Liberty or Security?

[Dervish]

I voted no, as a general sentiment. I've watched our post 9/11 and Patriot Act world embrace a fear based rhetoric that asks us to accept these new bills and laws that enable the government to more or less spy on us legally, and in some cases like bill C-51 in Canada, actually completely ignore and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Temporary measures never are, they always act as a stepping stone to something bigger, and we live in an age where the norm is to have far too much personal information online. Our information isn't safe, but I'd like the law to at least stand in opposition to the government if they are found to be doing something lawful with my privacy.

Naturally there's exceptions, as others have outlined, but there always are. I really don't feel all these things done in the name of security are going to lead to a safer or free society.

I hate using Big Brother as an example, but so many aspects of 1984 are starting to be realized and a lot of it we do to ourselves.

Thing is, one day the current terrorist threats will be no more. What happens then?

 

[Shiri]

I don't know if I can pick one since I live in a country that values both to some extent and I can't quite wrap my mind the idea of living in a situation of either extreme. Too much of either deteriorates government, industry, culture, and rights. What is humanity without freedom, but what is humanity without law? Existential crisis alert.

 

[Drakel]

Wrote up a long post, but then I decided against it because effort.

My thoughts overall?

It's very situational, but in the end all rights must be regulated and some even stopped depending on the situation. The government should be allowed to revoke some rights when needed, so long as it is the most extreme of cases. Hell even having some rights put heavy amounts of strain and pressure against others. Religion vs. property are both good examples of this.

As for businesses? Large corporations, in my opinion deserve and need heavy amounts of restriction and regulation. In my opinion some shouldn't even exist and instead should be handled by the government on a national, state or city level depending on the said organization. At the same time though, for small businesses, we should be far more lax with them, allow them far more freedoms like the ability to discriminate and even some of the more harsh regulations that severely harms them, mainly because they're small enough to where if they do commit immoral actions, even towards one person it harms them and at times ruins them where a corporation can get away with quite a lot.

Where government is concerned, it is made for and by the people, and thus is regulated by the people. Granted, it is a heavily flawed system, and more so when everything is taken onto a more national, or globalized level where it should be handled in a state level. Rights are one of the few things that should be handled on a national level, but as I said it should be handled with care like the distinction between a multi-million to almost a billion dollar company vs some restaurant made by Asian immigrants that can hardly speak English, never get your order right and possibly uses questionable meats though still makes the best fuckin Chinese food in town should be made. One can thrive despite such actions, the other can't. One has the owner micro-managing everything to such an extent that it's practically not even run by them so much as the many, many managers and employees, the other is run, handled and the like directly by the owners with little to no micromanaging.

As for the tyranny, whether from corporatism, anarchistic capitalism, Democracy or Socialism, you will always have some form of tyranny. If done by Corporatism or anarchistic capitalism, you have major corporations who are beholden to no one but themselves and who's primary goal is to both maximize profits with little to no costs AND to become a major monopoly. If done via Democracy or Socialism you get the issue of tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of a dictator. All of which sounds bad. Even so, I must admit that Brovo is right in another regard... Unlike corporations, the state is handled by the people and checks and balances work because it modifies and updates the governmental system to better suit the needs of society and to better represent the people as a whole. There are governmental formats that actually can represent the minority so they have some form of voice, to where their rights aren't hindered upon and at the same time to where the majority is still represented properly as such. Mixed Party Representation and Single Transferable vote both help out with representing everyone properly and while no system is perfect, these both get rid of the major issue or dictatorship of the majority. Law, legislation and regulation are all tools of government that can be used to FIX the governmental issues. When it come to businesses, they don't have these fail-safes and thus can't be fixed from misrepresentation, tyranny and even discrimination, rather they heighten.

Now for where I originally thought this thread was about...

I do believe that the government should respect an individual's privacy and should not be allowed to tap phones, read emails and texts of it's citizens, look at my porn or spy on it's citizens at all unless given proper authority like a warrant. This is where I agree completely with Dervish on. Even so, I still do believe that some of the most extreme cases, like mass riots or the like, martial law and some rights are needed to temporarily be taken away for the safety of the masses. This is another example that brovo made that I do agree with, to an extent.

Edit: Fuck, I deleted my last post because I wasn't in the mood of writing so much.... only to write almost as much in this one. x_X

 

[Legens Legentis]

Government ruins everything that it touches so the farther it stays away from the economy, the better.

 

[Drakel]

Government ruins everything that it touches so the farther it stays away from the economy, the better.

I disagree, but each to their own.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Government ruins everything that it touches so the farther it stays away from the economy, the better.

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Brovo]

Jim Crow was supported by government and state. I'm against them discriminating against others in their services and in services they fund. However you can't stop private businesses from doing so because property rights. As long as those businesses in that town aren't funded by government or state, then they have the right to operate how they see fit.

