• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the right to bear arms a civil right?

Is the right to bear arms a civil right?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 63.8%

  • No

    Votes: 10 17.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 19.0%
  • Total voters
    58
ChuckBerry said:
The right to life is unquestionably a civil right. Without it, one cannot be considered "free" in any meaningful sense. It then logically follows that the right of self-defense is directly tied to the right to life. In order to defend oneself, you must be allowed to use those tools that will stop attacks on the self. Therefore, the right to bear arms is inextricably tied to the right to life.
Click to expand...
That doesn't necessarily follow. We as a people accept the law and government enforcement of same to protect us from each other. This isn't a land of vigilantes, it's a land of law and order.



But don't get me wrong: I don't believe in any kind of gun control or regulation - just not for the reason you posted.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
A civil right is defined as such:

"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."

Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Click to expand...
Does that mean it's illegal for a UK citizen to come over here, buy a deer rifle and deer license, then go hunting?
 
Zyphlin said:
A civil right is defined as such:

"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."

Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Click to expand...

No it is not. It is a civil liberty... or in other words, a fundamental freedom that allows us as people to defend what we hold dear when the government cannot do it for us. Hence, it being the 2ND most important amendment.
 
ChuckBerry said:
The Supreme Court ruled...that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
No, the law is what protects us. Enforcement, the threat of reprimand for breaking the law, is what gives the law teeth. If the law wasn't enforced it would be useless.

Obviously the police can't arrest someone before they think a law has been broken - but a cop can sure as hell break up a fight or shoot someone pointing a gun at someone else. In both cases the law seems to have been broken, so enforcement kicks in.
 
Last edited:
ChuckBerry said:
...and if a cop isn't there to protect you...what then?
Click to expand...
You do the best you can with what you've got. If you're overly concerned about personal protection I suggest martial arts classes. It also has the side benefit of keeping you physically active. :)


But that doesn't change my views on guns. Personally, I would drop control and regulation of guns, drugs, prostitution (any form of consensual sex, really), and virtually everything else that has no direct victim. Victimless crimes are stupid. Fix the diseases, not the symptoms.



BTW - The cops aren't there to protect you, they're there to enforce the law.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
You do the best you can with what you've got. If you're overly concerned about personal protection I suggest martial arts classes. It also has the side benefit of keeping you physically active. :)
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is no second place when you or your family are the victim of an assault. You need to be able to kill your attacker.
 
Ray410 said:
Wrong. There is no second place when you or your family are the victim of an assault. You need to be able to kill your attacker.
Click to expand...
Now you're being a vigilante: on-the-spot judge, jury, and executioner.


If it's not a lethal assault then, as far as I'm concerned, you're a murderer.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
You are wrong, you don't need to be a citizen to be protected by the Bill or Rights. All you need to be is a live human being.:cool:


What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw

"Civil rights" are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or "discrimination") in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.

Historically, the "Civil Rights Movement" referred to efforts toward achieving true equality for African-Americans in all facets of society, but today the term "civil rights" is also used to describe the advancement of equality for all people regardless of race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics.

Where Do Civil Rights Come From?

Most laws guaranteeing and regulating civil rights originate at the federal level, either through federal legislation, or through federal court decisions (such as those handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court). States also pass their own civil rights laws (usually very similar to those at the federal level), and even municipalities like cities and counties can enact ordinances and laws related to civil rights.

(Snip)​
Click to expand...

Okay, then use your own definition. Is it a civil right?
 
As you've defined it I would have to say no. It is an inherent right. It is your right to self preservation which is yours regardless of citizenship status
 
Zyphlin said:
A civil right is defined as such:

"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."

Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Click to expand...
No. The right to bear arms is a basic human right everyone on the entire planet possesses, identical to the right to breath.
 
Lightning said:
No it is not. It is a civil liberty... or in other words, a fundamental freedom that allows us as people to defend what we hold dear when the government cannot do it for us. Hence, it being the 2ND most important amendment.
Click to expand...
I am not sure the 2nd amendment is second to the 1st as the 2nd protects our 1st amendment rights.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Now you're being a vigilante: on-the-spot judge, jury, and executioner. If it's not a lethal assault then, as far as I'm concerned, you're a murderer.
Click to expand...
Thank God you are not the one who interprets the law as it can be presumed if some one breaks into your home it is reasonable, and it most cases legal to kill him on the spot. Presumption of bodily harm is determined by the attack even if the attacker had no intention of bodily harm it can be presumed to be justified.

