Amazon.com Widgets
  • Everyone has a right to defend themselves and what is theirs

    I don't care where you are from every single person has a right to protect themselves from anything that will cause themselves or their property any harm. I personally do not think we need military style weapons like tommy guns and semi automatic weapons to defend yourself leave that to the military. It is in our constitution we have the right to bear arms and if someone is going to harm me i would love to have one handy to defend myself

  • Yes, people have a moral right to self-defense.

    Of course people have the right to defend themselves. I would argue that it is a moral obligation. However, the real question is, "Do people have a right to defend themselves with guns?" When the issue of self-defense comes up, it is always about the right to "bear arms." Gun ownership is not necessary to defend one's self. If we could not "bear arms" across the board, I believe people would easily find less deadly means of self-defense.

  • YES

    Do people have the right to be secure in their persons? Do people have a right to live and be free from the constant threat of injury? Do we believe in the concept of self-ownership?

    If you believe in the concept of own the self, then you have the right to self-defense as an extent of property laws. I can't believe that this even a debate question.

  • Yes, they do

    People have a right to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger. This is applied in a lot of erroneous ways such as the "stand your ground law" which in essence is the same thing as yelling "it's coming right for us" a la the old South Park episode, but at its core, yes, people have a moral right to self-defense.

  • Of course we do

    Its a basic human right - freedom from harm. If someone else takes it upon themselves to infringe on that right of mine then I am granted the right to stop that infringement from happening - as I am defending my own basic rights. All people have this right and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a good look through their history books to find out what happens when people 'disagree' with that right.

  • How can anybody argue against this?

    It is completely unreasonable to argue that it is not morally permissible to take another life in self defense of one’s own life when the taking of the aggressor’s life is the only means by which preventing one’s own loss of life is possible. You cannot invoke "karma and badness" (what are we, ten years old?) in a discussion of ethics. The moral right to self-defense is not about punching someone back. It's a debate on the sanctity of human life.

  • It is an inalieable right

    The right to defend yourself is one of the most basic human rights there are. If you are attacked, you have to right to defend yourself appropriately. If a 12 year old kid runs onto your property, it's not ok to open fire. However, someone trying to mug you with a weapon, gives you to right to defend yourself by any means neccesary.

  • We should have a right to self defense.

    For example, you could be harmed when facing a dangerous situation. People have rights to protect themselves. You should be able to know that we are safe and can live our lives without worrying that someone is out to get us. The government should realize that we should have the right to self defense.

  • Tricky but no...

    If we all "defend" ourselves through adding to physical violence, we throw off our own karma and badness will only grow and increase. Rather if we choose to abstain from promoting violence, the result will be the eventual end to violence. Refusing to respond with similar violence is refusing to validate the violence itself. We evolve beyond it. It may be difficult to be beaten down but we must view ourselves in a less selfish way as a vessel for the greater good. It's not a sacrifice but a joy to abstain from violence.

  • Tricky but no...

    If we all "defend" ourselves through adding to physical violence, we throw off our own karma and badness will only grow and increase. Rather if we chose to abstain from promoting violence, the result will be the eventual end to violence. Refusing to respond with similar violence is a refusing to validate the violence itself. We evolve beyond it. It may be difficult to be beaten down but we must view ourselves in a less selfish way as a vessel for the greater good. It's not a sacrifice but a joy to abstain from violence.

  • Tricky but no..

    If we all "defend" ourselves through adding to physical violence, we throw off our own karma and badness will only grow and increase. Rather if we chose to abstain from promoting violence, the result will be the eventual end to violence. Refusing to respond with similar violence is refusing to validate the violence itself. We evolve beyond it. It may be difficult to be beaten down but we must view ourselves in a less selfish way as a vessel for the greater good. It's not a sacrifice but a joy to abstain from violence.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.