6 ms·

Or to quote Uncle Ben > "With Great power comes great responsibility" ?

by shade23 11y ago

mozumder 11y ago
lol @ the idea of a system that relies on responsibility of individual free will for general public safety. "Sure! Of course you can have firearms! Just be responsible and don't shoot anyone with it!"
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Has worked mostly OKish here for a few generations it seems. Also remember you cannot trade liberty for security.
  - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    Mostly okish minus tens of thousands of unnecessary and/or accidental deaths and little to no actual benefit (like idk, mass shootings or terrorist attacks prevented). IIRC the right to bear arms was intended so that the people can overthrow the government if need be; small chance of that now, with the military and police forces as advanced and militarised as they are now. /rant
    - hoorayimhelping 11y ago
      >little to no actual benefit (like idk, mass shootings or terrorist attacks prevented). How can you possibly judge that? For all you know, having 300 million guns in America is keeping the earth's magnetosphere intact through some weird quantum effect. It's highly unlikely, but you have no idea what the actual benefit of the 2nd amendment is because there is no possible way to empirically determine what the past would have been like without it.
      - mozumder 11y ago
        You can compare to other countries without that right, or to just within regions in the same country that have no guns vs regions that do. That's how you would determine the benefits of the 2nd amendment with data. This is not a difficult problem.
    - jsmcgd 11y ago
      > IIRC the right to bear arms was intended so that the people can overthrow the government if need be; small chance of that now, with the military and police forces as advanced and militarised as they are now. However it seems that most low tech insurgencies fighting against the advanced conventional militaries of the West always seem to win, from Vietnam right up to Afghanistan / Iraq.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Because they gain a greater advantage by going guerilla than they lose by having inferior tech and training. You can't hold an unwilling populace in order for long - you either have to convince them to accept your rule or get ready to ruthlessly massacre them. The West sucks at the first and doesn't want to do the second.
      - mozumder 11y ago
        > However it seems that most low tech insurgencies fighting against the advanced conventional militaries of the West always seem to win, from Vietnam right up to Afghanistan / Iraq. But it didn't really work during the US Civil War.
        jsmcgd 11y ago
        I'm only making this point in reference to conflicts that involve insurgencies.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      I am not american nor a gun owner but man, this is a very... unclever approach. I could put here quotes about people who give up a bit of freedom for a bit more security deserve neither, but I presume that's old school talk for you too. Except it isn't. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We are not yet in the age of some automated gun turrets. If you want to blame guns, then blame all knives, baseball bats, axes and whatnot. All shall be banned, no? I say yes, I see no difference between being shot and stabbed to death, for both you need a clear intent, but accedents can (and do) happen. Seriously, how hard is to understand that weapons are not bought only for attack, but also for self-defense, ALSO for sport/fun, as collectibles etc. In fact, it takes a extremely dull character who needs to commit a crime with a weapon and goes to store to get registered for one. I mean, seriously, this is what you are saying? Because this isn't ahppening. Ban guns, and you'll severely restrict common citizen's access to them, but not so much criminal's one. In fact, i would expect illegal arms trafficking to skyrocket. War on drugs all over again. There should be a check (of rules/laws knowledge, mental capability, clean criminal record etc.) before selling a gun. Guns for civilians shouldn't be full automatic either. But that's it. Rest is about living in freedom, or in a system that doesn't trust its own citizens and needs to control them. Just look at any news how power-greedy politicians are. Who are you to tell other people they should abandon their hobbies ie of practise shooting, just because you feel that their real power to overthrow their government is "small"? You would be surprised how untrue this really is if whole nation would stood up to its government. But without guns, of course they wouldn't stand a chance
      - notahacker 11y ago
        > Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The whole rationale behind the "guns will protect our liberty" movement is that it is much easier to kill people with guns than with baseball bats and knives. It's just that in practice the people being killed relatively quickly and effortlessly with guns are real civilians and not hypothetical fascist stormtroopers.
    - mozumder 11y ago
      The right to bear arms was never for the purposes of overthrowing a government. It was given in order to establish militias, which the government can use to prevent insurrections and invasions, per section 8 of the US constitution. No government allows its citizens the right to overthrow it. I have no idea why people think that? Do you?
      - Turing_Machine 11y ago
        "I have no idea why people think that? Do you?" Because they had, in fact, just overthrown an oppressive government. I have no idea why you think the founders did not consider that potential outcome. Jefferson even said "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion". Can you think of another example of the right of the militia to bear arms ever being codified, anywhere in the world? Why would it need to be? The right is specifically stated as being one of the people's rights. The militia is a reason, not the subject. If the First Amendment had read "A well educated Legislature, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed" would you argue that only legislators had the right to keep and read books? No, you would not. Nor would anyone else, because that would be a nonsensical interpretation.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - jgrowl 11y ago
        "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787)
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Well, you can; Franklin's quote is not an iron law of politics. Every little bit of product, agricultural or environmental safety is an infringement of "liberty" that improves safety. "Freedom" is not an infinitely fungible gas, but must be considered in terms of specific freedoms to do specific things. I'm quite happy to give up the freedom to run, say, a toxic waste dump in my garden to prevent my neighbour from having the same freedom. In what year would you consider the US to first be a free country?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - arethuza 11y ago
    What about people being conscripted in WW2 (loss of liberty) to defeat the Nazis (increase in security)?
  - krapp 11y ago
    >Also remember you cannot trade liberty for security. Probably worth mentioning the quote from Ben Franklin so often paraphrased out of context was, actually, an argument for taxation and federal military power (specifically to fund defense of the frontier against Native Americans), not a warning against it. [0]http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-ben...

