does not negate the due diligence responsibility of States to keep weapons out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them. The State has particularly acute obligations to protect vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic violence, from abuses with small arms.
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons.
The problem is that if one is going to claim a right, one has to come up with a source for that right. It seems that Gun Control is a human right in international law!
See also: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2184795/gun_control_the_real_republican_platform.html?cat=9
Laci the dog's Blog 