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.
This reasoning is debunked here. (Of course, you won't accept it without a fight, but if you want to know what I think, it's probably better to read this rather than an endless back and forth in 280 chars): https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-the-citizen-militia-theory-is-the-worst-pro-gun-argument-ever/272734/ …
-
-
I’ve read it, and couldn’t imagine a sillier line of reasoning. Anyone who makes the case that there’s no difference—with respect to probable abuses of power—between an armed and unarmed nation is simply deluding themselves. The differential game theory is painfully obvious.
-
The article shows why it isn't. But it's clear we won't agree, so rather than stress ourselves out trying to convince each other, it's probably best to put a nail in this, and do something more productive. Despite the disagreement, it's always interesting talking to you

- 10 more replies
New conversation -
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.