The Supreme Court endorses the personal right to own guns.

It's a piece of legislature passed and upheld by judicial and legislative bodies that applies to every single person that falls under the Constitution.

It's a law that was written. It's a right to you if you believe it.

 

Aristartle I assume you made several mistakes in your post referring to the 3rd amendment or #3?
The third amendment deals with prohibiting housing of military personell during times of peace without homeowners permission.
The right to bear arms is covered in the second amendment.

 

Hahaha. Yeah, that's what I meant. The Second Amendment. Hahaha. Honest mistake, really, but that's funny. Thanks PittPass.

 

No, but if we all carried hanguns we'd be safer than if we only allow those who can obtain one illegally for questionable ends or just the wealthy and powerful to own them.

 

I see you fail to answer my central question to you, do human beings have an inalienable right to self defense?

 

Is there a godwin's law that applies to the romans?

there are too many real instances in history where the opposite has held true, tyrannies impose drastic restricions on the right to self-defense to encourage futher reliance on the state apparatus (police, military, border guards, atf, dea, fbi, local police, highway patrol ect), those branches of the executive have a histroy of over reaching against an unarmed and defense limited populace. the entire 20th century is a good example. Fascism, Communism and everything between, limiting the right to self defense to only apply to arms of the state and not to individual human beings as a fundamental right leaves the legal door open for abuse against those citizens and incompetence in securing their saftey(minus a very pro-active and and agressive police state).

i understand your arguement mostly relies on your distaste for guns as the primary means of self-defense, but untli you can *poof* make the guns disappear globally to be replaced by tasers or mace it will continue to be the primary tool of our defense.

New stats from the U.K. by the way, it appears that they now have a growing stabbing epidemic, there's even talk of banning certain kitchen knives....

 

My answer to that cannot be answered in either an absolute yes, or an absolute no.

I believe a person has a right to self defense under particular circumstances.

 

Do you have any proof of that?

Because in all that I have seen, the facts are otherwise.

Not sure if there is a Godwin's Law for Romans, but I don't understand what exactly I am supposed to prove. The second last sentence confuses me, I think you typed it out too fast or something. I'd gladly try and prove what you want when it comes to guns.

 

When would someone not have the right to defend themselves?
I know there would be cases where this is true, like a criminal trying to get away with their crimes doesn't have the right of self defense, but what other examples can you come up with?

 

When someone carries a gun into a bank, a school, or the President's house. I don't think someone has the "right to self defense" in most types of situational conflicts if that right includes handling a gun.

A person should not have the right to pull out a gun in millions of everyday situations that I can think of in any attempt to claim the act was out of self defense, IMO.

 

Thing is, I can't even see how a gun would be used for anything but a kill. (Is there any other facultative reason for the existence of a gun?)

If we as a society wish to kill people, good or bad, as a collective and normative response to conflict we might as well all have guns and promise never to use them. I'd like to see just how well that theory of peace pans out.

 

It hasn't so far. I think it's a male thing. My gun is bigger than yours thing. But all kidding aside, historically when populations/individuals have allowed themselves to be disarmed either through force or the promise of prosperity it hasn't lead to lasting peace either. In the end it has to be individual choice. Are you willing to kill?

Like torture, either it's never allowed, there should never be a justification for it's use by anyone, or you open up the flood gates to retributive acts in the name of justice.

And I think that's the point to which the Cheney administration has pushed most of us. I would still have a hard time pulling the trigger, but more and more the option of having that protection has become more attractive than repulsive. Simply because it appears to be my ultimate recourse. My elected officials don't listen, the media doesn't report honestly. You reach a point when you have to consider like the Minutemen did with King George that fighting is the only thing you can do, and you may have to do it on an individual basis.

 

I should have the right to defend myself from unwarranted harm no matter where I am.

 

FOR BALBUS. FOR BALBUS. FOR BALLBUSTER

 

Yet you have no apparent complaints about the government possessing guns. I know, you see the government as your protector that can do no wrong. They're always going to be there to protect you, right? It's alright for the government to protect itself against the people, yet it's not alright for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government (or anyone else that threatens violence against them or their families).

If someone breaks into my house and threatens to kill me (or my family), I am certainly not going to bend over and let them have their way with me. Nor am I going to depend on the police to save me at 3:00 in the morning as they are on their donut and coffee breaks.

People are so indoctrinated into thinking that guns are inherently evil, as if they have a mind of their own. No, criminally-minded people kill people -- not guns. Some people believe in the right to protect themselves without having to rely on the police to come to their rescue. I support that right.

The thing is (and I have said this before), I don't even own a gun. I am simply trying to dispell some of the myths that guns alone are evil.

99.9% of gun owners have never used guns against another person. You think that because a very small minority of the public uses them with ill intent, that everyone does. Well, that's just not the case.

 

Why only the president's house? What about my house, your house, or anyone else's house? Are you implying that anyone of lesser status than the president is not worthy of self defense? As if the president is some God or something.

 

But the thing is, guns are always going to exist, and they're always going to be in the hands of people who wish to use them with ill intent. Of course the world would be a lot safer if we lived in some utopia where no guns or any other weapons existed. However, that's just not the case.

 

Not really. I can't see why you should have the right to blow someone's brains out if they dinged your car, stepped on your toe or looked at your girlfriend.

There are limits to self defense - no matter how unwarranted the harm to you has come.

 

But who said anything like that? Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

If a person was truly concerned about a robbery in the middle of the night, they would have a security system that would trigger unwanted entry, or a button to quickly call emergency services in a situation like that.

I mean, if you were to do all that, have the police arriving while an intruder is still in your home, then I could see the reason for reaching for a gun to use on an intruder.

But you know, most people by-pass all safety and security measures and precautions simply because they can easily get a gun in the United States. And that's what they use to secure their home.

It's a shameful way of truly defending a person's property, life, and home with a gun under the pillow. It's pretty stupid, in fact to do that alone.

And I do not think that most people who own guns are evil, or use them with "ill intents", no.

I fundamentally disagree that there is any purpose to subjugate breaches of security (of self, property, etc) by possessing, owning and relying on a gun to control and execute a solution in a situation of conflict.

Gun owners present guns as the be-all-end-all upper-hand solution to a sudden and/or serious situation of conflict, and it's that attitude that I do have a HUGE problem with. Got it, my dear?