Is owning a gun a basic human right?

[War on Want]

Yes simply because it is the only reasonable method of defending yourself in a modern world. I don't think it is that special.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Although I do not own being as I am not old enough and my mother vehemently opposes them, Yes it is a God given right

[Хahar 🤔]

Non.

Although I do not own being as I am not old enough and my mother vehemently opposes them, Yes it is a God given right

Moses didn't own a gun. Neither did Jesus.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You have the right to self defense - the right to own a gun is one possible logical extension of that right.

But not the only one.  Because of the enhanced ability a gun gives to those who wish to abuse the rights of others to life and property, there certainly is every reason the ability to own a gun should be carefully regulated.  But an outright ban can't be justified.

[Reluctant Republican]

You can have my....






When you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. 

I am not ashamed to say that that picture turns me on a little bit. I like power, what can I say.

But no, it is not a right, I do not think.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then surely guns are against human rights since there's no better way to 'emasculate my self-defense' then by pointing a gun at me.

[John Dibble]

You have the right to self defense - the right to own a gun is one possible logical extension of that right.

But not the only one.

Of course, that's why I made the caveat of 'one possible'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree. Some reasonable regulations are fine.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Christ, even I think an outright ban isn't justified.

For people who require them as part of their daily lives... farmers etc etc fine. Everyone else I think it's more cultural than anything else.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Of course it is. Owning ammo isn't though.

[Јas]

Yes it is a God given right

Which of Jesus's attributed remarks leads you this interpretation?

[Bono]

Yes it is a God given right

Which of Jesus's attributed remarks leads you this interpretation?

Luke 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

[Aizen]

Yes it is a God given right

Which of Jesus's attributed remarks leads you this interpretation?

I don't think they had guns in the time of Jesus. I could be wrong though considering the Biblical timeline doesn't sync up with the timeline in reality.

[JohnFKennedy]

Yes it is a God given right

Which of Jesus's attributed remarks leads you this interpretation?

Luke 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

Firstly that doesn't state it as being a God given right. Secondly Jesus goes on to say that two swords are enough and reprimands Peter for using one of them in resisting his arrest.  So if we simply go on what Jesus said - you can have a gun (or sword rather) but there'll be no using of it! In fact in Matthew 26:52 he says 'Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword'.

I'd say it was far more likely that the sword was not literally meant for use but perhaps metaphorical? I couldn't claim to be a Biblical scholar but one suggestion I came across was that they were a representation of Jesus' claim in Luke 12:51: 'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division'. While it isn't clear that that is the meaning, Jesus certainly makes it clear that people shouldn't use 'swords'.

Also Xa3ar, you obviously don't watch Family Guy. Moses and Jesus actually used guns to defeat the Romans.

[Democratic Hawk]

No

[DWPerry]

Self-defense is a basic human right; I also believe that I have the right to do anythingthat doesn't violate your rights to Life, Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness (unless your "happiness" comes from violating my rights)

[Gustaf]

I have a romantic side that makes me lean more yes than no on this question. I do believe there should be some regulations, but the right to self-defence is pretty big with me. I'm extremely liberal on some social issues and this is one of them.

[John Dibble]

No, of course owning something detrimental to society is not a right.  If there were fewer guns in society, there wouldn't be a need for guns as a means for self-defense.

Assault, murder, and rape preceded the invention of guns. Guns allow weaker folks to have a much greater chance to defend themselves against stronger aggressors than any other weapon in history.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

No, of course owning something detrimental to society is not a right.  If there were fewer guns in society, there wouldn't be a need for guns as a means for self-defense.

Assault, murder, and rape preceded the invention of guns. Guns allow weaker folks to have a much greater chance to defend themselves against stronger aggressors than any other weapon in history.

And guns allow aggressors the knowledge that no-one can ever escape from them if they've got a gun pointed at the victim.

Why can no-one get it into their head that very restrictive gun laws effect 'bad guys' too, and that if guns are freely available then 'bad' guys are always going to be more likely to have them than 'good' guys?

[opebo]

'Crime' is caused by economic inequality - it is caused by the brutality of the rich perpetrated upon us all.  If you think you're going to shoot the ruling class with your little pop gun, you'll find they're well protected.

[minionofmidas]

"Basic"? Lol no.

[SPC]

No, of course owning something detrimental to society is not a right.  If there were fewer guns in society, there wouldn't be a need for guns as a means for self-defense.

Guns aren't the problem. They are just a result of the problem. Even if guns were completely abolished on all levels of government, and neither criminals nor law enforcement officers would have access to them, they would just be substituted by weaker weapons, such as knives.

[7,052,770]

No, of course owning something detrimental to society is not a right.  If there were fewer guns in society, there wouldn't be a need for guns as a means for self-defense.

Guns aren't the problem. They are just a result of the problem. Even if guns were completely abolished on all levels of government, and neither criminals nor law enforcement officers would have access to them, they would just be substituted by weaker weapons, such as knives.

That would be far preferable.

[Aizen]

Let's just all give kids guns at age 6 when they're starting kindergarten. Then we'll all be safe. Problem solved, time for some pie.

[2952-0-0]

If you think that owning a gun is a basic human right, yet having enough food and shelter and education isn't, then something's screwed up.

[Lief 🗽]

Of course not.