• 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!

Police seize first firearms under Florida's new gun-control laws

jet57 said:
Well then, if someone is not allowed to own a gun, that is a violation of his Human right; correct?
Click to expand...

Depends on that someone.

We recognize in society that some people lose or have their rights curtailed when their behavior has put others in jeopardy of losing their rights.

and we recognize that some rights have age determinations because of development. for example a 20 year old can decide who she has sex with and can consent. While we also recognize that a 10 year old can't decide who she wants to have sex with.. and is incapable of consent.

that being said.. yes.. if you don't allow a person the tools to defend themselves.. such as a firearm... then yes you are violating their right to self defense.
 
jaeger19 said:
Depends on that someone.

We recognize in society that some people lose or have their rights curtailed when their behavior has put others in jeopardy of losing their rights.

and we recognize that some rights have age determinations because of development. for example a 20 year old can decide who she has sex with and can consent. While we also recognize that a 10 year old can't decide who she wants to have sex with.. and is incapable of consent.

that being said.. yes.. if you don't allow a person the tools to defend themselves.. such as a firearm... then yes you are violating their right to self defense.
Click to expand...

Depends on that someone
Click to expand...

The only sentence that counts in your post.

If someone is an American citizen, is not their natural right to protect themselves with a firearm? The second amendment being secondary to that "natural right".
 
jet57 said:
The only sentence that counts in your post.

If someone is an American citizen, is not their natural right to protect themselves with a firearm? The second amendment being secondary to that "natural right".
Click to expand...


All the sentences I stated counted. I already answered your question.

The second amendment is not "secondary" to that natural right. It PROTECTS that right.
 
jaeger19 said:
All the sentences I stated counted. I already answered your question.

The second amendment is not "secondary" to that natural right. It PROTECTS that right.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

It's not a natural right - is it - it can't be.

It's now a privilege.
 
jet57 said:
Wrong again.

It's not a natural right - is it - it can't be.

It's now a privilege.
Click to expand...

sorry I am correct.

Its a natural right.. that's protected under the second amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom