Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    There simply is not a "right to self-defense". It is not in the Constitution, the Decleration of Independance, the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita. No where is this "right" to be found.

    What is found is the 'right to live'. The right to not live in fear of the moron with the loaded gun stuck down his pants sitting next you in class or in the resturant. The right to refuse you government's and or the majority's demands that you kill people you have never met in thier name.

    I have the right to be alive. I have the right to refuse. I have the right to die. but I do not have the right to kill, for any reason.
    I've been silently reading plenty of threads lately, mostly on the 2nd Amendment.

    First I'd like to say that at least one landmark case The District of Columbia vs Heller provides a Constitutional basis for self defense, there is plenty of literature on the case enjoy some reading:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    So recently, the 2nd Amendment, a Constitutional Amendment, has been argued, very successfully, as a right to have firearms for self defense.

    So in regards to your first point, well you're at least partially wrong, or at the very least your assumption is very poorly grounded and unsupported from a Constitutional/legal perspective. If you want to argue morally speaking then that's another story.

    A right, practically speaking, is not a right unless it can be preserved. Rights are inalienable, they cannot be taken or given away. Unless you can defend yourself then you have no rights. While it is admirable to say "I'd sooner die", and while it's your choice, it's by no means the only choice. If I have a right to be alive but can't practically defend that right, then what purposes does it serve? Once challenged the right falls to pieces. It's hollow. Saying I have a right to freedom of speech, but not being able to defend or maintain that right does not make it a right. It makes it a fleeting luxury.

    Second, you didn't need to say that self defense was evil, you've already equated it with murder. In your eyes if I use my rifle to defend myself and my family I am as bad as the murderer. By association, I am as evil as the perpetrator; you are saying self defense is as evil as the person who is attacking you.

    So if everyone has a right to their life I have a question for you. What do you do to the person that murders someone?

    I had a longer post, but I want to end it hear to stay on topic.

    In a society where no one is willing to fight to stop bad people, how are you going to stop bad people?
    Witty puns...

  2. Likes wakko liked this post
  3. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Everything done right should be done to the extreme. If you don't something to the extreme, you believe to be true, then you are just half an ass.
    Don't confuse passion for doing something to extremes. Extremes can be dangerous even if we believe something to be true.

    Jesus tells us to "love thine enemy".
    Right, but in order to have the opportunity to love our enemy, we must stay alive to do so. That's probably why Jesus also told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Why a sword? Well, I guess the disciples weren't going to be very helpful to his mission if they were killed before his mission was over.

    From a spiritual/religious point of view we have a right to self defense because in the physical world, God's goodness often works through man; that is men/women/children who are alive, not dead.

    "do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you."1 Corinthians 6:19-20

    Should the Holy Spirit working through man be defended if the human body is threatened? I think most Christians would certainly think so.

    "for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good." Philippians 2:13
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  4. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Conservatives never cease to amaze me. With their faulty logic and all.
    And how reasonably do you even know my political position? What an unwarranted piece of condescension.

    Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. Just as owning a car, or a house, has their responsibilities; so should owning a gun.
    This isn't an argument. It's a statement. Here we make statements with arguments to support them, and by that I mean we not only use but demonstrate reasoning. Why is gun ownership a privilege as opposed to a right?

    I never said that "self-defense" is evil, I said it is sad when it must come to the use of violence to defend yourself. I would rather die at the hands of a gunman, then lower myself to their morality. Death is not something to seek out or want, it is something to be avoided, but if comes to the crossroads and my only two choices are get murdered or become a murderer myself, I choose the former. The only property I truly value is my mind; and that is forever. Many particles will take the shape of my body, but my mind, my soul, my nous will always be there.
    And where did I say that you said self defense was evil? What I had actually said was that the right to life implies the right to self defense. If the right to life cannot be reasonably retained, and it is just forfeit to any who want to take it, because to defend one's self would be wrong, then how is that a right to life at all? A right is not a right at all if you cannot even endeavor to keep it. It doesn't belong to you at all in that case. You just enjoy it if you can.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  5. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    I think an appropriate analogy would be:

    Al tells Bob that he has the right to breath and then sticks his head in a full bathtub. Someone says to Al, "Aren't you denying Bob his right to breath?" Al says "No, he still has the right to breath. I'm just denying him the ability to breath."

