4 ms·

My opinion is that the individual right to self-defense is a fundamental human right.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 8y ago
Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. Applying the argument to firearms restrictions is like applying the right to have a voice in governance by requiring a specific type of governance (such as a true democracy instead of a representative one). I don't believe there's a fundamental human right to have a firearm any more than I think there is one to have a nuclear bomb. Both can be (and have been) used for defense, but we do not allow individuals (or even all countries!) to have both. A firearm is one tool of many that can be used to defend yourself. Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). Note: This isn't to say I think we should ban guns or anything, I just think as fundamental rights go, what was presented originally was not equivalent in my eyes, as explained above.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. There is a fundamental human right to defend yourself from physical violence. If there are tools that are used for that task then it follows that one has a fundamental human right to posses tools that give one the means to do so. If the year was 1018 we'd be discussing bows and swords instead of firearms. In 3018 we'll be discussing lasers or something like that. In 2018 (or 1788 for that matter) the tool is firearms. >Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). While I understand where you're coming from I think you're wrong because I don't believe there is a meaningful distinction. The union of all fundamental human rights is greater than the sum of them individually and each right is so important in the context of the others that a threat to any one human right is a threat to them all. >Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). So is it ok that the government routinely tries to side step the people's right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and right to due process because people can still vote for a government that won't do that? I don't think the right to vote is any more important than any other fundamental human right.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. Applying the argument to firearms restrictions is like applying the right to have a voice in governance by requiring a specific type of governance (such as a true democracy instead of a representative one). I don't believe there's a fundamental human right to have a firearm any more than I think there is one to have a nuclear bomb. Both can be (and have been) used for defense, but we do not allow individuals (or even all countries!) to have both. A firearm is one tool of many that can be used to defend yourself. Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). Note: This isn't to say I think we should ban guns or anything, I just think as fundamental rights go, what was presented originally was not equivalent in my eyes, as explained above.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Okay, but self defense does not necessarily mean firearms. There is a fundamental human right to defend yourself from physical violence. If there are tools that are used for that task then it follows that one has a fundamental human right to posses tools that give one the means to do so. If the year was 1018 we'd be discussing bows and swords instead of firearms. In 3018 we'll be discussing lasers or something like that. In 2018 (or 1788 for that matter) the tool is firearms. >Voting is the method for the citizens to control government in a Democracy. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). While I understand where you're coming from I think you're wrong because I don't believe there is a meaningful distinction. The union of all fundamental human rights is greater than the sum of them individually and each right is so important in the context of the others that a threat to any one human right is a threat to them all. >Once you take away or impede someone's ability to own and operate firearms, you have hampered their ability to protect themselves in some small or large part, but there are other methods available to them. Once you take away or impede someone's ability to vote, you are affecting their only way to actually affect their own governance. (all the above all assumes legal recourses are considered). So is it ok that the government routinely tries to side step the people's right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and right to due process because people can still vote for a government that won't do that? I don't think the right to vote is any more important than any other fundamental human right.