5 ms·

Agreed. In this case, there needs to be some sort of 'privacy bill of rights'. Something fundamental where any law like this cannot be passed.

quotemstr 1y ago
Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Laws not enforced and rights not protected don't matter. As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  > Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Prove it. Every statistic I've ever seen shows the exact opposite of this to be true.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    Here's the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... . Those kinds of mass killings can only happen when the citizens are disarmed, because it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      Those kind of mass killings also happen in authoritative regimes, which typically emerge from violent societies.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      > it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed. This is literally, and provably, untrue. For example: The Soviet Union: The Bolsheviks initially proclaimed that "the arming of the working people" was essential to prevent "restoration of the power of the exploiters". It was only later that they restricted private gun ownership. The Nazis: Contrary to popular gun rights narratives, Nazi gun laws actually relaxed restrictions for most Germans while targeting specific groups. Sometimes authoritarianism is the same as populism. Rwanda: Prior to the genocide, the government systematically distributed weapons to local administrators and militia groups while ensuring targeted populations remained defenseless. Myanmar: Armed civilian resistance groups formed, but the were essentially wiped out by the overwhelming advantages in air power and heavy weaponry that an actual organized military had. The firearms were useless. Arguably, worse than useless as those who fought back died in large numbers. Venezuela: The regime armed its supporters while systematically removing weapons from the general population. The population was well armed, they just couldn't fight back against an organized government response.
  - Thiez 1y ago
    Perhaps they meant the police as the men with guns doing the stopping, and the states monopoly on violence. I for one wholeheartedly support the police enforcing gun control laws and dealing with armed criminals.
- thinkingtoilet 1y ago
  >Men with guns stop men with guns. Really? Why does America, the country with the most guns by far, have the most gun deaths by far? It's very tiring arguing these very obvious points over and over.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    Nazi Germany, Communist China and Soviet Russia have by far the largest number of deaths by _men with guns_, over a hundred million people killed by their own governments. The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening. The number of people killed by gun violence in the US is a rounding error compared to the number of people killed by Mao, Hitler and Stalin.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      Most people killed by these regimes killed people as aliens. If truly want to compare the actions of the USA, you must also count there handling of there aliens (e.g. in wars).
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      > The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening. No they haven't. Our system of checks and balances has. At no point has there been a civil war in which the US's citizens attempted to fight back against the US military. If there were, the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge.
      - hollerith 1y ago
        >the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge. That's not true. The US Army spent 20 years and trillions of dollars trying to impose regime change on Afghanistan, but were defeated by a group (the Taliban) that had very little military capability beyond men with rifles and some explosives to make improvised bombs. (Yes, they also had decades-old weapons with which to shoot down helicopters.) Algeria's war of independence from France in the 1950s and early 1960s is another example where a group with very little in the way of military capability defeated one of the most powerful militaries in the world. I don't necessarily buy the argument that the US should continue with the gun status quo just because all those guns would come in handy in a revolution, but you haven't successfully refuted the argument.
layer8 1y ago
This exists. But courts have to balance conflicting rights, so there is always room for interpretation.

quotemstr 1y ago

Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Laws not enforced and rights not protected don't matter. As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

mapontosevenths 1y ago
> Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Prove it. Every statistic I've ever seen shows the exact opposite of this to be true.
- logicchains 1y ago
  Here's the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... . Those kinds of mass killings can only happen when the citizens are disarmed, because it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Those kind of mass killings also happen in authoritative regimes, which typically emerge from violent societies.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    > it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed. This is literally, and provably, untrue. For example: The Soviet Union: The Bolsheviks initially proclaimed that "the arming of the working people" was essential to prevent "restoration of the power of the exploiters". It was only later that they restricted private gun ownership. The Nazis: Contrary to popular gun rights narratives, Nazi gun laws actually relaxed restrictions for most Germans while targeting specific groups. Sometimes authoritarianism is the same as populism. Rwanda: Prior to the genocide, the government systematically distributed weapons to local administrators and militia groups while ensuring targeted populations remained defenseless. Myanmar: Armed civilian resistance groups formed, but the were essentially wiped out by the overwhelming advantages in air power and heavy weaponry that an actual organized military had. The firearms were useless. Arguably, worse than useless as those who fought back died in large numbers. Venezuela: The regime armed its supporters while systematically removing weapons from the general population. The population was well armed, they just couldn't fight back against an organized government response.
- Thiez 1y ago
  Perhaps they meant the police as the men with guns doing the stopping, and the states monopoly on violence. I for one wholeheartedly support the police enforcing gun control laws and dealing with armed criminals.
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
>Men with guns stop men with guns. Really? Why does America, the country with the most guns by far, have the most gun deaths by far? It's very tiring arguing these very obvious points over and over.
- logicchains 1y ago
  Nazi Germany, Communist China and Soviet Russia have by far the largest number of deaths by _men with guns_, over a hundred million people killed by their own governments. The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening. The number of people killed by gun violence in the US is a rounding error compared to the number of people killed by Mao, Hitler and Stalin.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Most people killed by these regimes killed people as aliens. If truly want to compare the actions of the USA, you must also count there handling of there aliens (e.g. in wars).
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    > The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening. No they haven't. Our system of checks and balances has. At no point has there been a civil war in which the US's citizens attempted to fight back against the US military. If there were, the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      >the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge. That's not true. The US Army spent 20 years and trillions of dollars trying to impose regime change on Afghanistan, but were defeated by a group (the Taliban) that had very little military capability beyond men with rifles and some explosives to make improvised bombs. (Yes, they also had decades-old weapons with which to shoot down helicopters.) Algeria's war of independence from France in the 1950s and early 1960s is another example where a group with very little in the way of military capability defeated one of the most powerful militaries in the world. I don't necessarily buy the argument that the US should continue with the gun status quo just because all those guns would come in handy in a revolution, but you haven't successfully refuted the argument.

layer8 1y ago

This exists. But courts have to balance conflicting rights, so there is always room for interpretation.