4 ms·

I think it's foundational to the character of our nation. The United States has always been a free country and the right to bear arms is one of our core freedo

by D13Fd 6y ago

I think it's foundational to the character of our nation. The United States has always been a free country and the right to bear arms is one of our core freedoms, alongside the first amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and free exercise of religion. I would never want to see any of those rights taken away. The societal costs of gun violence are just a price we pay for that freedom, and I think it's worth it. Edit: To answer the question about what happens if the U.S. were to ban guns, I'd say that we would lose one of the core freedoms that made us great.

skissane 6y ago
Many Americans say they have more freedom than Australians, because (among other reasons) there are a lot more hoops to jump through in order to legally buy a gun in Australia than in the US (and the range of weapons you are legally allowed to buy having jumped through those steps are narrower, and the regulations around storage/carry/etc are more restrictive.) On the other hand, in the US the government (federally and in 28 states) has the right to kill you if it can get 12 jurors to say you've done something so bad you deserve to die. So, it seems Australians may not have the same right to own guns, but they have a greater right to life. Why count one right and ignore the other?
- D13Fd 6y ago
  Capital punishment is not an issue of freedom, it's an issue of justice - another core American value. I don’t think capital punishment is the only way to have justice, but I see it as a different concern than freedom.
  - skissane 6y ago
    I think the freedom to live is the most fundamental freedom of all – every other freedom is dependent on the freedom to live, because to enjoy any other freedom you first have to be alive. If capital punishment is justice, why isn't corporal punishment equally so? If justice can be served by killing a person, why can it not also be served by flogging them or cutting off their hand? Do Iran and Saudi Arabia, in that regard, therefore have more justice than America?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Capital punishment is an issue of injustice, given how many people have been executed on questionable evidence and of the racial disparity in execution rates.
andor 6y ago
"The United States has always been a free country" (for white people)
jgwil2 6y ago
> To answer the question about what happens if the U.S. were to ban guns, I'd say that we would lose one of the core freedoms that made us great. And how exactly has this "core freedom" made us great? All you've talked about in this thread is this abstract notion of freedom and how it's an unqualified good. But obviously people cannot have complete freedom; that's why we live in a society of laws. So please make an argument to why this specific freedom is so important to the flourishing of the human condition.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>that's why we live in a society of laws. That is not why we have a society of laws " The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. " -- Frédéric Bastiat The law was not founded to curb liberties, or to control populations, the law was founded to protect liberties and the allow people to be free "But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. "
  - jgwil2 6y ago
    Call it what you like, but people can't do whatever they want, so it is obvious that freedom is not unlimited.
    - syshum 6y ago
      That really depends on how you define freedom, Do you take a John Locke position of Natural Rights, or do you believe governments are the source of rights. "freedom is not unlimited" is a clear reductio ad absurdum fallacy brought in ways like "well you can not murder anyone you like so clearly your freedom is limited" and it is no way refuting on my argument about Self Defense. I can not proceed further though until I have an understating of what you define as freedom. I am coming from a Locke / Libertarian understanding of liberty. Which at its core is based in the Principle of Self Ownership and the Philosophy of Liberty [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ

by D13Fd 6y ago

skissane 6y ago

Many Americans say they have more freedom than Australians, because (among other reasons) there are a lot more hoops to jump through in order to legally buy a gun in Australia than in the US (and the range of weapons you are legally allowed to buy having jumped through those steps are narrower, and the regulations around storage/carry/etc are more restrictive.) On the other hand, in the US the government (federally and in 28 states) has the right to kill you if it can get 12 jurors to say you've done something so bad you deserve to die. So, it seems Australians may not have the same right to own guns, but they have a greater right to life. Why count one right and ignore the other?

D13Fd 6y ago
Capital punishment is not an issue of freedom, it's an issue of justice - another core American value. I don’t think capital punishment is the only way to have justice, but I see it as a different concern than freedom.
- skissane 6y ago
  I think the freedom to live is the most fundamental freedom of all – every other freedom is dependent on the freedom to live, because to enjoy any other freedom you first have to be alive. If capital punishment is justice, why isn't corporal punishment equally so? If justice can be served by killing a person, why can it not also be served by flogging them or cutting off their hand? Do Iran and Saudi Arabia, in that regard, therefore have more justice than America?
- pjc50 6y ago
  Capital punishment is an issue of injustice, given how many people have been executed on questionable evidence and of the racial disparity in execution rates.

andor 6y ago

"The United States has always been a free country" (for white people)

jgwil2 6y ago

> To answer the question about what happens if the U.S. were to ban guns, I'd say that we would lose one of the core freedoms that made us great. And how exactly has this "core freedom" made us great? All you've talked about in this thread is this abstract notion of freedom and how it's an unqualified good. But obviously people cannot have complete freedom; that's why we live in a society of laws. So please make an argument to why this specific freedom is so important to the flourishing of the human condition.

syshum 6y ago
>>that's why we live in a society of laws. That is not why we have a society of laws " The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. " -- Frédéric Bastiat The law was not founded to curb liberties, or to control populations, the law was founded to protect liberties and the allow people to be free "But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. "
- jgwil2 6y ago
  Call it what you like, but people can't do whatever they want, so it is obvious that freedom is not unlimited.
  - syshum 6y ago
    That really depends on how you define freedom, Do you take a John Locke position of Natural Rights, or do you believe governments are the source of rights. "freedom is not unlimited" is a clear reductio ad absurdum fallacy brought in ways like "well you can not murder anyone you like so clearly your freedom is limited" and it is no way refuting on my argument about Self Defense. I can not proceed further though until I have an understating of what you define as freedom. I am coming from a Locke / Libertarian understanding of liberty. Which at its core is based in the Principle of Self Ownership and the Philosophy of Liberty [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