Small towns aren't the majority. The city is. The mayor of that city can't stop them from being bigoted now can they?

Now we're getting into my fundamental belief territory. Get ready you maple-devoid fat-eating American!

#1: Property rights do not come before human rights to me. They never will, because I can't devalue human life that much. When it costs a person financial security, family, homes, and so on, it sets a disgusting, deranged, insane precedent. This should not exist, because it directly and completely fucks over the entire idea of individual rights and freedoms.

#2: I hold government and private businesses to the same standards where it concerns what they should and should not be allowed to do concerning individual persons with very rare and notable exceptions. If I don't want my government to be allowed to say "blacks shouldn't vote" then I'm sure as fuck going to expect that businesses be held to the exact same standards concerning monetary gains. If government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gays in the military and in education, then private business sure as fuck shouldn't do it for the boy scouts or waitresses.

If private industry can't be held to the same basic standards as the government concerning human rights, that should speak volumes as to why we shouldn't trust private industry with our rights and freedoms.

#3: Jim Crow was supported by government and the state. Then the 1960's hit and civil rights revolutions changed the government, thus changing civil rights. Democracy is capable of change. Plutocracy only changes when it has no other choice. Companies only got rid of colored fountains and the like because the government--which democratically changed--forced them to do so.

#4: So we should just abandon everyone born in small towns? We should just let small towns invalidate the human rights of entire groups of people because their bigotry is more important than individual liberty? Where does this end? It starts with the gays, because there's just not enough gays to care? What if a town decides they don't want to sell to the Jews because they killed Jesus? What if a Muslim community decides it doesn't want to sell to Christians or Whites? We have spent hundreds of years gaining progress and losing it because the rights of bigots and hatemongers were more valuable than those of the minorities they stepped on. Where do we draw the line once we start down this path?

A proslavery electorate could choose a proslavery legislature and executive, thus giving us a proslavery judiciary and off goes the 13th Amendment. Checks and balances mean nothing when the majority of people agree on a single issue.

That first requires a majority of the population (more than 50%) agree on slavery, consistently, for years. Democracy is slow and cumbersome to change specifically to prevent snap losses of rights like this.

If anything, America has been consistently moving away from that stance. Ergo, it's not going to happen, and it's absurd to mention it. The LGBT have made strides and gains in gaining public support, in spite of being a minority, and it's reflected democratically in government.

Democracies change. Plutocracies change only when forced to by Democracies. As evidenced by the large number of businesses that happily complied with and even enforced the ultimately profit-losing motives of racial segregation throughout decades of terrible sentiments.

Thing is, one day the current terrorist threats will be no more. What happens then?

We fight, and end it. We mobilize together and fight it off. As we've done before, we'll do it again, when we're ready.

I also don't agree with how far current legislation has gone in invalidating privacy rights, but, that's another topic entirely.

What is humanity without freedom, but what is humanity without law?

Humanity without freedom is slavery. Humanity without law is anarchy followed rapidly by a violent dictatorship. It takes a balance of both as times evolve to find the median path toward a more civilized future.

Government ruins everything that it touches so the farther it stays away from the economy, the better.

• Over 70 million Americans are enslaved to medical debt that they had no choice in. Private Market.
• The United States of America has one of the highest infant death rates in the developed world. Private Market.
• The United States of America has one of the highest incarceration rates in the entire world. Private Prison System.
• The United States of America has more deaths by firearms-related causes--homicides and suicides--than Canada, Japan, The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, and Sweden all combined. Private Market.
• The United States of America has one of the shortest life spans of the developed world. It's ranked 31st overall--lower than Slovenia and Costa Rica. Private Market.
• The United States of America has the largest military budget of any country in the world and much of it goes to grotesque overspending in Private Military Contracts with Military Tech Firms.
• The United States of America has the highest spending of any country in the world by private companies in political campaigns. It's become such a corrupt system as a result that every major news media outlet has blatant political biases, and most politicians end up owing millions in campaign funding to private corporations rather than the public. Private Market.
• The United States of America has some of the highest mortgage and credit card debt rates among families of any in the developed world. Both are Private Market.
• Speaking of, the 2008 economic collapse was caused by the Housing Bubble, thanks to a deregulated Private Market.

Meanwhile...

• The Police continue to serve their function, and whenever they step out of line they get justly criticized and forced to change. Government run.
• The US has one of the strongest militaries in the world in spite of its gross overspending in private military tech firms. Government run.
• The US has firefighters in every town, city, and state, and is capable of fighting off even the most extreme of nature's terrifying disasters. Government run.
• The Coast Guard consistently saves lives and is Government Run.
• The Judiciary System handles hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cases every year. Government Run.

I could go on, but I don't think I need to. It is incredibly stupefying to say the government fucks up everything it touches. That statement is so loaded with libertarian propaganda that it actually hurt my brain reading it. Here's the general idea of both.