    In other words the ability to ensure that one continues living is directly tied to the right to life and denying one the ability to live is denying them the right to live. And therefore denying someone the ability to defend his life is denying him the right to life.

  6. Likes Lukecash12, Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #25
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    I've been silently reading plenty of threads lately, mostly on the 2nd Amendment.
    First I'd like to say that at least one landmark case The District of Columbia vs Heller provides a Constitutional basis for self defense, there is plenty of literature on the case enjoy some reading:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
    As I stated before, Heller v. DC makes most gun control unconstitutional. It says that you may own a gun, for the purpose of self-defense.

    So in regards to your first point, well you're at least partially wrong, or at the very least your assumption is very poorly grounded and unsupported from a Constitutional/legal perspective. If you want to argue morally speaking then that's another story.
    The constitution does not explicitly, nor implicitly give the right to kill, even if justified. It gives you the right to own a gun for the purpose of killing in self-defense. It protects purpose, not action.

    A right, practically speaking, is not a right unless it can be preserved. Rights are inalienable, they cannot be taken or given away.
    According to legal and political scholarship, the only 'unalienable' rights are 'life, liberty and property'. The right to own a gun, is subject Article V and amendment, just like the rest of the constitution.
    Unless you can defend yourself then you have no rights.
    Freedom is an inherent state. Freedom can be given away voluntarily, but cannot be taken away.

    While it is admirable to say "I'd sooner die", and while it's your choice, it's by no means the only choice.
    I only speak for myself. I am not advocating for others to 'follow' me. I would like it if others came to the same or similar conclusion on thier own though. i respect other's right to have thier own opinion.
    If I have a right to be alive but can't practically defend that right, then what purposes does it serve?
    Does it need defending? Is self-defense to protect life or property? The 'duty to retreat' tells us that self-defense is the defense of property, not life.
    Once challenged the right falls to pieces. It's hollow. Saying I have a right to freedom of speech, but not being able to defend or maintain that right does not make it a right. It makes it a fleeting luxury.
    Is violence necesary for defense? I think we agree that defense is necesary in some cases, we just dont agree on whether violence is justified in the reaching of this goal.

    Second, you didn't need to say that self defense was evil, you've already equated it with murder.
    is murder evil? or just unfortunate?
    In your eyes if I use my rifle to defend myself and my family I am as bad as the murderer.
    YES, that doesnt make you evil and doesnt mean that I think you are going to hell or whatever. It is an unfortunate, senseless, preventable occurance. You/Me are not evil, were just ignorant. God is the only one that is not ignorant.
    By association, I am as evil as the perpetrator; you are saying self defense is as evil as the person who is attacking you.
    I dont 'hate' bad guys or think that they are 'evil'. Jesus tells us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. Violence is senseless, pointless, ineffective and preventable. It is sad that another should lead you to want to kill them. Dont hope for such a situation, try to prevent it from happening in the first place. Education, the library, allowing and even forcing people to think and learn for and by themselves. I can learn for someone else, but I can try and teach them.

    So if everyone has a right to their life I have a question for you. What do you do to the person that murders someone?
    punish them according to the law. the 14th amendment tells us that life, liberty and or property may be taken away if due process of law is followed. Murder is a crime, war is a crime. Individuals are soveriegn, so murder is war. There is no Just murder or Just war, just sad and unfortunate occurances.

    In a society where no one is willing to fight to stop bad people, how are you going to stop bad people?
    Gandhi said it best: non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good. You can fight without violence.

    ---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Don't confuse passion for doing something to extremes. Extremes can be dangerous even if we believe something to be true.
    Coach always told me to go 100%, to go to the extremes of human ability to try to win. I simply cannot accept convention, the extreme is the creative, the innovative. It is not bad to be extreme.


    Right, but in order to have the opportunity to love our enemy, we must stay alive to do so. That's probably why Jesus also told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Why a sword? Well, I guess the disciples weren't going to be very helpful to his mission if they were killed before his mission was over.
    You can fight without violence. My quote was from matthew where jesus says, 'those who live by the sword, DIE by the sword'. Luke and Matthew must have disagreed on this point just like you and me.

