SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Liberty

Liberty to me is the basis that no one can hinder my ability to speak how I fell. No one can dictate how I live my life. No one can dictate what I do with my stuff. No one can take from me that which is mine. No one can Stop me from defending myself and my family. No one can take away from me the right to bear arms and the life long pursuit of happiness.

If you agree with my statement above feel free to join the Freedom and Liberty Social Group

What does liberty mean to you?


Is it the governments job to step in when a person does what they want with their own things despite the majority deciding that they fell they know better?


Do you fell that if you own a gun but the majority decided that you can't that you should be forced to sell/get rid of that gun?


Is that any different when you replace it with a Car or House instead of a gun?


The people have decided that they can just decide what is right for others without the other person having any say in what is right for themselves. Everyone complains when someone does something with the things they own that others don't agree with.

I feel that other telling someone what to do with their stuff is a violation of that persons basic civil liberties.

The statements in Quotes below are hypothetical statements

Sodas are bad I saw a health survey the government should put a ban on them.

Sodas cause premature birth and can be used for abortion they should be banned.

The Government then steps in and bans Sodas because the majority felt that they were bad.

In the world the US is headed towards this could become a reality on some things very fast.

Just my thoughts and a good opening to a strong debate I think.

[/ Rant]
[ Debate]

What if one's pursue of freedom annihilate the freedom of another? One's right to kill freely obviously takes away another's right to live freely. One's right to own guns takes away another's right to freedom from the risk of getting shot.

Of course there are many ways that one can be harmed and proponents often argue that if we ban guns because it may potentially be misused, we should ban knifes, firelighter etc as well. The difference is that these other tools have several useful purpose whereas firearm only serve one purpose–to kill. Its potency to cause harm is again, much higher.
We could claim that firearm can be used for self-protection but isn't that analogous to a nuclear arm race? Firearm can protect you from physical assaults but not from the barrel of another bearer. Wouldn't the society be a safer place if no civilian has access to firearm? Of course it won't be easy to enforce but it'll certainly be much less prevalent.

The idea that government/the majority should decide what you do stems from that one may be deviated from making informed choices due to asymmetric information. This is especially sensitive in a welfare state where your failure to fulfill the 'duty' of a citizen (contributing to the society aside, being self sufficient) may incur a burden to the society, in terms of healthcare cost, social support, loss in productivity of workforce etc. Actions often generates externalities, both positively and negatively.

Law is a form social contract that we built on consensus, yet 'we' apparently don't include everyone. Does one have the right to break laws then because others' moral perspective (that established the laws) do not adjudge one's own individual judgement of what is right or wrong? Where do we draw the line then? A common viewpoint would be that you are allowed to live in your own ways as long as they do not negatively affect others. In life however, several issues are often complex and controversial; they will remain as ongoing debates forever.

I do not have any strong stance on these issues because i know very well that i lack the knowledge (and possibly wisdom) to see the full picture. You leave your health to your doctors, your legal troubles to your lawyers, and so i would leave these to social scientists/politicians and save my brain/time for more productive works that i have a comparative advantage in—modern world specialization.

I thoroughly enjoy my liberties.

I am able to expand my mind in whichever direction I want because I have the freedom to do so. Other American citizens, alike me, are also able to do so, with such extensiveness to uphold their given constitutional (amendments) rights.

I enjoy diving into the deep end of train of thought, exploring ideas like current science fiction that Steven Hawking talks about over religious Mormonism, Catholicism, etc.

The statement above isn't criticized by my government nor does it initiate particular suspicion from my government upon me; I must say that is a liberty of freedom of speech that I utmost enjoy. Granted I don't ponder in extremist activities with my statement, as that would be considered infringing on fellow Americans' rights. I respect my opinion just as much as the next guy's.

:)

Cheers,
Lj!

P.S. - Great Discussion topic!

I will edit a better piece of text [-here-] later, but for now, I can tell you the difference between a house and a gun. The sole purpose of a gun is to take somebody else his/her life away. Shouldn't there be some sort of protection against that by the government. Why would anyone have the need for something like that? Or do you think it is not possible to take all the weapons from society, and thus everyone should have one? I never understood that.

I will edit this later, but I am in class at the moment but would like a first page slot!
—

Short version of what I will be saying:
Living in Chicago my entire life, I realized Guns truly are not needed. Every single person who "got" their gun got it legally (People I know) or they got it illegally but how they got their gun illegally was through someone who purchased it legally.

In Chicago I am going to generalize and say 2% of the entire city actually goes hunting, or the other 98% who say they will use it to defend their family end up using it in a wrong manner. No they may not kill someone with it, but they use it as a scare tatic or just a threat. I lived in a nice suburb of Chicago yet kids were still able to get guns when they turned 18, a month after a kids birthday he bought his first handgun legally (The only one in my class who actually bothered to purchase a gun *to protect his family; we live in an area where the cheapest houses are 600k-700k… protection really isn't needed*. Two months later (We graduated) he ended up selling his gun illegally to a member of the Latin Kings (A gang that originated in Chicago). He did what a lot of gun owners do, buy guns and sell them for a profit; they just don't realize they are killing people through their actions.

