3 ms·
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 t
by nthj 13y 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 13y agoUltimately, 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.