3 ms·
"Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution." This really hit me. I finally know how to describe it! I don't own a weapon because I want to kill someone. I o
by lhnn 14y ago
"Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution."
This really hit me. I finally know how to describe it!
I don't own a weapon because I want to kill someone. I own a weapon because I may have to use it against those who wish to do me harm. The same with privacy!
I don't want to overthrow the government or betray friends, I want privacy because every single person who wants to access my information has their own reasons, and rarely are they in line with my interests. I want privacy so that the expectation of privacy doesn't draw question or ire: it should be a no-brainer! Everyone wants to keep their personal communication hidden!
Or should.
- confluence 14y ago> I don't own a weapon because I want to kill someone. That is the point of a weapon (hence the term weapon). If you own one - you do want to kill someone with it - context is irrelevant to the purpose of ownership (namely specialised directed use of lethal force). Stating otherwise is - frankly - bullshit.
- beagle3 14y ago> context is irrelevant to the purpose of ownership Context is extremely relevant to the point of ownership. I own a knife that can be used to kill. But I use it to cut food. Is it a weapon? I have poison in my home! It's a detergent I use for cleaning. Am I in possession of a weapon? It could be used as such. OP may have a gun as a deterrent of some sort, despite not planning to ever use it. Context is everything. And stating otherwise is - frankly - bullshit.
- confluence 14y agoRead modified statement above.
- lhnn 14y agoThere are multiple purposes for a firearm (hunting, sport, and self defense). Already, you're wrong in your assertion. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since i was obviously talking in the context of self-defense. No, I do not WANT to kill anyone. I hope I never have to kill anyone. To imply that I sit here now desiring harm against some unknown person since I own a weapon is absurd. That's like saying I want my house to burn because I have a smokey detector. After all, why would I want to detect smoke unless I wanted smoke to detect?
- confluence 14y agoHow about I modify my statement: Owning a weapon whose expressed reason for creation is the ability to use deadly force against those that you believe might harm you is the reason you own said weapon. Hence you want the ability to kill, injure or maim someone if you feel threatened.
- lhnn 14y agoHence the very purpose of the second amendment: At the time, the point was to use force against our government. Nowadays, I think general protection from harassment, as well as the right to privately assemble and to dissent, are just as important tools against dangerous government.
- 001sky 14y agoStating otherwise is - frankly - bullshit Want != may need | so thats a logic fail Viz, police, armed forces, etc. Safety-factor is a principle of engineering. The folks that do stupid shit for "sport" do so in every walk of life, with every set of tools. Viz, black-hat...hacking, etc.