    From a spiritual/religious point of view we have a right to self defense because in the physical world, God's goodness often works through man; that is men/women/children who are alive, not dead.
    That is a very 'christian' POV, one that I do not share. God does not differentiate the living from the dead, since existance is eternal.

    "do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you."1 Corinthians 6:19-20
    Seventh Day Adventist?

    Should the Holy Spirit working through man be defended if the human body is threatened? I think most Christians would certainly think so.
    Im not christian.

    "for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good." Philippians 2:13
    Does God approve of violence?

    ---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    And how reasonably do you even know my political position? What an unwarranted piece of condescension.
    Common sense is common, that is why I seek Extrodianary sense.
    You are a member of the ODN Conservative group. Are you not a conservative? Did I not do my homework before making the claim that you were a conservative and then mocking that truth?




    This isn't an argument. It's a statement. Here we make statements with arguments to support them, and by that I mean we not only use but demonstrate reasoning. Why is gun ownership a privilege as opposed to a right?
    An argument IS a statement, with "evidence" to support it. Francis Bacon would cry himself to sleep every night if all that was needed to support an argument, was 'argument'. Evidence supports a statement=an argument. Was you have so indelibly indentified as a "statement", is an "opinion". I did not present it as fact, but as truth.



    And where did I say that you said self defense was evil?
    I did not say what you said, I said what I didnt say. I didnt claim that you said such a thing.

    What I had actually said was that the right to life implies the right to self defense.
    A position, that I do not share.

    If the right to life cannot be reasonably retained, and it is just forfeit to any who want to take it, because to defend one's self would be wrong, then how is that a right to life at all?
    Is violence necesary for the defense of life? or can you 'fight' without the use of violence? Is murder or killing, justified or otherwise, really necesary to defend your existance?

    A right is not a right at all if you cannot even endeavor to keep it. It doesn't belong to you at all in that case. You just enjoy it if you can.
    Freedom is the inherent state of all things. If I say I am free, then I am free. If I say that I am alive, then I am alive. Only I can forfit my life, other people cant do that for me. can they?

  8. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    The constitution does not explicitly, nor implicitly give the right to kill, even if justified. It gives you the right to own a gun for the purpose of killing in self-defense. It protects purpose, not action.
    State laws at the local level protects the action and right to kill in self defense. State laws are required to comply with the Constitution.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  9. #27
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    State laws at the local level protects the action and right to kill in self defense. State laws are required to comply with the Constitution.
    So there is no "right to self-defense", neither is there a rebuttal against the argument in favor of self-defense being defined as 'murder'.

    Self-defense is legal in many/most places, but that does not mean that you, me or anyone else has the 'right to self-defense', nor does it mean that self defense is not murder, legally justifiable murder at that.

  10. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Self-defense is legal in many/most places, but that does not mean that you, me or anyone else has the 'right to self-defense', nor does it mean that self defense is not murder, legally justifiable murder at that.
    The law, the Rule of Law (which has to comply with the U.S. Constitution), in many states protects the right to kill in self-defense.


    15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense
    The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us...anted=all&_r=0.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  11. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Common sense is common, that is why I seek Extrodianary sense.
    You are a member of the ODN Conservative group. Are you not a conservative? Did I not do my homework before making the claim that you were a conservative and then mocking that truth?
    So I'm just to be lumped in with the conservatives because I joined the group? Yes, I do align mostly with conservatives. But whether or not I am one has nothing to do with the fact that you were being condescending, and also assumed that I am strictly a conservative. What I had mainly meant is that I don't appreciate your tone.

    An argument IS a statement, with "evidence" to support it. Francis Bacon would cry himself to sleep every night if all that was needed to support an argument, was 'argument'. Evidence supports a statement=an argument. Was you have so indelibly indentified as a "statement", is an "opinion". I did not present it as fact, but as truth.
    Then support your statement, in order to make it an argument. We only address arguments here. Do you think that everyone else comes here because they are interested in being subjected to other people who just flap their jaws the whole time? We come here to debate, and we can only debate over statements that are debatable. Please present real arguments. Come up with actual support for the material I had quoted.

