• 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
Zyphlin

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,667
Reaction score
35,453
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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"?
 
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...

Yes. Like all other individual rights they end where another's rights begin. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to use that gun to commit crime. What seems to be happening is that the existance of "access to" a tool (gun) is somehow being equated to an "enabling" factor in crime. All males tend to carry a concealed "rape tool", yet rape is never blamed upon that "tool possession", rape is properly seen as simply a violent behavior problem. With guns, since many feel that they can be "controlled" (like recreational drugs?) that is seen as the "common sense" solution even though, while the number of guns has increased, gun crime has decreased steadily since 1993.
 
The Bill of Rights has been defined time-and-again as civil rights and the 2nd Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, so it's purdy much a no brainer.
 
No.

Your definition is off a little bit. Civil rights are rights bestowed on a people by their government. The fundamental rights of liberty, life and the enjoyment of the fruits of ones labor can only be taken away by a government and as such are outside the scope of civil rights. Along with these fundamental rights is the right to protect ones self from those who would choose to take away those rights and so we also have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for that purpose.
 
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...
I would go a little further. The right to keep and bear arms transcends citizenship; it is an inherent right of humanity.
 
It is a propaganda gesture to make obedient serfs feel free, and costs their masters no more than a few dead children every so often, plus a sub to the NRA.
 
Penderyn said:
It is a propaganda gesture to make obedient serfs feel free, and costs their masters no more than a few dead children every so often, plus a sub to the NRA.
Click to expand...
What a pile of horse puckey!

I hear people whine about the NRA and how some are subservient to the NRA's wishes. They have it backwards, the NRA is subservient to the free people of the US and they serve our needs.

Nothing like a fresh deer or wild hog in the freezer to subsidize our annual meals.
 
Lutherf said:
No.

Your definition is off a little bit. Civil rights are rights bestowed on a people by their government. The fundamental rights of liberty, life and the enjoyment of the fruits of ones labor can only be taken away by a government and as such are outside the scope of civil rights. Along with these fundamental rights is the right to protect ones self from those who would choose to take away those rights and so we also have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for that purpose.
Click to expand...
So the 2nd admendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." essentially took away the absolute right by stating "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". That needs to be changed. The 2nd should read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Correct?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So the 2nd admendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." essentially took away the absolute right by stating "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". That needs to be changed. The 2nd should read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Correct?
Click to expand...

It does say "...the right of the people.."

If it meant what you suggest it would have said "...the right of the militia.."
 
I'm not sure I would use "civil right." It is a constitutional right and I believe the right to self defense of one's home, family, self, neighbors, communty and country are inherent human and individual rights. - which of course includes the tools necessary to do so.
 
dnsmith said:
I would go a little further. The right to keep and bear arms transcends citizenship; it is an inherent right of humanity.
Click to expand...
So you also think the 2nd should be changed to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Correct?
 
Lutherf said:
It does say "...the right of the people.."

If it meant what you suggest it would have said "...the right of the militia.."
Click to expand...
Nope. The milita has no right, just a function. It's governance, i.e. it's leadership, has the authority over the milita and to use and direct it.
 
joko104 said:
I'm not sure I would use "civil right." It is a constitutional right and I believe the right to self defense of one's home, family, self, neighbors, communty and country are inherent human and individual rights. - which of course includes the tools necessary to do so.
Click to expand...
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.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So you also think the 2nd should be changed to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Correct?
Click to expand...

That's already in the 2nd Amendment...

OhIsee.Then said:
Nope. The milita has no right, just a function. It's governance, i.e. it's leadership, has the authority over the milita and to use and direct it.
Click to expand...

Source for that claim? So long as the people have rights, since the militia is the people, the militia too has said rights.
 
joko104 said:
I'm not sure I would use "civil right." It is a constitutional right and I believe the right to self defense of one's home, family, self, neighbors, communty and country are inherent human and individual rights. - which of course includes the tools necessary to do so.
Click to expand...
So you are giving everyone if in their judgement they need a tank or a premptive strike they should be able to do it?
 
Lachean said:
That's already in the 2nd Amendment....
Click to expand...
So an edit the just omits words is OK?



Lachean said:
Source for that claim? So long as the people have rights, since the militia is the people, the militia too has said rights.
Click to expand...
From wiki: A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. Like all other individual rights they end where another's rights begin. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to use that gun to commit crime. What seems to be happening is that the existance of "access to" a tool (gun) is somehow being equated to an "enabling" factor in crime. All males tend to carry a concealed "rape tool", yet rape is never blamed upon that "tool possession", rape is properly seen as simply a violent behavior problem. With guns, since many feel that they can be "controlled" (like recreational drugs?) that is seen as the "common sense" solution even though, while the number of guns has increased, gun crime has decreased steadily since 1993.
Click to expand...

Oh contraire- many social conservatives have blamed porn, rock and roll, lowered age of drinking, marijuana for rape.

Reefer Madness showed a decent young man turned bug-eyed rapist, a sweet girl turned slattern

The Meese Commission and porn?

Some 'conservatives' want to blame video games for firearm violence... Wayne LaPierre said so on dec 21st. (nevermind the NRA has released a first person shooter game for the iphones)

So you have to use a very narrow idea of what a tool is...IE, no educational tools, no duct tape or weapon, just penis for rape and no training films, violent movies or vid games, just firearm for shootings.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So an edit the just omits words is OK?
Click to expand...

What? There is no need to remove the prefatory clause regarding the militia so long as the people understand the operative clause.

OhIsee.Then said:
From wiki: A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.
Click to expand...

This doesn't in any way support your claim that "The milita has no right, just a function. It's governance, i.e. it's leadership, has the authority over the milita and to use and direct it."

You might also want to consider legal definitions rather than wikipedia, just a thought.
 
Lutherf said:
It does say "...the right of the people.."

If it meant what you suggest it would have said "...the right of the militia.."
Click to expand...

It is a classic example of a quote being taken out of context.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So you also think the 2nd should be changed to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Correct?
Click to expand...

I think the text is already quite clear. Some people are willing to distort the interpretation to fit their ideology no matter how its written.
 
Hey, here's a crazy thought, the threads not about the NRA...could we perhaps not attempt to have it transition into a debate about that organization rather than the actual topic?
 
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...
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)​
 
Penderyn said:
It is a propaganda gesture to make obedient serfs feel free, and costs their masters no more than a few dead children every so often, plus a sub to the NRA.
Click to expand...

This from an “obedient serf” in a land where nearly all people are serfs and subjects, and who has no idea what it means to be a true citizen, as we are over here.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So the 2nd admendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." essentially took away the absolute right by stating "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". That needs to be changed. The 2nd should read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Correct?
Click to expand...
Wrong! Both the right of the people to keep and bear arms AND a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The USSC has already interpreted both clauses as being separate and inalienable.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
So you also think the 2nd should be changed to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Correct?
Click to expand...
No change needed. We need an organized militia AND we have the right as individuals to keep and bear arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom