5 ms·

Not at all. The moment someone points a gun at you and tells you what to do, your freedom has been usurped. Without the security to make your own choices, you

Not at all. The moment someone points a gun at you and tells you what to do, your freedom has been usurped. Without the security to make your own choices, you do not have freedom. Thus, it's important to restrict certain actions (i.e., your ability to point a gun at someone and make demands) in order to protect the freedom of others.

JanezStupar 13y ago
The moment someone points a gun at you, your freedoms are completely intact. Moreover, this is the moment when you can show whether you are really free. Free men do not mind dying when their time comes.
- 542458 13y ago
  You're being pedantic. "Freedom" in this case quite clearly refers to "Liberty" or "Autonomy" rather than to "Free Will".
- potatolicious 13y ago
  That sounds nice. Let's hear you deliver that soliloquy when you're held by a mugger at gunpoint, about how you are your own master.
  - baddox 13y ago
    You realize that armed muggings and burglaries are thwarted a lot, right?
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  What the heck do you mean by "freedom"? When I say "freedom", I talk about choice. Options. Influence over one's light cone. All of which are drastically diminished whenever you're locked in a cell, or threatened by a madman with a gun.
  - JanezStupar 13y ago
    As do I. If I am to find myself in an unenviable situation I would rather make it hard for the villains to go about their business than to bow down and beg for mercy. I might be taken out. I might take my enemy out (shooting a person is not as trivial task as it seems). Or I might just cause enough trouble for the bad guys so their total cost goes up, hopefully beyond break even point. It is no different attitude than the one US tries to project upon the world. I only acknowledge that nobody will fight for me if I don't fight for myself.
shpxnvz 13y ago
The first part is true; forcible coercion does usurp freedom - and even more so when done by the government. The second part is fallacy; you obviously cannot remove the ability to point a gun (or knife) at someone and make demands, and any attempt to do so necessarily tramples other's rights. In reality there are two effective choices - the person being mugged can defend them-self and/or the government can attempt to find and punish the person after the fact. The second one does not do a bit of good for the current victim, of course.
- brianpgordon 13y ago
  You can deter people from pointing guns at people by promising to punish those who do that..
- rtpg 13y ago
  it's a balance. By preventing people to point guns and make demands (to a certain extent), you (for example) allow for more freedom to walk around at night without a fear of getting mugged. Everything is a tradeoff, saying 'tramples other's rights' is misleading because it doesn't indicate which rights. Some rights are more valued than others to people (I'd gladly trade my right to kill myself for my right to free speech, if such a tradeoff existed).
  - shpxnvz 13y ago
    it's a balance. By preventing people to point guns and make demands (to a certain extent), you (for example) allow for more freedom to walk around at night without a fear of getting mugged. When I say you cannot remove the ability of people to do it, I mean only that - you cannot remove the ability. And that is what all the gun-grabbing hoopla is about - physically removing the ability to do so by restricting access to guns. That, I contend, is impossible and absolutely infringes on individual rights. The threat of retaliation, either by the victim immediately or after-the-fact by the government, is of course effective at prevention. The former is more effective, as evidenced by crime rates in areas where the government does not infringe on the right to self-defense. Everything is a tradeoff, saying 'tramples other's rights' is misleading because it doesn't indicate which rights. Some rights are more valued than others to people (I'd gladly trade my right to kill myself for my right to free speech, if such a tradeoff existed). It does not matter which rights - the government may not pick and choose which individual rights to value over others, it's their duty to protect them all equally - and for all people equally. Of course it is your right to determine which rights you value the most, but it is not a power of the government. And it's a power of neither you or the government to determine which rights I value most.

JanezStupar 13y ago

The moment someone points a gun at you, your freedoms are completely intact. Moreover, this is the moment when you can show whether you are really free. Free men do not mind dying when their time comes.

542458 13y ago
You're being pedantic. "Freedom" in this case quite clearly refers to "Liberty" or "Autonomy" rather than to "Free Will".
potatolicious 13y ago
That sounds nice. Let's hear you deliver that soliloquy when you're held by a mugger at gunpoint, about how you are your own master.
- baddox 13y ago
  You realize that armed muggings and burglaries are thwarted a lot, right?
loup-vaillant 13y ago
What the heck do you mean by "freedom"? When I say "freedom", I talk about choice. Options. Influence over one's light cone. All of which are drastically diminished whenever you're locked in a cell, or threatened by a madman with a gun.
- JanezStupar 13y ago
  As do I. If I am to find myself in an unenviable situation I would rather make it hard for the villains to go about their business than to bow down and beg for mercy. I might be taken out. I might take my enemy out (shooting a person is not as trivial task as it seems). Or I might just cause enough trouble for the bad guys so their total cost goes up, hopefully beyond break even point. It is no different attitude than the one US tries to project upon the world. I only acknowledge that nobody will fight for me if I don't fight for myself.

shpxnvz 13y ago

The first part is true; forcible coercion does usurp freedom - and even more so when done by the government. The second part is fallacy; you obviously cannot remove the ability to point a gun (or knife) at someone and make demands, and any attempt to do so necessarily tramples other's rights. In reality there are two effective choices - the person being mugged can defend them-self and/or the government can attempt to find and punish the person after the fact. The second one does not do a bit of good for the current victim, of course.

brianpgordon 13y ago
You can deter people from pointing guns at people by promising to punish those who do that..
rtpg 13y ago
it's a balance. By preventing people to point guns and make demands (to a certain extent), you (for example) allow for more freedom to walk around at night without a fear of getting mugged. Everything is a tradeoff, saying 'tramples other's rights' is misleading because it doesn't indicate which rights. Some rights are more valued than others to people (I'd gladly trade my right to kill myself for my right to free speech, if such a tradeoff existed).
- shpxnvz 13y ago
  it's a balance. By preventing people to point guns and make demands (to a certain extent), you (for example) allow for more freedom to walk around at night without a fear of getting mugged. When I say you cannot remove the ability of people to do it, I mean only that - you cannot remove the ability. And that is what all the gun-grabbing hoopla is about - physically removing the ability to do so by restricting access to guns. That, I contend, is impossible and absolutely infringes on individual rights. The threat of retaliation, either by the victim immediately or after-the-fact by the government, is of course effective at prevention. The former is more effective, as evidenced by crime rates in areas where the government does not infringe on the right to self-defense. Everything is a tradeoff, saying 'tramples other's rights' is misleading because it doesn't indicate which rights. Some rights are more valued than others to people (I'd gladly trade my right to kill myself for my right to free speech, if such a tradeoff existed). It does not matter which rights - the government may not pick and choose which individual rights to value over others, it's their duty to protect them all equally - and for all people equally. Of course it is your right to determine which rights you value the most, but it is not a power of the government. And it's a power of neither you or the government to determine which rights I value most.