    I did not say what you said, I said what I didnt say. I didnt claim that you said such a thing.
    Well what do you expect from me when I get a response like that? You worded it "I never said", which implies that someone claimed that you said something.

    A position, that I do not share.
    Well debate against the position. This is the thread that you started. Why is it that I'm having to prompt the person who wrote the OP to engage in an actual debate?

    Is violence necesary for the defense of life? or can you 'fight' without the use of violence? Is murder or killing, justified or otherwise, really necesary to defend your existance?
    Ummm... obviously whenever someone is pointing a gun at you, the choice is between doing something about it or being killed. So, do you have a right to live if you don't have the right to do anything about it when someone is pointing a gun at you?

    It's your OP, you made the original claim. Thus, the burden of proof quite obviously lays upon you. Please explain why you believe that we don't have a right to self defense, and how the right to self defense isn't implied by the right to live.

    Freedom is the inherent state of all things. If I say I am free, then I am free. If I say that I am alive, then I am alive. Only I can forfit my life, other people cant do that for me. can they?
    Okay, what we have here is another series of statements without support. What is your rationale behind these ideas? What is a right? Is something still a right if you aren't allowed to retain it?
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  12. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    You keep saying you can fight without violence but you're giving no examples; only quotes. I want to know how you plan to enforce your law. You're advocating non violence; fine. Lets go through a scenario. Me and everyone else in this thread now break your laws. We kill a small group of people. No firearms, just everyday tools. We have no plan's to surrender. We've made it clear we won't negotiate. How are you going to stop us? How will you stop a violent mob of say 20 people armed with every day tools? Arrest us? How? We will merely beat you to death.
    Witty puns...

  13. #31
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The law, the Rule of Law (which has to comply with the U.S. Constitution), in many states protects the right to kill in self-defense.


    15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense
    The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us...anted=all&_r=0.
    If 15 states, do. Then the other 35 dont. right?

    ---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    So I'm just to be lumped in with the conservatives because I joined the group? Yes, I do align mostly with conservatives. But whether or not I am one has nothing to do with the fact that you were being condescending, and also assumed that I am strictly a conservative. What I had mainly meant is that I don't appreciate your tone.
    I can lump as I please, as can you, or anyone else. I have been repeatily been labled here, as a liberal. I think that is generally a fair assement. But just because I been labled with a ideology by others; first does not mean I am obligated to oblige by following the ideology; second it doesnt mean that I am 100% for sure, infact a liberal. You can be an independant thinker and still respect others right to label you with a percieved political ideology.



    Then support your statement, in order to make it an argument. We only address arguments here. Do you think that everyone else comes here because they are interested in being subjected to other people who just flap their jaws the whole time? We come here to debate, and we can only debate over statements that are debatable. Please present real arguments. Come up with actual support for the material I had quoted.
    All statements are debatable. Their is no objective truth, if there was, there would be no point to even debate anything in the first place. It is the subjectivity of all statements that makes us desire to debate the factuality of all statement. Question everything!!!



    Well what do you expect from me when I get a response like that? You worded it "I never said", which implies that someone claimed that you said something.
    I said what I didnt say, you assumed the rest. That is your problem, not mine.



    Well debate against the position. This is the thread that you started. Why is it that I'm having to prompt the person who wrote the OP to engage in an actual debate?
    I believe that I have shown there to be no 'right to self-defense'. There may be instinces where homicide may be legal, but that does mean there is an inherent 'right to self defense'. It is called justifiable homicide, not protection. Murder is murder, its just that in some places murder can be justified legally.



    Ummm... obviously whenever someone is pointing a gun at you, the choice is between doing something about it or being killed. So, do you have a right to live if you don't have the right to do anything about it when someone is pointing a gun at you?
    You very much have the ability to do something, but that does not mean you have the right to kill. You can fight without violence.

    It's your OP, you made the original claim. Thus, the burden of proof quite obviously lays upon you. Please explain why you believe that we don't have a right to self defense, and how the right to self defense isn't implied by the right to live.
    No where in any widely accepted government or religious text does it explicitly or implicitly give a right to defend ones self in a violent manner. Turn the other cheek.