Private Market: Far more efficient. Hand most things to the Private Market, because profit motive breeds innovation and efficiency.

Government Run: Far more even handed. Hand things to the Government where it's inappropriate to hand to Private Market--like where it concerns human life. Our system of laws for example should not be run by private industry.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Sweet summer child, where it concerns the totality of society, one liners are hardly sufficient.

A'ight. I'm actually invested in and interested in this topic now. Show me the best you got.

 

[Brovo]

Also, another government-run thing that is totally fucking amazing.

NASA.

Science, it works... Bitches.

 

[Legens Legentis]

• Over 70 million Americans are enslaved to medical debt that they had no choice in. Private Market.
• The United States of America has one of the highest infant death rates in the developed world. Private Market.
• The United States of America has one of the highest incarceration rates in the entire world. Private Prison System.
• The United States of America has more deaths by firearms-related causes--homicides and suicides--than Canada, Japan, The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, and Sweden all combined. Private Market.
• The United States of America has one of the shortest life spans of the developed world. It's ranked 31st overall--lower than Slovenia and Costa Rica. Private Market.
• The United States of America has the largest military budget of any country in the world and much of it goes to grotesque overspending in Private Military Contracts with Military Tech Firms.
• The United States of America has the highest spending of any country in the world by private companies in political campaigns. It's become such a corrupt system as a result that every major news media outlet has blatant political biases, and most politicians end up owing millions in campaign funding to private corporations rather than the public. Private Market.
• The United States of America has some of the highest mortgage and credit card debt rates among families of any in the developed world. Both are Private Market.
• Speaking of, the 2008 economic collapse was caused by the Housing Bubble, thanks to a deregulated Private Market.

Meanwhile...

• The Police continue to serve their function, and whenever they step out of line they get justly criticized and forced to change. Government run.
• The US has one of the strongest militaries in the world in spite of its gross overspending in private military tech firms. Government run.
• The US has firefighters in every town, city, and state, and is capable of fighting off even the most extreme of nature's terrifying disasters. Government run.
• The Coast Guard consistently saves lives and is Government Run.
• The Judiciary System handles hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cases every year. Government Run.

1. What does the free market have to do with infant mortality?
2. The incarceration rate is so high because marijuana is illegal. Y'know, because government.
3. What does death by firearm have to do with the free market?
4. What does lifespan have to do with the free market?
5. You've said it yourself that the government is bloated with overspending and corruption. These features exist in command economies too, all one need do is look to the Soviet Union's carcass.
6. The housing bubble was also due to the Federal Reserve. Y'know, because government.

 

[Brovo]

1. What does the free market have to do with infant mortality?

The US has a private healthcare system. Most developed countries don't. Put two and two together.

2. The incarceration rate is so high because marijuana is illegal. Y'know, because government.

Why is marijuana still overwhelmingly illegal in spite of divided public opinion and scientific consensus proving it to be far less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol? Gee, I dunno. Let me think about that one. It's almost like the profit motive and politics make for poor bed fellows or something.

3. What does death by firearm have to do with the free market?

The US has one of the least regulated firearms markets out of all the developed nations. IE: Most pro-free market. IE: Hello easy access to murder machines.

4. What does lifespan have to do with the free market?

Americans spend more per household on healthcare on average than any other developed nation and end up with shittier overall healthcare than most developed nations.

It's a thought worth considering.

5. You've said it yourself that the government is bloated with overspending and corruption. These features exist in command economies too, all one need do is look to the Soviet Union's carcass.

I'm not advocating for a command economy. I outright stated that most things should remain in the hands of the Free Market. I can quote myself if you'd like, but I'll assume you can verify that yourself and instead clarify my overall position with summarized points.

• I think corporations and governments should abide by the same overall guiding principles and rules concerning Social Contract with citizens/consumers.
• I think the Free Market has critical flaws that a government can reasonably address. (Ex: Anti-monopolization laws.)
• I think mixing corporations into politics makes for greater levels of corruption than anything else conceivable.
• I think individual human rights are worth more than any corporation's rights, and I'm heavily against the notion of laws that would legalize segregated communities via bigotry and threats.

6. The housing bubble was also due to the Federal Reserve. Y'know, because government.

The Federal Reserve is run like a series of private banks, and is not held accountable to either the executive or legislative branches of government. It's the least "federal" federal entity I've ever seen. However, the federal reserve could not have contributed what it did without deregulation from the government to allow more dirty, unpayable, garbage loans and mortgages.

Sooo...

Yeah.

