FT requires personal action which shouldn't be corrected by govt unless it violates someone "freedom from" ,in this case, the tryanny of violence. That's my understanding of it.
-
-
So coming back to your original point, the mere act of owning a firearm doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom from 'tyrannical actions of the individual' or violence. Because violence requires action. You can't just say "the potential of harm is just too high"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johnihunter @MattPirkowski
By that logic, owning a nuke doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom either. Would you be in favour of everyone having their own nukes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @MattPirkowski
Indeed it doesnt. "Nukes" is a rather extreme argument though isn't it. I don't think people should own nukes and the issue is, for me, accountability and justifiability not that it's a weapon. The personal use of nukes isn't justifiable. [YET].
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johnihunter @G_S_Bhogal
One could also argue that allowing all humans the freedom to communicate online is pitentially as destabilizing as nukes. Total uninhibited connectivity leads to massive increases in existential risk. Shall we ban the Internet? These arguments are not practical.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @johnihunter
False analogy. Unfettered communication yields huge benefits and minimal existential risk. Unfettered weapon ownership yields little benefit and huge existential risk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @johnihunter
lol. This is why this is pointless. You naively assert little benefit by decree based entirely on your own biases. The whole point is that many people believe that weapon ownership yields a great deal of benefit. One might even draw a correlation b/w the 1/2 amendments...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And argue that one reason why your own nation is rapidly losing its ability to speak freely is because your government in no way fears its people.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @johnihunter
1. My nation is not losing its ability to speak freely (at least in comparison to US). 2. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is no defence against an advanced state military, so no defence against a tyrannical government. 3. What actual benefit does unfettered gun ownership offer?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @johnihunter
Re. point 2, see my other comment anticipating this poorly thought out argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Gurindoor Retweeted Gurindoor
Gurindoor added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.