4 ms·

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

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.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  I’m not judging the validity of rights, I’m examining the practicality of embracing those rights up to their logical extremes. I didn’t despute the right to self defense, I just pointed out that as written by the person I replied to, it coils just as easily be applied to tanks and rocket launchers. It’s possible to be far more permissive with freedom of speech than it is with free access to modern weaponry.

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.

Semirhage 8y ago
I’m not judging the validity of rights, I’m examining the practicality of embracing those rights up to their logical extremes. I didn’t despute the right to self defense, I just pointed out that as written by the person I replied to, it coils just as easily be applied to tanks and rocket launchers. It’s possible to be far more permissive with freedom of speech than it is with free access to modern weaponry.