    Okay, what we have here is another series of statements without support. What is your rationale behind these ideas? What is a right? Is something still a right if you aren't allowed to retain it?
    Outside forces cannot take away something you are not willingly giving up to them. Especially freedom. Freedom can be given, but not taken. There is more to life than just physical being. Your soul doesnt cease to exist, just because your body does.

  14. #32
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    If 15 states, do. Then the other 35 dont. right?
    All states recognize the legal right to self-defense. His article discussed the expansion of situations in which that right applies.

    ---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    No where in any widely accepted government or religious text does it explicitly or implicitly give a right to defend ones self in a violent manner. Turn the other cheek.
    What?!? You need to support this. Challenge to support a claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #33
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    You keep saying you can fight without violence but you're giving no examples; only quotes. I want to know how you plan to enforce your law. You're advocating non violence; fine. Lets go through a scenario. Me and everyone else in this thread now break your laws. We kill a small group of people. No firearms, just everyday tools. We have no plan's to surrender. We've made it clear we won't negotiate. How are you going to stop us? How will you stop a violent mob of say 20 people armed with every day tools? Arrest us? How? We will merely beat you to death.
    Jesus fought to the roman empire, almost single handily without the use of violence or murder. In my opinion Jesus won the fight, without killing or murdering anyone. In fact he is actually +1 on the Life meter, since he brought Laz back from the dead.

    Thoreau did not kill or use violence in the least, and he successfully resisted the United States government, who did not get his taxes or his consent. Thoreau remained free.

    Gandhi did not use violence. He fought the British Empire and won independance for India and Pakistan.

    MLKJR. did not use violence. He won the civil rights movement.

    the Velvet Revolution rid Czechoslovakia of communist rule, without the use of violence.

    If the Roman Empire or the British Empire or the United States can fall to feet of a single individual, who without the use of violence or killing can successfully achieve thier goal; then anything is possible.

    Jail is a house for the peaceful. Hell is the domain of the defiant. American is the land of the free.

    Beat me to death, but Ill still be there.

    ---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    All states recognize the legal right to self-defense. His article discussed the expansion of situations in which that right applies.
    It was a question. I did not know, so I asked. Is 'self defense' trully a 'right'? or is a form of 'justifiable' homicide? Is there a supreme court decision perhaps? or a what? Please rebutt.

    What?!? You need to support this. Challenge to support a claim.
    I cannot find a single instance where murder can be justified in the name of self-preservation. I can only defend what I see and I dont see anything. Please rebutt if youd like.

  16. #34
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    JIt was a question. I did not know, so I asked. Is 'self defense' trully a 'right'? or is a form of 'justifiable' homicide? Is there a supreme court decision perhaps? or a what? Please rebutt.
    Yes, it is truly a right.

    Runyan v. State (1877) was the first Supreme Court case to firmly establish it (because it was the first time a state had tried to limit this clear right that is present in English common law).

    When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable.
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Inbau1.htm

    Further cases have firmly established this precedent.

    John Bad Elk v. U.S. (1900)
    Miller v. State (1881)
    Jones v. State (1888)
    Beaverts v. State (1878)
    Skidmore v. State (1875)

    Quote Originally Posted by HC
    I cannot find a single instance where murder can be justified in the name of self-preservation. I can only defend what I see and I dont see anything. Please rebutt if youd like.
    Don't shift the burden of proof. You said: "No where in any widely accepted government or religious text does it explicitly or implicitly give a right to defend ones self in a violent manner." You need to support that no widely accepted government or religious text either explicitly or implicitly gives individuals the right to defend themselves in a violent manner.

    Or you can retract the claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #35
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, it is truly a right.

    Runyan v. State (1877) was the first Supreme Court case to firmly establish it (because it was the first time a state had tried to limit this clear right that is present in English common law).

    When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable.
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Inbau1.htm

    Further cases have firmly established this precedent.

    John Bad Elk v. U.S. (1900)
    Miller v. State (1881)
    Jones v. State (1888)
    Beaverts v. State (1878)
    Skidmore v. State (1875)



    Don't shift the burden of proof. You said: "No where in any widely accepted government or religious text does it explicitly or implicitly give a right to defend ones self in a violent manner." You need to support that no widely accepted government or religious text either explicitly or implicitly gives individuals the right to defend themselves in a violent manner.