 

[Legens Legentis]

1. Maybe the government should stop subsidizing healthcare.
2. Maybe the government should be limited in size so it doesn't mingle with corporations.
3. Murder machines? Why not ban knives if you're going to be consistent? A large portion of gun deaths are made in self-defense or the result of an unfortunate suicide. Some are even accidental killings.
4. Have you considered that lifespan in America is so poor because many Americans are overweight/don't exercise?
5. I don't believe in the social contract.
6. It's hardly my problem if some individuals are inconvenienced by businesses deciding who they do business with.

 

[Brovo]

Okay. One more time, then I'm heading off to bed so I can be awake for a D&D session.

1. Maybe the government should stop subsidizing healthcare.

US Infant Mortality: 6.5 (ranked 5th)
Canada: 4.9 (ranked 9th)
United Kingdom: 4.2 (ranked 12th)

Canada & The UK have fully subsidized, government-controlled, public healthcare systems, funded by taxes.

The United States does not.

Ergo, following the numbers, we can conclude that government-run healthcare can be just as good or even superior to its privatized counterparts.

Unless the deaths of babies and total life span of adults have literally zero meaning, then, I dunno, how the hell do we measure it?

2. Maybe the government should be limited in size so it doesn't mingle with corporations.

That makes literally no sense. A smaller government would only be more vulnerable to corporate corruption since less money would go a longer way. Instead of bribing 10 government officials, you're bribing 5 with the same amount of money you'd use to bribe 10. This is the equivalent of saying that a termite infestation would be easier to deal with if the house was smaller.

3. Murder machines? Why not ban knives if you're going to be consistent? A large portion of gun deaths are made in self-defense or the result of an unfortunate suicide. Some are even accidental killings.

That makes it so much better somehow. I'm not even going to pretend to understand the logic behind this. "Oh, most of the deaths are suicides, so it's better."

4. Have you considered that lifespan in America is so poor because many Americans are overweight/don't exercise?

... It's not like Canadians aren't fat too. McDonalds and KFC are fucking everywhere. It's worth questioning why though. I mean, geez, it's not like children are constantly told on TV to eat McDonalds or anything through extremely manipulative advertising specifically designed to ply off the naivety of children. The Free Market would never be so immoral.

Oh, wait.

5. I don't believe in the social contract.

What. One of Western Civilization's core principle pillars is Social Contract, as defined by multiple influential Western philosophers. Maybe you're mistaking it for something more specific?

6. It's hardly my problem if some individuals are inconvenienced by businesses deciding who they do business with.

I'm not even sure how to reply to this stunning lack of empathy. I was considering either stunned silence or dry wit. I'm not even this cold, hot damn.

 

[Kestrel]

Under the right circumstances. Just because balance is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for achieving it.

I was going to type a big post but then I decided I didn't feel like discussing politics today.

 

[Drakel]

1. Maybe the government should stop subsidizing healthcare.
2. Maybe the government should be limited in size so it doesn't mingle with corporations.
3. Murder machines? Why not ban knives if you're going to be consistent? A large portion of gun deaths are made in self-defense or the result of an unfortunate suicide. Some are even accidental killings.
4. Have you considered that lifespan in America is so poor because many Americans are overweight/don't exercise?
5. I don't believe in the social contract.
6. It's hardly my problem if some individuals are inconvenienced by businesses deciding who they do business with.

1) No... Government should take healthcare over as it is a GOVERNMENTAL ISSUE. Not a private one. The subsidization of healthcare actually improved it as before there were major issues with families who were living in poverty getting treated and help without having a fukhuge amount of debt killing them.

2) Ummm.. No. It should be corporations that need to be limited in size due to the fact that they're mingling in governmental affairs and have corrupted the system to maximize profits. That's the whole issue Brovo brought up to begin with. If corporations fucked off and the government kept it's focus on the people and actually knocked said corporations down a notch rather than work with the corporations, then it wouldn't be an issue. But no, we now have lobbies, which are owned privately, often times by corporations who buy out members of the government and thus corrupt it to guarantee laws and legislation are pro business. Making government smaller would thus make it easier to corrupt, as Brovo pointed out.

3) This is why I'm making this post....

No.

That claim is false on so many levels and it throws misinformation as it also ignores one of the biggest issues this country faces. Yeah, and this is just the homicides, let's not forget that rape and robbery are both also things that're easily handled with the use of guns. When the sole purpose of an instrument, since the very day it was made is to KILL it is thus a tool of death. And while it might be okay when regulated and everyone is using it properly, having things like the gun trade loophole or failure in regulation to prevent people with mental disabilities, who were convicted of violent crimes or who are on the FBI watch list as possible suspects for future crimes make the issue seriously dangerous and thus is why I believe regulation is okay, but completely banning guns is stupid.

There is a reason why our military use guns for war... As does every other military in the world for the most part. This is why it is often called "instrument of death" because they're overly efficient at killing. A PRIME example.

4) This goes back to our healthcare system being privatized. While I'll admit that Brovo's point has a small thing to do with it, as major fast food chains like mc donalds, