3 ms·

> 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 exact

by 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
D13Fd 6y ago
The U.S. has a lot of negative rights (free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms) and not a lot of positive rights (e.g., rights to food, water, shelter, internet access--although we do have a right to counsel in criminal cases). In my view the combination of those two things is a big part of what has propelled us forward, fostering a culture of self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and innovation that has resulted in the U.S. being at the forefront of science and technology in many fields for the last 100 years or more. We're different. If we give up gun rights, or any of our other major rights, we would be taking a big step towards losing our edge and being more like any other modern western democracy. I think that is a big reason why many Americans intuitively oppose some of the positive rights that have proven popular in other countries. That includes even a positive right to privacy against other citizens, e.g., the GDPR--which in practice ends up being more of a restriction on individual freedom than a protection of it.
- jgwil2 6y ago
  You're still talking in abstract terms though. You're arguing that if we accept more limits on the right to bear arms, it would somehow make us "lose our edge," but you haven't explained how or why you expect that to occur. I want to know in concrete terms what great benefits we're getting from the current state of gun regulation and how it outweighs what you aptly called "the societal costs of gun violence."

by jgwil2 6y ago

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

D13Fd 6y ago

The U.S. has a lot of negative rights (free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms) and not a lot of positive rights (e.g., rights to food, water, shelter, internet access--although we do have a right to counsel in criminal cases). In my view the combination of those two things is a big part of what has propelled us forward, fostering a culture of self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and innovation that has resulted in the U.S. being at the forefront of science and technology in many fields for the last 100 years or more. We're different. If we give up gun rights, or any of our other major rights, we would be taking a big step towards losing our edge and being more like any other modern western democracy. I think that is a big reason why many Americans intuitively oppose some of the positive rights that have proven popular in other countries. That includes even a positive right to privacy against other citizens, e.g., the GDPR--which in practice ends up being more of a restriction on individual freedom than a protection of it.

jgwil2 6y ago
You're still talking in abstract terms though. You're arguing that if we accept more limits on the right to bear arms, it would somehow make us "lose our edge," but you haven't explained how or why you expect that to occur. I want to know in concrete terms what great benefits we're getting from the current state of gun regulation and how it outweighs what you aptly called "the societal costs of gun violence."