5 ms·

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 a

by 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
    - cygx 14y ago
      Ultimately, every right needs to be balanced, even basic human rights (crying fire in a crowd vs freedom of expression). The fact remains that there are some fundamental rights we should grant all sentient beings. What these are exactly is a matter for philosophers, but I'd say most reasonable people at least agree on broad terms. In fact, I'd consider disagreement here as the definition of being unreasonable. Then, society needs to decide how to protect these rights through specific laws, which is the mentioned balance act. There are arguments for and against the right to carry personal firearms for self protection, same as there are arguments for and against the right to universal health insurance. All I'm saying is that citizen should be able to change the laws of the society they live in as long as fundamental rights are preserved.
hga 14y ago
"As effective self-defense 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)" Fixed it for you. And echoing DuskStar, I'm damned glad I live in real constitutional republic that has multiple restraints on mob rule, AKA "the majority decides".
- cygx 14y ago
  It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound. Holding a loaded gun is equivalent to having strapped explosives around everyone in your line of sight and holding the trigger. You have the right for effective self-defense, but I have the right of not having explosives strapped around myself. Which right weighs greater, and who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances where vastly different and firearms far less effective?
  - nthj 14y ago
    You could say the same thing about free speech. "Anybody at any time could start calling for us to overthrow the government in the town square! Newspapers need to be reviewed by the government!" Liberty is dangerous. If you don't like it, don't go outside.
  - hga 14y ago
    That's an amazingly bogus analogy: First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. Else we wouldn't have gun safety rules 2 and 4, "Never let your muzzle cover something you're not willing to destroy", and "Be sure of your target and what's behind it." Second, in the context of self-defense (vs. hunting, which is ... safer than golf as I recall), no one is "holding" a loaded gun unless they're in a self-defense situation where the use of lethal force is justified. At that point we, or at least the vast majority of the US including most anti-gun states, have decided the possible increased danger to innocent parties is an acceptable tradeoff. The only time I hold my concealed carry gun is when I put it in my holster before leaving my dwelling (with thumb firmly over the hammer to prevent an accidental discharge) and then the reverse when I return. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by cygx 14y ago

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
  - cygx 14y ago
    Ultimately, every right needs to be balanced, even basic human rights (crying fire in a crowd vs freedom of expression). The fact remains that there are some fundamental rights we should grant all sentient beings. What these are exactly is a matter for philosophers, but I'd say most reasonable people at least agree on broad terms. In fact, I'd consider disagreement here as the definition of being unreasonable. Then, society needs to decide how to protect these rights through specific laws, which is the mentioned balance act. There are arguments for and against the right to carry personal firearms for self protection, same as there are arguments for and against the right to universal health insurance. All I'm saying is that citizen should be able to change the laws of the society they live in as long as fundamental rights are preserved.

hga 14y ago

"As effective self-defense 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)" Fixed it for you. And echoing DuskStar, I'm damned glad I live in real constitutional republic that has multiple restraints on mob rule, AKA "the majority decides".

cygx 14y ago
It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound. Holding a loaded gun is equivalent to having strapped explosives around everyone in your line of sight and holding the trigger. You have the right for effective self-defense, but I have the right of not having explosives strapped around myself. Which right weighs greater, and who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances where vastly different and firearms far less effective?
- nthj 14y ago
  You could say the same thing about free speech. "Anybody at any time could start calling for us to overthrow the government in the town square! Newspapers need to be reviewed by the government!" Liberty is dangerous. If you don't like it, don't go outside.
- hga 14y ago
  That's an amazingly bogus analogy: First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. Else we wouldn't have gun safety rules 2 and 4, "Never let your muzzle cover something you're not willing to destroy", and "Be sure of your target and what's behind it." Second, in the context of self-defense (vs. hunting, which is ... safer than golf as I recall), no one is "holding" a loaded gun unless they're in a self-defense situation where the use of lethal force is justified. At that point we, or at least the vast majority of the US including most anti-gun states, have decided the possible increased danger to innocent parties is an acceptable tradeoff. The only time I hold my concealed carry gun is when I put it in my holster before leaving my dwelling (with thumb firmly over the hammer to prevent an accidental discharge) and then the reverse when I return. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]