Or to quote Uncle Ben > "With Great power comes great responsibility" ?

by shade23 11y ago

Or to quote Uncle Ben > "With Great power comes great responsibility" ?

lol @ the idea of a system that relies on responsibility of individual free will for general public safety. "Sure! Of course you can have firearms! Just be responsible and don't shoot anyone with it!"

reitanqild 11y ago
Has worked mostly OKish here for a few generations it seems. Also remember you cannot trade liberty for security.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  Mostly okish minus tens of thousands of unnecessary and/or accidental deaths and little to no actual benefit (like idk, mass shootings or terrorist attacks prevented). IIRC the right to bear arms was intended so that the people can overthrow the government if need be; small chance of that now, with the military and police forces as advanced and militarised as they are now. /rant
  - hoorayimhelping 11y ago
    >little to no actual benefit (like idk, mass shootings or terrorist attacks prevented). How can you possibly judge that? For all you know, having 300 million guns in America is keeping the earth's magnetosphere intact through some weird quantum effect. It's highly unlikely, but you have no idea what the actual benefit of the 2nd amendment is because there is no possible way to empirically determine what the past would have been like without it.
    - mozumder 11y ago
      You can compare to other countries without that right, or to just within regions in the same country that have no guns vs regions that do. That's how you would determine the benefits of the 2nd amendment with data. This is not a difficult problem.
  - jsmcgd 11y ago
    > IIRC the right to bear arms was intended so that the people can overthrow the government if need be; small chance of that now, with the military and police forces as advanced and militarised as they are now. However it seems that most low tech insurgencies fighting against the advanced conventional militaries of the West always seem to win, from Vietnam right up to Afghanistan / Iraq.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Because they gain a greater advantage by going guerilla than they lose by having inferior tech and training. You can't hold an unwilling populace in order for long - you either have to convince them to accept your rule or get ready to ruthlessly massacre them. The West sucks at the first and doesn't want to do the second.
    - mozumder 11y ago
      > However it seems that most low tech insurgencies fighting against the advanced conventional militaries of the West always seem to win, from Vietnam right up to Afghanistan / Iraq. But it didn't really work during the US Civil War.
      - jsmcgd 11y ago
        I'm only making this point in reference to conflicts that involve insurgencies.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    I am not american nor a gun owner but man, this is a very... unclever approach. I could put here quotes about people who give up a bit of freedom for a bit more security deserve neither, but I presume that's old school talk for you too. Except it isn't. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We are not yet in the age of some automated gun turrets. If you want to blame guns, then blame all knives, baseball bats, axes and whatnot. All shall be banned, no? I say yes, I see no difference between being shot and stabbed to death, for both you need a clear intent, but accedents can (and do) happen. Seriously, how hard is to understand that weapons are not bought only for attack, but also for self-defense, ALSO for sport/fun, as collectibles etc. In fact, it takes a extremely dull character who needs to commit a crime with a weapon and goes to store to get registered for one. I mean, seriously, this is what you are saying? Because this isn't ahppening. Ban guns, and you'll severely restrict common citizen's access to them, but not so much criminal's one. In fact, i would expect illegal arms trafficking to skyrocket. War on drugs all over again. There should be a check (of rules/laws knowledge, mental capability, clean criminal record etc.) before selling a gun. Guns for civilians shouldn't be full automatic either. But that's it. Rest is about living in freedom, or in a system that doesn't trust its own citizens and needs to control them. Just look at any news how power-greedy politicians are. Who are you to tell other people they should abandon their hobbies ie of practise shooting, just because you feel that their real power to overthrow their government is "small"? You would be surprised how untrue this really is if whole nation would stood up to its government. But without guns, of course they wouldn't stand a chance
    - notahacker 11y ago
      > Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The whole rationale behind the "guns will protect our liberty" movement is that it is much easier to kill people with guns than with baseball bats and knives. It's just that in practice the people being killed relatively quickly and effortlessly with guns are real civilians and not hypothetical fascist stormtroopers.
  - mozumder 11y ago
    The right to bear arms was never for the purposes of overthrowing a government. It was given in order to establish militias, which the government can use to prevent insurrections and invasions, per section 8 of the US constitution. No government allows its citizens the right to overthrow it. I have no idea why people think that? Do you?
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      "I have no idea why people think that? Do you?" Because they had, in fact, just overthrown an oppressive government. I have no idea why you think the founders did not consider that potential outcome. Jefferson even said "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion". Can you think of another example of the right of the militia to bear arms ever being codified, anywhere in the world? Why would it need to be? The right is specifically stated as being one of the people's rights. The militia is a reason, not the subject. If the First Amendment had read "A well educated Legislature, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed" would you argue that only legislators had the right to keep and read books? No, you would not. Nor would anyone else, because that would be a nonsensical interpretation.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - jgrowl 11y ago
      "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787)
- pjc50 11y ago
  Well, you can; Franklin's quote is not an iron law of politics. Every little bit of product, agricultural or environmental safety is an infringement of "liberty" that improves safety. "Freedom" is not an infinitely fungible gas, but must be considered in terms of specific freedoms to do specific things. I'm quite happy to give up the freedom to run, say, a toxic waste dump in my garden to prevent my neighbour from having the same freedom. In what year would you consider the US to first be a free country?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- arethuza 11y ago
  What about people being conscripted in WW2 (loss of liberty) to defeat the Nazis (increase in security)?
- krapp 11y ago
  >Also remember you cannot trade liberty for security. Probably worth mentioning the quote from Ben Franklin so often paraphrased out of context was, actually, an argument for taxation and federal military power (specifically to fund defense of the frontier against Native Americans), not a warning against it. [0]http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-ben...