3 ms·

I generally agree with your comment, but I think your love of guns slightly detracts from the point you are trying to make. Sure, in the US, the 2nd Amendment

I generally agree with your comment, but I think your love of guns slightly detracts from the point you are trying to make. Sure, in the US, the 2nd Amendment does relate to a right/liberty, but other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) while heavily restricting the use of firearms. That doesn't necessarily mean that the US would be better if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, I'm just saying that "boo firearms" is a perfectly valid (and liberty defending) opinion for some people in the country to hold, unlike "hooray (warrantless) government spying" or "hooray hackable voting machines". Just consider what it is you are "all for". You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Does that really sound like a country where people are free?

gameman144 4y ago
> other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To illustrate, you could also achieve fewer murders through warrantless government spying, and I think you'd agree that that proposal would be pretty hard to spin as increased liberty. > You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Do they want that? I just heard them say they respect the second amendment, nothing about allowing intimidation or making no tradeoffs to the point of requiring armed guards. This feels like a pretty big strawman to tear down the opinion above, rather than acknowledging that it's fine to prioritize safety over liberty but it's also fine to prioritize liberty over safety, and everyone is okay with different tradeoffs.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  > Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To say this another way: put everyone in a steel cage, watch your murder rate plummet. But!, hey: every life was protected.
seanw444 4y ago
Something nobody seems to want to come to terms with: true freedom requires effort on your part. Wishing there will come a day where the final perfect law will be passed, or the perfect leader will come along, and you'll have liberty and freedom at last, is ridiculous. Freedom comes at a price. It always will. That means recognizing that it can put you in danger sometimes. An authoritarian regime would shut down crime much quicker than a free nation would. Does that make authoritarianism preferable? Hell no. I'd rather defend my property/person/family myself when the time comes. Because as you've probably heard countless times: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

gameman144 4y ago

> other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To illustrate, you could also achieve fewer murders through warrantless government spying, and I think you'd agree that that proposal would be pretty hard to spin as increased liberty. > You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Do they want that? I just heard them say they respect the second amendment, nothing about allowing intimidation or making no tradeoffs to the point of requiring armed guards. This feels like a pretty big strawman to tear down the opinion above, rather than acknowledging that it's fine to prioritize safety over liberty but it's also fine to prioritize liberty over safety, and everyone is okay with different tradeoffs.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
> Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To say this another way: put everyone in a steel cage, watch your murder rate plummet. But!, hey: every life was protected.

seanw444 4y ago

Something nobody seems to want to come to terms with: true freedom requires effort on your part. Wishing there will come a day where the final perfect law will be passed, or the perfect leader will come along, and you'll have liberty and freedom at last, is ridiculous. Freedom comes at a price. It always will. That means recognizing that it can put you in danger sometimes. An authoritarian regime would shut down crime much quicker than a free nation would. Does that make authoritarianism preferable? Hell no. I'd rather defend my property/person/family myself when the time comes. Because as you've probably heard countless times: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."