In Mexico the gun control laws are so difficult to purchase a Gun, Mexican drug cartel members come to Texas; have a texan buy a gun and they buy it for double the price and return back to Mexico. Doesn't that say something? We should make it a tad harder to purchase or better yet just get rid of the middle man, people won't bother making their owns guns or even if they do guns overtime would become increasingly rare.

The reason for a gun ban is guns are far more lethal without the "conscience" part, I go hunting once yearly and when I shoot a deer; I don't really feel bad for the death of the deer but I am fairly confident if I had a ballistic knife and ran up to a deer and stabbed it to death I would feel like a sick human. That is the same situation with Guns.

Perhaps it is because I live in the mid-west where guns are truly useless, as people just don't protect themselves with them. I am not denying people have protected themselves before but in the reality of the situation I am willing to bet people wouldn't shoot even if they had a gun.

In the Constitution the second amendment was written for militias against a tyrannical government not for personal protection against your neighbor. If France attacked my city Chicago, a militia in Chicago would not be the ones attacking France. America's Armed forces would be the ones attacking France, our government not the militia. We shouldn't be taking the amendment out of context.

Meh all personal opinion hate if you will, it was how I was taught and how I realized everything through my experiences.

Feel free to comment back!

@MasterBB can I not use my Car to do the same as a gun? Could I not bring someone into my house to do the same with the objects therein? So guns can't be use for gathering food? Guns can't be used to protect yourself from large predatory animals? Everything has a proper use and I'm sure everything in the world has been misused.

Also As stated what if the majority decided that cars were bad. How about video games, music, TV? How about if society starts banning food that's not made by this company or that because it might be "unhealthy." What I was getting at was the view that society has about getting the government to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. On the easy moral end for some is guns. Later on down the line if enough power is given to government then a lot could potentially be taken away. Like I said it's not about guns per say it about using the government to control people. What If down the line the People decide as a majority that they want guns back. But guns are illegal already. Will the government just had the right back to the people. I mean it was the people's right to take them away. Should then the people be allowed to decide to have them back. Would the government actually give them back even if guns were voted to be legal again. It is much easier for government to control people.


No I do not believe it will ever be possible to remove weapons from society because It's just to easy to create a weapon. If you get rid of weapons some people also lose the ability to provide for their families there fore your infringing on their right to support their family and sustain life. If weapons are ever removed from society will the government stop using them? Most definitely not.

E: Should have named this thread wall of text Thread.

From: BraK
@MasterBB can I not use my Car to do the same as a gun? Could I not bring someone into my house to do the same with the objects therein? So guns can't be use for gathering food? Guns can't be used to protect yourself from large predatory animals? Everything has a proper use and I'm sure everything in the world has been misused.

Also As stated what if the majority decided that cars were bad. How about video games, music, TV? How about if society starts banning food that's not made by this company or that because it might be "unhealthy." What I was getting at was the view that society has about getting the government to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. On the easy moral end for some is guns. Later on down the line if enough power is given to government then a lot could potentially be taken away. Like I said it's not about guns per say it about using the government to control people. What If down the line the People decide as a majority that they want guns back. But guns are illegal already. Will the government just had the right back to the people. I mean it was the people's right to take them away. Should then the people be allowed to decide to have them back. Would the government actually give them back even if guns were voted to be legal again. It is much easier for government to control people.


No I do not believe it will ever be possible to remove weapons from society because It's just to easy to create a weapon. If you get rid of weapons some people also lose the ability to provide for their families there fore your infringing on their right to support their family and sustain life. If weapons are ever removed from society will the government stop using them? Most definitely not.

E: Should have named this thread wall of text Thread.

Marijuana was once legal, it was banned the people of Colorado said they want it back. It is coming back legally for recreational use to Colorado. People do have a say. We live in America after all.

They will still have jobs, the government and the armies will still need guns and lets be frank most of the guns anyway go to them. Sure small gun shops will prob be closed but that is how all things that are regulated go. I am sure there will be "weed" shops, that only sell weed soon its the land of opportunity.

The government themselves won't, will never ban guns; we the people need to vote for the ban.

It is how America works, the politicians we elected are the ones that make the rules.

Correction the Colorado police won't arrest for it but it is still federally Illegal. If a federal officer catches you with it you can still be prosecuted.

From: BraK
Correction the Colorado police won't arrest for it but it is still federally Illegal. If a federal officer catches you with it you can still be prosecuted.

In Canada last 4 20 the police were instructed not to arrest for it, even though it is still technically not legal.

Illegal in theory, legal in practice.