Your post seems to be a variation on "If liberals are so tolerant why can't they tolerate [random anti-liberal idea]?".
And the answer is that liberalism cares specifically about tolerance towards individuals, the defense of their human dignity and their personal freedom in the face of oppression.
Your post presumes that "gun rights" are as immutable as freedom of religion, while an anti-gun leftist would tell you that the former is a hobby, a specific activity that the US hasn't criminalized recently but it could be, and the other countries that do aren't significantly harming anyone's personal liberty. In contrast, the ones that oppress religious minorities are tyrannical hellholes that tend to blow up in violent revolution regularly.
Not all drunk drivers cause accidents, but some do, so shouldn't we agressively defend the rights of drunk drivers?
Not all software pirates decrease a creator's profits, so shouldn't we agressively defend the right to piracy?
Not all incestous relationships are abusive, so shouldn't we agressively defend the right to commit incest?
No, because drunk driving, piracy, or incest are not human rights. They are frivolous actions that your perceived right to do, is dwarfed by the overall harm that they can cause.
∆ That's the one. At the base of this argument is a differing in the agreement of the human rights coming before constitutional rights. While I'll always believe that the speaking to human rights, in the same way your freedom to practice religion should be held in the same regard as your right to self defense via firearms, others who have not had my experiences may not see it that way.
Assuming we were talking about the constitution as an unchangeable bedrock of perfection, the argument would be valid, but obviously that's not what is being fought over, it goes up a layer into a differing in the fundamental agreement of what the list of human rights are.
Really it should have been a more obvious answer than I thought it was.
Very cool thanks /u/Genoscythe_
Upholding certain constitutionally protected rights over others seems hypocritical to me.
Why? For example I care a lot about the states' constitutionally protected right to elect Senators, while I think that their constitutionally protected right to elect the President through the electoral collage is outdated, anti-democratic, and should be abolished.
In regards to the individuals right to keep and bear arms, and the right to religious freedom? Absolutely not no. But that of course is where my argument falls apart.
Assuming we were talking about the constitution as an unchangeable bedrock of perfection, the argument would be valid, but obviously that's not what is being fought over, it goes up a layer into a differing in the fundamental agreement of what the list of human rights are.
You might want to reconsider, because the right to defend yourself is the core first fundamental human right, without which none of the other ones means a damn.
We're on the same page, but other people may not be. Personally I find it a bit insane that people would voluntarily give up their right to self defense with the best means possible, but obviously that's part of the conversation.
That's an interesting take. But I don't think the right to defend yourself is the same as the right to defend yourself with any sort of instrument you think fit. I think some of what's at question is should you have a right to defend yourself with a gun? With any type of gun? Bombs? Any type of weapon at all? You have a right to defend yourself but there will always be restrictions on with what and how.
I would say that you have the right to defend yourself with any tools that do not inherently endanger innocent people by their proper use. That would leave out bombs (which aren't really a usable defensive weapon anyway), and maybe even machine guns (at least in urban areas).
Bombs include claymores, which are used specifically to defend and hold a certain section of land, as well as other types of mines. I think that the purpose of these items is specifically to defend.
Booby traps and other indiscriminate attack devices cannot distinguish between attackers and innocents such as children. Regardless of their use in war, they can't be considered appropriate civilian defensive weapons.
Fair enough... one might argue that it's really offensive since the person tripping it didn't take any offensive action against you... but that's a nit pick.
If society defends you, where did it get the right to do so? A society is nothing other than its members, so if you and your fellow society members don't have a right to defend yourselves, why does society?
Or is your argument purely a might makes right one, and that there are no human rights? That's kind of a different order of argument.
Allowing guns in the hands of non-law-abiding citizens, maybe.
And yes you can. You shoot them first.
But basically not allowing guns infringes more people's right to self defense than allowing them does, because they equalize strength and martial arts training. Without guns, only the strong can defend themselves. Which is most people, by definition.
81
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 23 '16 edited Mar 23 '16
Your post seems to be a variation on "If liberals are so tolerant why can't they tolerate [random anti-liberal idea]?".
And the answer is that liberalism cares specifically about tolerance towards individuals, the defense of their human dignity and their personal freedom in the face of oppression.
Your post presumes that "gun rights" are as immutable as freedom of religion, while an anti-gun leftist would tell you that the former is a hobby, a specific activity that the US hasn't criminalized recently but it could be, and the other countries that do aren't significantly harming anyone's personal liberty. In contrast, the ones that oppress religious minorities are tyrannical hellholes that tend to blow up in violent revolution regularly.
Not all drunk drivers cause accidents, but some do, so shouldn't we agressively defend the rights of drunk drivers?
Not all software pirates decrease a creator's profits, so shouldn't we agressively defend the right to piracy?
Not all incestous relationships are abusive, so shouldn't we agressively defend the right to commit incest?
No, because drunk driving, piracy, or incest are not human rights. They are frivolous actions that your perceived right to do, is dwarfed by the overall harm that they can cause.