Just as one is not required to lift a tiger's tail to determine sex before killing it, one does not have to wait until it APPEARS to be a life threatening attack.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
If it's not a lethal assault then, as far as I'm concerned, you're a murderer.
Click to expand...
Pulling a knife on someone, and rape, are both considered lethal assaults in most states.
 
Yes, it is a civil right-- aliens have no right to bear arms, and are allowed to do so only by the grace of the host government. It is, however, a right enjoyed by all free persons. People who live under governments that do not allow them to bear arms are slaves.
 
I see it as a natural right of all men and damn those scumbag politicians who deprive people of it. Man is born free and everywhere is in chains. Armed people throw off the chains
 
dnsmith said:
Thank God you are not the one who interprets the law as it can be presumed if some one breaks into your home it is reasonable, and it most cases legal to kill him on the spot. Presumption of bodily harm is determined by the attack even if the attacker had no intention of bodily harm it can be presumed to be justified.

Just as one is not required to lift a tiger's tail to determine sex before killing it, one does not have to wait until it APPEARS to be a life threatening attack.
Click to expand...
Nobody said anything about a home invasion or B&E. Quit changing the scenario to fit your case.
((And, yes, that's the way it works here as well. All they have to be is inside the threshold whether the door is open or not.))

If someone walks up to you on the street and punches you in the face you do not have the right to kill him - at least not in this state and I'd guess most others. If you killed someone just because they punched you, then you should be arrested for murder.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Pulling a knife on someone, and rape, are both considered lethal assaults in most states.
Click to expand...
I didn't know about rape. I'll have to check on that.

A knife, as well as many other implements, are lethal weapons. Where did I say the other guy needed a gun for it to be a lethal attack??
 
MoSurveyor said:
Now you're being a vigilante: on-the-spot judge, jury, and executioner.


If it's not a lethal assault then, as far as I'm concerned, you're a murderer.
Click to expand...

Trayvon lives!
 
TurtleDude said:
I see it as a natural right of all men and damn those scumbag politicians who deprive people of it. Man is born free and everywhere is in chains. Armed people throw off the chains
Click to expand...
I don't know about a "natural" right (I have my own definitions of those) but it should be the right of anyone to own whatever they want as long as there's no direct danger to someone else (like unstable explosives or poison gas). In and of itself, that is enough of a "right" that trying to prop it up by claiming it for defense is ignorant. I don't care why you want to own a gun and the government shouldn't, either. It's none of my or their business.
 
Ray410 said:
Trayvon lives!
Click to expand...
Is that Florida thing still being hashed out? Man, I would have thought that was long over by now. I guess it's gonna' be like the OJ trial, publicized until after it's long dead. In the Florida case, though, the publicity may be a good thing. America shouldn't be a country of vigilantes. If we're going that way, we may as well just throw the law books out the window. :(
 
For those who have answered "No, it's [some other sort of right/privledge/thing]" a question for you all....

Do you think that [right/privledge/thinkg] is something that would be MORE or LESS important than a Civil Right?

IE, for those saying it's a "fundamental right". Are you suggesting that Fundamental Rights are even greater, or require even more protection, than a Civil Right would? Are you suggesting they need the same amount in general, but are different? Or are you suggesting a Fundamental right needs less protection?

(I imagine I know the answer, but figure it's better to ask for clarification)
 
MoSurveyor said:
Nobody said anything about a home invasion or B&E. Quit changing the scenario to fit your case.
((And, yes, that's the way it works here as well. All they have to be is inside the threshold whether the door is open or not.))

If someone walks up to you on the street and punches you in the face you do not have the right to kill him - at least not in this state and I'd guess most others. If you killed someone just because they punched you, then you should be arrested for murder.
Click to expand...
If someone walks up to me on the street and punches me and I fear for my life I do have the right to kill him in self defense and I can assure you except in a few left wing nut states I will never be arrested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom