6 ms·

There is nothing inherently freedom-giving or preserving within the modern liberal movement/mindset. For example, modern liberals would take away guns from peo

by cheez 14y ago

There is nothing inherently freedom-giving or preserving within the modern liberal movement/mindset. For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust.

CamperBob2 14y ago
For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust. All while cheerfully reciting Ben Franklin's "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
pyre 14y ago
1. Intentionally or not, you post seems to use my usage of the word 'liberal' as an excuse to express your disdain of 'Liberals.' I.e. "Look! He said 'Liberal!' Now I can express my views!" 2. I was using liberal in the sense of that particular issue. The opinion that homosexual males engaging in sexual relations should be banned and/or regulated would probably be described as conservative and/or repressive. 3. Maybe I should have used 'progressive' rather than 'liberal?'
- cheez 14y ago
  You're missing the point. By implication, you paint some people as pro-freedom because they may have a certain stance on gay rights. Jamaica doesn't deserve its Press Freedom Index ranking to be better than Canada's because of gay rights. This is wrong. First of all, Canada is hardly a truly free country. I read that 40% of the cost of living is taken up in taxes. What strange definition of freedom is that? Canada also has hate speech laws which will no doubt be used in time to silence serious political dissent. I would predict the first test to be serious anti-feminist messages. In the US, libertarians are branded as conservatives. I like how you paired conservatism with repression. Note that the most severe government actions in modern times have been done by socialist governments, not conservative. Anyway, politically, libertarians believe in gay rights as well as the rights to self defense. Progressives typically believe in one and not the other. So yes, liberal is not the word you wanted to use to describe those who would restrict a person's right to self defense if you were interested in clarity. Classical liberalism is what is colloquially known as libertarianism in today's politics so I would suggest that if you don't want to be confused next time, use a more appropriate term. Nothing to do with guns, really. That was just the example I came up with off the top of my head.
  - pyre 14y ago
    | Jamaica doesn't deserve its Press Freedom Index | ranking to be better than Canada's because of gay | rights. This is wrong. This makes no sense in this context. I neither wrote that the index should be based off of gay right, nor do I believe any such thing, as it's a freedom of the press index.
cygx 14y ago
For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust. You have to draw the line somewhere: Should you be allowed to own rocket launchers? Nerve gas? Anthrax? As owning a gun isn't really a basic human right (feel free to disagree, but if you do so, I'll feel free to consider you a nut case), it's a matter of social contract: If the majority decides guns should be banned or only available after a mandatory psych eval, tough luck for gun owners. If the majority decides that everyone should be able to own a gun, tough luck for anti-gun activists.
- DuskStar 14y ago
  If the majority decides Christianity is the true path to salvation, tough luck for atheists/muslims/buddhists/jews. Likewise, if the majority decides that religion incites violence, tough luck for christians/muslims/buddhists/jews. What the majority decides is not always right or just.
  - cygx 14y ago
    Please re-read what I said. Freedom of religion is implied by basic human rights (freedom of thought, freedom of expression) and thus inalienable by social contract. Ownership of personal firearms isn't, arguably (see the disclaimer in my first post).
    - nthj 14y ago
      You're saying "firearms aren't like other rights", but that's like saying "a twitter account isn't like other rights." Twitter isn't the real issue: the right to free speech without government censorship is the issue. Twitter is a medium. Likewise, firearms aren't the real issue, the right to self-defense is the real issue. But then a few minutes later you say that I have the right to effective self-defense [1], and we just have to balance that with other liberties, so you're coming across a bit contradictory. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5622606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5622606
      - 14y ago
tensor 14y ago
Trust is earned and distrust is the norm. If you have a gun, I want a bigger one. No, I do not trust you, why should I?
- Pwnguinz 14y ago
  Huh? That's such a pessimistic view of the world. I would say the opposite is true, statistically. There are far fewer psychopaths out to kill people than there are people who are not willing to do so. Thus in absence of any other facts about said someone, I would be willing to trust that someone, than to distrust that individual. It's a shame that distrust is your default M.O.
  - hga 14y ago
    Bingo; I carry concealed almost every time I walk out the door, yet I find it unnecessary to employ the Iraq combat theater advice of US Marine general James Mattis, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
  - tensor 14y ago
    By your logic, why can't everyone own a mini-nuke? Or let's make it more realistic, a tank? How about Grenades? Fully automatic weapons? I mean, statistically speaking you should trust people right? Now here is where you draw some arbitrary line where on one side is liberty or some other overloaded emotionally charged word and on the other are things that don't qualify as liberty. My line is different than yours. It does not mean that I am "against freedom" anymore than you are a horrible fascist denying my inherent rights as a human to own a tank.
    - hga 14y ago
      Ummm, at least in the US people do still own tanks and fully automatic weapons; don't know about grenades (doubtful, however much our betters assure us Mexican criminals buy them at US gun shows), but they and "mini-nukes" are sort of the same sort of thing. Don't know how many civilian tanks out there really have operable canon, but there is a mechanism whereby a civilian can own a "destructive device", it and each round of ammo for it subject to a $200 tax. I've heard this coming into play for people who take boats in dangerous waters, getting RPGs with the appropriate licenses. Machine gun ownership is widespread; the number in public circulation got capped in 1986, but there are a quarter million at last count. Again, you need the license/$200 tax (was ~$3,500 in 2013 dollars when the law was passed in 1934), but the mechanism exists with many using it.
aroberge 14y ago
Citation? And, particularly, a citation in the Canadian context which is what that article is about would be relevant.
leot 14y ago
Do guns need to be lethal? If so, why?
- hga 14y ago
  Well, when we're talking about human beings as targets, the legitimate civilian use is "stopping" them. Not killing per se, that's the remit of the judicial system. Unfortunately it's very difficult to stop a determined opponent without using "lethal force", in the case of guns a maiming or deadly central nervous system hit, or causing them to lose enough blood (a large fraction of opponents, though, will stop combat upon getting hit the first time). There aren't any other practical options. If your question includes hunting, I can continue about it. For target practice, they don't need to be "lethal", and generally aren't used with ammunition designed for increased effectiveness in live targets. The exception is practicing for self-defense, you need at least some of that to be with service ammo for a bunch of reasons. Lots of government units buy in bulk where the price difference for service ammo isn't large and use the same thing for all purposes, which I'm sure saves in administrative costs and ensures no one accidently goes out on the street with less effective target ammo.
  - leot 14y ago
    So you're saying that if handguns could stop without killing, then it would be ok to ban handguns that killed?
    - hga 14y ago
      Hand weapons for the purposes of civilian self-defense, yes (they wouldn't be "guns" except in the loosest of senses). "Set phasers to stun" and all that; a nice idea, but way beyond the foreseeable future.
      - leot 13y ago
        Given how many people's lives would be saved, why do you suppose that we don't have more research into less lethal handguns? Phasers, perhaps not. But there are many other options.

