You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Would anybody seriously argue that (1) carefully regulating guns would save many lives but that (2) we can't do it because of the second amendment? Let's just use science-based social policy here. Conduct careful studies. Have vigorous debate.
#2A isn't about saving lives by the thousands. It's about deterring tyranny over millions. The relevant science would be cross-cultural and historical studies on why tyrants disarm populations, and how populations resist that. Not just 'gun violence' stats.
I am completely cool with that. Do all the relevant studies and historical analyses. It's all cost/benefit to me
Call it a paradox, or just cognitive dissonance, there are two things increasingly at odds today: 1. support for the right to bear (fire)arms, claiming these can deter of govt tyranny and 2. support for a military that can vaporize you and your guns with astonishing ease.
I'm a libertarian, so I don't support #2. No dissonance.
Lets unpack that. How exactly can citizens take up arms against the govt without repercussions? Please explain how that would work...
Wrong way round. The question is how can the govt take up arms against its own citizens without repercussions, if the citizens are armed.
There is also the Q of individual rights vs. the societal "goods." A gun is a functionally necessary condition for self-defense. So an unavoidable Q is: Does the individual have a fundamental right to defend herself? That question must precede discussions about violence stats.
Clarification: That question must take precedence when discussing the right to gun ownership in general--not necessarily in respect to all regulations related to that right.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