    Or you can retract the claim.
    FINALLY, JESUS!!! FINALLY!!!!

    Do even realize why I started this thread? I may be a moron, but I can google self-defense with the best of them. It took you 34 posts into this debate to discover the Ruynan case. Ignorance breeds more ignorance. If someone cant even prove thier case with the use of evidence, until prompted to, then why should I beleive anything you say on this site?

    Self Defense is the legally justified killing of someone in the defense of thier life, liberty or property. It is simple. But that doesnt make it right.

  18. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    If 15 states, do. Then the other 35 dont. right?
    It's now about 24 states that have gotten more specific on how they implement the Castel Doctrine. But the Castle Doctrine covers the rest of the nation.

    It’s been said that a man’s home is his castle, but what rights does this afford a homeowner in defense of this castle?

    The Castle Doctrine (also known as castle law or make my day law) gives citizens in their homes – and in some states – cars or workplaces the right to protect themselves, other people, and their property by force – in some instances even deadly force.

    The laws differ from state to state, and what may be considered self defense in one state, might be grounds for a murder or manslaughter indictment in another.


    It’s been said that a man’s home is his castle, but what rights does this afford a homeowner in defense of this castle?

    The Castle Doctrine (also known as castle law or make my day law) gives citizens in their homes – and in some states – cars or workplaces the right to protect themselves, other people, and their property by force – in some instances even deadly force.

    The laws differ from state to state, and what may be considered self defense in one state, might be grounds for a murder or manslaughter indictment in another.
    http://source.southuniversity.edu/ca...ate-46514.aspx

    Thus, your statement that the law does not give Americans the "right of self-defense" to use deadly force is not accurate. The law does give Americans that right and about half of the nation has chosen to get very specific about that right.

    Now, you may not agree with the law but then, again, I don't agree with all our laws either. Our agreement or opposition to a given law is simply just that, an opinion a view point.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  19. Likes DevilPup John liked this post
  20. #37
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    FINALLY, JESUS!!! FINALLY!!!!
    Given our "inability" to link that case it would seem probably that your ability to write a coherent argument is the issue, not our "ignorance."

    Quote Originally Posted by HC
    Self Defense is the legally justified killing of someone in the defense of thier life, liberty or property. It is simple. But that doesnt make it right.
    Of course a few posts ago you were implying that self defense is the commission of an unlawful homicide with malice aforethought. Your position here seems quite confused.

    You also seem to be confusing two uses of a word. Calling something "a right" (as in something to which one has a just claim) is not the same thing as saying it "is right" (as in it being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper). The OP refers to the former (as did you in earlier posts), you are not confusing it with the latter, which is a question of morality. You are wrong on both counts as has been shown by at least three different posters here.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    But that doesnt make it right.
    Are you making a moral judgment with that comment? Who determines if it is morally right or wrong to save yourself from death in self-defense?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  22. #39
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    There simply is not a "right to self-defense". It is not in the Constitution, the Decleration of Independance, the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita. No where is this "right" to be found.

    What is found is the 'right to live'. The right to not live in fear of the moron with the loaded gun stuck down his pants sitting next you in class or in the resturant. The right to refuse you government's and or the majority's demands that you kill people you have never met in thier name.

    I have the right to be alive. I have the right to refuse. I have the right to die. but I do not have the right to kill, for any reason.
    ...again...really, really bad reasoning employed here HC. May as well argue that you do not have the right to eat. After all, "It is not in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita. No where is this "right" to be found."

    Using your reasoning, we must say that you have no right to eat, no right to drink, and in fact, no right to breathe air. So you need to stop it all...right now. After all, you have no right to do so. Yes, yes, I realize you have a right to live...but we must abandon all that encompasses.

    Just because you have the right to live does not mean (according to your extremely poor reasoning) you have the right to eat, drink, breathe. Nor does it mean you have the right to wear clothes, nor to have shelter. Nor does it mean you have the right to be protected from those who would take from you or do you harm and maybe even kill you.

    See the problem?

    You are abandoning several necessary values that come with living, that come with "life."

    In order to live, which is a right of course...you do need to eat, drink, breathe. In order to live, you do need to be protected from the elements. In order to live, you do need to be protected from those who would cause harm to you.