by cheez 14y ago

CamperBob2 14y ago

For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust. All while cheerfully reciting Ben Franklin's "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

pyre 14y ago

1. Intentionally or not, you post seems to use my usage of the word 'liberal' as an excuse to express your disdain of 'Liberals.' I.e. "Look! He said 'Liberal!' Now I can express my views!" 2. I was using liberal in the sense of that particular issue. The opinion that homosexual males engaging in sexual relations should be banned and/or regulated would probably be described as conservative and/or repressive. 3. Maybe I should have used 'progressive' rather than 'liberal?'

cheez 14y ago
You're missing the point. By implication, you paint some people as pro-freedom because they may have a certain stance on gay rights. Jamaica doesn't deserve its Press Freedom Index ranking to be better than Canada's because of gay rights. This is wrong. First of all, Canada is hardly a truly free country. I read that 40% of the cost of living is taken up in taxes. What strange definition of freedom is that? Canada also has hate speech laws which will no doubt be used in time to silence serious political dissent. I would predict the first test to be serious anti-feminist messages. In the US, libertarians are branded as conservatives. I like how you paired conservatism with repression. Note that the most severe government actions in modern times have been done by socialist governments, not conservative. Anyway, politically, libertarians believe in gay rights as well as the rights to self defense. Progressives typically believe in one and not the other. So yes, liberal is not the word you wanted to use to describe those who would restrict a person's right to self defense if you were interested in clarity. Classical liberalism is what is colloquially known as libertarianism in today's politics so I would suggest that if you don't want to be confused next time, use a more appropriate term. Nothing to do with guns, really. That was just the example I came up with off the top of my head.
- pyre 14y ago
  | Jamaica doesn't deserve its Press Freedom Index | ranking to be better than Canada's because of gay | rights. This is wrong. This makes no sense in this context. I neither wrote that the index should be based off of gay right, nor do I believe any such thing, as it's a freedom of the press index.

cygx 14y ago

For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust. You have to draw the line somewhere: Should you be allowed to own rocket launchers? Nerve gas? Anthrax? As owning a gun isn't really a basic human right (feel free to disagree, but if you do so, I'll feel free to consider you a nut case), it's a matter of social contract: If the majority decides guns should be banned or only available after a mandatory psych eval, tough luck for gun owners. If the majority decides that everyone should be able to own a gun, tough luck for anti-gun activists.

