3 ms·
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 right
by 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 agoYou'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."