3 ms·

Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, requires discipline and comes with costs. Sometimes those costs are tragically high, but freedom is worth it because the a

Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, requires discipline and comes with costs. Sometimes those costs are tragically high, but freedom is worth it because the altenative is even worse. I wonder why this logic is rarely applied to the second amendment? Guns can be used for tragic purposes, but also allow vulnerable people to defend themselves when the police can't or won't. Nobody is really sure whether they can prevent the next tyranny, but we're pretty sure that tyrants or slaveowners don't want their subjects armed.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pavanred 8y ago
> Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, requires discipline and comes with costs. Sometimes those costs are tragically high, but freedom is worth it ... I suppose its a good way to test one's position for consistency for such subjects. Apply the same argument of freedom/regulation to subjects like free speech, guns, privacy laws, drugs, throw in any other issue that's close to you etc.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  Even supporters of gun rights don't really use this argument though. They seem to just say there is no real downside to guns, when obviously there is a downside, just like there is a downside for free speech.
Semirhage 8y ago
Speech is an intrinsic quality of people, with purposes as diverse as thought and central to human expression. Guns are tools to kill something, and while they can in theory be used to kill or threaten to kill in a myriad of situations, they are still just killing machines. Most of human history hasn’t included them, they are not intrinsic abilities of nearly all humans, they’re not central to the ability to teach, learn, communicate, etc. That’s not to say guns aren’t important, or rights to guns shouldn’t be protected. It is saying however that comparing speech and guns makes apples and oranges comparisons look downright apt.
- xtreme 8y ago
  One could argue that self-defense is also an "intrinsic quality" of people and guns are the means to preserve that right. Of course, protecting the right to own guns wouldn't have been necessary if they were never invented. But once they were, restricting the right of the citizens to own them and giving the government monopoly on the capacity to use such force could be considered a violation of the "natural rights" of mankind.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    I think there’s definitely an argument to be made in that direction, but it runs into some problems. Guns were state of the art quite a while ago, and the current state of the art is just too dangerous for individual control. I don’t think many want to live next to someone who is exercising their right to grenades, NBC weapons, missiles and rockets. If we look beyond guns to the broader issue of self defense, and take that more to mean armaments, then we have to seriously entertain civilian ownership of tanks, jets, and the rest of a modern arsenal. I’m not prepared to argue in favor of that, but without it, there is no real argument that some man-portable guns represent a credible self defense when compared to a government. If we look out another hundred years when robots are the majority combatants of developed nations, the issue becomes even more difficult to manage. The argument can still be made that a well armed populace wouldn’t be confronted by a well armed military as in the US declaring martial law and the army being turned loose. I’ve heard staunch 2nd amendment advocates point to insurgencies in everything from Vietnam to Baghdad as examples of how a relatively lightly armed populace can hold off the US. Even if we accept that st face value, the proposition certainly dies in the face of automated warfare.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  What test are you using to determine which rights are valid and which aren't? You point out some differences, but who's to say those mean one is a right and one is not? You could say something similar about abortion, for instance. Throughout most of history abortions were not available and certainly not in a safe form. But now they are recognized as a right.
doktrin 8y ago
> we're pretty sure that tyrants or slaveowners don't want their subjects armed. Tyrants and slaveowners always want some of their subjects armed. People often cite Nazi Germany as an example of tyranny via gun control, but it's just as much an example of tyranny via gun ownership - the two went very much hand in hand. They armed their supporters while disarming their opponents. For every person who owns a gun hoping to fight against tyranny, there's a person who owns a gun hoping to become a tyrant.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  Then it's interesting that gun control policies almost always exclude the police and politically well-connected. Police can get off-roster pistols and standard-capacity magazines and AR15s in California. People with the last name Trump or Feinstein are able to get carry permits, while normal citizens can't.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pavanred 8y ago

> Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, requires discipline and comes with costs. Sometimes those costs are tragically high, but freedom is worth it ... I suppose its a good way to test one's position for consistency for such subjects. Apply the same argument of freedom/regulation to subjects like free speech, guns, privacy laws, drugs, throw in any other issue that's close to you etc.

jeffdavis 8y ago
Even supporters of gun rights don't really use this argument though. They seem to just say there is no real downside to guns, when obviously there is a downside, just like there is a downside for free speech.

Semirhage 8y ago

Speech is an intrinsic quality of people, with purposes as diverse as thought and central to human expression. Guns are tools to kill something, and while they can in theory be used to kill or threaten to kill in a myriad of situations, they are still just killing machines. Most of human history hasn’t included them, they are not intrinsic abilities of nearly all humans, they’re not central to the ability to teach, learn, communicate, etc. That’s not to say guns aren’t important, or rights to guns shouldn’t be protected. It is saying however that comparing speech and guns makes apples and oranges comparisons look downright apt.

xtreme 8y ago
One could argue that self-defense is also an "intrinsic quality" of people and guns are the means to preserve that right. Of course, protecting the right to own guns wouldn't have been necessary if they were never invented. But once they were, restricting the right of the citizens to own them and giving the government monopoly on the capacity to use such force could be considered a violation of the "natural rights" of mankind.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  I think there’s definitely an argument to be made in that direction, but it runs into some problems. Guns were state of the art quite a while ago, and the current state of the art is just too dangerous for individual control. I don’t think many want to live next to someone who is exercising their right to grenades, NBC weapons, missiles and rockets. If we look beyond guns to the broader issue of self defense, and take that more to mean armaments, then we have to seriously entertain civilian ownership of tanks, jets, and the rest of a modern arsenal. I’m not prepared to argue in favor of that, but without it, there is no real argument that some man-portable guns represent a credible self defense when compared to a government. If we look out another hundred years when robots are the majority combatants of developed nations, the issue becomes even more difficult to manage. The argument can still be made that a well armed populace wouldn’t be confronted by a well armed military as in the US declaring martial law and the army being turned loose. I’ve heard staunch 2nd amendment advocates point to insurgencies in everything from Vietnam to Baghdad as examples of how a relatively lightly armed populace can hold off the US. Even if we accept that st face value, the proposition certainly dies in the face of automated warfare.
jeffdavis 8y ago
What test are you using to determine which rights are valid and which aren't? You point out some differences, but who's to say those mean one is a right and one is not? You could say something similar about abortion, for instance. Throughout most of history abortions were not available and certainly not in a safe form. But now they are recognized as a right.

doktrin 8y ago

> we're pretty sure that tyrants or slaveowners don't want their subjects armed. Tyrants and slaveowners always want some of their subjects armed. People often cite Nazi Germany as an example of tyranny via gun control, but it's just as much an example of tyranny via gun ownership - the two went very much hand in hand. They armed their supporters while disarming their opponents. For every person who owns a gun hoping to fight against tyranny, there's a person who owns a gun hoping to become a tyrant.

jeffdavis 8y ago
Then it's interesting that gun control policies almost always exclude the police and politically well-connected. Police can get off-roster pistols and standard-capacity magazines and AR15s in California. People with the last name Trump or Feinstein are able to get carry permits, while normal citizens can't.