DuskStar 14y ago
If the majority decides Christianity is the true path to salvation, tough luck for atheists/muslims/buddhists/jews. Likewise, if the majority decides that religion incites violence, tough luck for christians/muslims/buddhists/jews. What the majority decides is not always right or just.
- cygx 14y ago
  Please re-read what I said. Freedom of religion is implied by basic human rights (freedom of thought, freedom of expression) and thus inalienable by social contract. Ownership of personal firearms isn't, arguably (see the disclaimer in my first post).
  - nthj 14y ago
    You're saying "firearms aren't like other rights", but that's like saying "a twitter account isn't like other rights." Twitter isn't the real issue: the right to free speech without government censorship is the issue. Twitter is a medium. Likewise, firearms aren't the real issue, the right to self-defense is the real issue. But then a few minutes later you say that I have the right to effective self-defense [1], and we just have to balance that with other liberties, so you're coming across a bit contradictory. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5622606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5622606
    - 14y ago

tensor 14y ago

Trust is earned and distrust is the norm. If you have a gun, I want a bigger one. No, I do not trust you, why should I?

Pwnguinz 14y ago
Huh? That's such a pessimistic view of the world. I would say the opposite is true, statistically. There are far fewer psychopaths out to kill people than there are people who are not willing to do so. Thus in absence of any other facts about said someone, I would be willing to trust that someone, than to distrust that individual. It's a shame that distrust is your default M.O.
- hga 14y ago
  Bingo; I carry concealed almost every time I walk out the door, yet I find it unnecessary to employ the Iraq combat theater advice of US Marine general James Mattis, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
- tensor 14y ago
  By your logic, why can't everyone own a mini-nuke? Or let's make it more realistic, a tank? How about Grenades? Fully automatic weapons? I mean, statistically speaking you should trust people right? Now here is where you draw some arbitrary line where on one side is liberty or some other overloaded emotionally charged word and on the other are things that don't qualify as liberty. My line is different than yours. It does not mean that I am "against freedom" anymore than you are a horrible fascist denying my inherent rights as a human to own a tank.
  - hga 14y ago
    Ummm, at least in the US people do still own tanks and fully automatic weapons; don't know about grenades (doubtful, however much our betters assure us Mexican criminals buy them at US gun shows), but they and "mini-nukes" are sort of the same sort of thing. Don't know how many civilian tanks out there really have operable canon, but there is a mechanism whereby a civilian can own a "destructive device", it and each round of ammo for it subject to a $200 tax. I've heard this coming into play for people who take boats in dangerous waters, getting RPGs with the appropriate licenses. Machine gun ownership is widespread; the number in public circulation got capped in 1986, but there are a quarter million at last count. Again, you need the license/$200 tax (was ~$3,500 in 2013 dollars when the law was passed in 1934), but the mechanism exists with many using it.

aroberge 14y ago

Citation? And, particularly, a citation in the Canadian context which is what that article is about would be relevant.

leot 14y ago

Do guns need to be lethal? If so, why?

hga 14y ago
Well, when we're talking about human beings as targets, the legitimate civilian use is "stopping" them. Not killing per se, that's the remit of the judicial system. Unfortunately it's very difficult to stop a determined opponent without using "lethal force", in the case of guns a maiming or deadly central nervous system hit, or causing them to lose enough blood (a large fraction of opponents, though, will stop combat upon getting hit the first time). There aren't any other practical options. If your question includes hunting, I can continue about it. For target practice, they don't need to be "lethal", and generally aren't used with ammunition designed for increased effectiveness in live targets. The exception is practicing for self-defense, you need at least some of that to be with service ammo for a bunch of reasons. Lots of government units buy in bulk where the price difference for service ammo isn't large and use the same thing for all purposes, which I'm sure saves in administrative costs and ensures no one accidently goes out on the street with less effective target ammo.
- leot 14y ago
  So you're saying that if handguns could stop without killing, then it would be ok to ban handguns that killed?
  - hga 14y ago
    Hand weapons for the purposes of civilian self-defense, yes (they wouldn't be "guns" except in the loosest of senses). "Set phasers to stun" and all that; a nice idea, but way beyond the foreseeable future.
    - leot 13y ago
      Given how many people's lives would be saved, why do you suppose that we don't have more research into less lethal handguns? Phasers, perhaps not. But there are many other options.