3 ms·

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 r

by 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.
varjag 13y ago
Some people are leagues better than others when it comes to fight. Handing out a .45 to everyone instead of policing does not put everyone on equal footing.

by shpxnvz 13y ago

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.

varjag 13y ago

Some people are leagues better than others when it comes to fight. Handing out a .45 to everyone instead of policing does not put everyone on equal footing.