    If one is so dogmatic about words, and ignores what they actually mean, then to be consistent...you need to stop breathing right now...immediately. After all...you have no right to do so....it's not found in the Constitution, Declaration, etc...

    However...and perhaps more concisely...you are erroneously assuming that rights are only defined through the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and religion. Where you possibly got that idea I have no idea. But any high school student who has taken any sort of history, political science, social studies, or civics course...knows better. We give rights to society through laws. That which we say one has no right to do or possess, is passed into legislation and enforced. For example...the Constitution does not say anything about jay walking...but you do not have the right to do so. For when you do, you have violated the law and can be punished. You do not have the right to drive 100mph in a school zone. Yet...the Constitution nor religion speaks to this.

    The Constitution and Co. were never intended to be an exhaustive list of rights or do's and don'ts. It's disturbing that we have people living in this country who did not realize this. Instead, we rely on federal and state laws for such rights.

    I highly recommend this free course on the Constitution from prof Allison, made specifically for Udemy.com: http://www.udemy.com/us-constitution/

    It will clear up your misunderstandings about what is and is not, the US Constitution.




    ---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by puma237 View Post
    squatch, you seem to be a little off your feed lately. are you getting enough sleep? everythin ok? should the government protect a citizen from murder that would not be self defense, but one entity defending another. and by the way, can you come up with an instance in all of history where the government actually protected a citizen from murder? a little casual scrutiny should demontrate that the government (visa vi law enforcement) pretty much always shows up after the fact.
    ...you are confusing "Absolute protection 100% of the time" with "systematic prevention and deterrence."

    Squatch is not arguing that the government is the only solution to prevent all murder. Nowhere is that even implied. What he offered was a living example of rights being employed for the protection of a group of people...an example of rights that the op either has forgotten or ignored (or perhaps just disagrees with...which if so...would be yet another example of bad reasoning because the government DOES have the right (and obligation) to protect its citizenry).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 4th, 2013 at 03:41 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  23. #40
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Right to Self Defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Given our "inability" to link that case it would seem probably that your ability to write a coherent argument is the issue, not our "ignorance."

    Of course a few posts ago you were implying that self defense is the commission of an unlawful homicide with malice aforethought. Your position here seems quite confused.

    You also seem to be confusing two uses of a word. Calling something "a right" (as in something to which one has a just claim) is not the same thing as saying it "is right" (as in it being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper). The OP refers to the former (as did you in earlier posts), you are not confusing it with the latter, which is a question of morality. You are wrong on both counts as has been shown by at least three different posters here.
    I wanted you and/or Someguy to prove me wrong using the Bacon's method. Neither of you pointed to a legal decision that proved your case. DevilPup pointed to the DC/Heller case which gives the legal right to own a gun for the purpose of justifiable homicide, but did explicitly five a right to self defense. This whole effort was an experiment to see how long it would take you guys to find the Ruynan Case. It was only when I suggested that you use laws and legal decisions, did you even think to look for it. You can argue natural law this, natural law that all day, but in the US the constitution is the supreme law, not god or nature or whatever religious deity you may or may not believe in.

    My intentional ignorance lead to running of the bulls. No rhyme or reason, just an unwavering need and want to tear me down, even if you don't use logic.

    PROVE ME WRONG!!!! but at least do it, don't beat around the bush for 20 some odd post before being able to do it.

    ---------- Post added at 07:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Are you making a moral judgment with that comment? Who determines if it is morally right or wrong to save yourself from death in self-defense?
    Yup. Abortion is legal, but I'd be willingly to bet that many people think that it is wrong. Morality is subjective, feel free to think differently than me. I can lend you my eyes so you can see my way, but only you cam decide yourself.

    I believe that murder is murder and that violence is ineffective, preventable, and senseless. Despite what your momma told you, violence does NOT solve problems.

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Self-Defense
    By ladyphoenix in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 30th, 2010, 09:42 PM
  2. The RIGHT to self-defense.
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 5th, 2008, 07:56 PM
  3. Anger and Self-Defense
    By CC in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 03:41 AM
  4. A defense of Atheists.
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum General Debate
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 26th, 2007, 09:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •