• 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!

Rights in conflict

Which should take priority over the other?

  • The right to life

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • The right to bear arms

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • False choice. The right to bear arms PROTECTS the right to life.

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Phys251

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,457
Reaction score
51,343
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Generally speaking, legal rights work in tandem. But sometimes they conflict, and one must take precedent over the other. For example, a child's right to free speech is superseded by her parent's right to raise her as they see fit. And the rights of life, liberty, and property should not be deprived by the right to free religion.

What about the right to life vs. the right to bear arms? Weighed on a legal scale, which one must yield to the other when they are in conflict?
 
Phys251 said:
Generally speaking, legal rights work in tandem. But sometimes they conflict, and one must take precedent over the other. For example, a child's right to free speech is superseded by her parent's right to raise her as they see fit. And the rights of life, liberty, and property should not be deprived by the right to free religion.

What about the right to life vs. the right to bear arms? Weighed on a legal scale, which one must yield to the other when they are in conflict?
Click to expand...

Well if they came into conflict, it would depend on the scale I think. If a small infringement on the right to bear arms were to save 100 million people than the right to life would probably trump it. If you had to get rid of the right to bear arms completely to save one person, than the right to bear arms would trump the right to life of that person.

Personally, I don't think there's any conflict between the two.
 
Anagram said:
Personally, I don't think there's any conflict between the two.
Click to expand...

This. Unless you can come up with a real example of the two in conflict, your question kinda fails.
 
Phys251 said:
What about the right to life vs. the right to bear arms? Weighed on a legal scale, which one must yield to the other when they are in conflict?
Click to expand...
There is no right to life, but a personal responsibility for the individual to preserve theirs, and the lives of their offspring. The right to keep and bear arms facilitates that responsibility.
 
How about a "none of the above" option? Since there is no universal right to life and certainly no universal right to bear arms, it's an absurd question to begin with.
 
There is no conflict.

One person's exercise of his right to bear arms does not, in any way, infringe on anyone else's right to life.

Nobody's right to life is violated or threatened until someone makes a specific choice to threaten or take that life—an action which is outside the scope of what is covered by the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Well, they can be in conflict when guns are used accidentally, like when small kids get their hands on them, or a bystander is shot. I think this issue is generally guilty of false dichotomy though, and the vast majority of homicide/suicide are not fully due to guns being legal. I tend to think they would get their hands on them anyway, or use some other means, rather than the deaths being avoided altogether.
 
People have argued one does not have a "right to life". Which is to say, others are not responsible for providing you with life. That is fairly accurate. What you do have a right to is not to be deprived of life without due process of law absent a present state of war (defined in Lockean terms).



That being said, I fully support the conflation. If someone murders someone else with a gun, we should take away their ability to own firearms in the future.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The way to do that is to either put them to death or to keep them in prison indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Why pay for prison indefinitely? Are you planning on getting free labor out of them at a net savings to the state?
 
Phys251 said:
Generally speaking, legal rights work in tandem. But sometimes they conflict, and one must take precedent over the other. For example, a child's right to free speech is superseded by her parent's right to raise her as they see fit. And the rights of life, liberty, and property should not be deprived by the right to free religion.

What about the right to life vs. the right to bear arms? Weighed on a legal scale, which one must yield to the other when they are in conflict?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that you are posting about these rights in the US. I don't see a point where they conflict. Could you give me a few possibilities as examples? And "the rights of life, liberty, and property should not be deprived by the right to free religion" are not in conflict that I see. In fact I find them in alignment. Where do you find a conflict?
 
Phys251 said:
Generally speaking, legal rights work in tandem. But sometimes they conflict, and one must take precedent over the other. For example, a child's right to free speech is superseded by her parent's right to raise her as they see fit. And the rights of life, liberty, and property should not be deprived by the right to free religion.

What about the right to life vs. the right to bear arms? Weighed on a legal scale, which one must yield to the other when they are in conflict?
Click to expand...

The right for someone to live is not infringed by the right for someone else to own a firearm. Firearms are inanimate objects that are inherently (since they are pieces of lifeless metal/carbon steel/ polymer etc.) safe. They infringe on your right to live when SOMEONE picks up the weapon, actively LOADS the weapon and chambers a round/shell, and points it at you while actively DEPRESSING the trigger. The firearm is not at fault....it has no fault. It is the PERSON who actively pursued your destruction with that firearm who is at fault.
 
Phys251 said:
What about the right to life vs. the right to bear arms? Weighed on a legal scale, which one must yield to the other when they are in conflict?
Click to expand...

The right to life does not conflict with the right to bear arms. The bearing of arms does not take life, therefore there is no conflict.
 
A child's right to free speech cannot possibly conflict with a parent's right to teach their values to the child. If the parent is unwilling to take up an honest dialogue with the child then the parent is simply insincere in their efforts to teach their values to the child. The only way a child's right to free speech could ever conflict with "A parent's right to raise the child as they see fit" would be if what the parents meant by that is that they believe that the child is their slave to do with as they see fit, not a human being with rights, and they want to deprive the child of legally having a voice so that they can act in an inhuman manner in privacy.
 
The rights to life, liberty and property are never in conflict with freedom of religion.
 
cpwill said:
Why pay for prison indefinitely? Are you planning on getting free labor out of them at a net savings to the state?
Click to expand...

Well, they did kill someone in cold blood. Pretty much strips them of the ability to rejoin society, I would say.
 
Surtr said:
Well, they did kill someone in cold blood. Pretty much strips them of the ability to rejoin society, I would say.
Click to expand...

....I would tend (in many of the cases) to agree. So why, again, do we need to pay for prison indefinitely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom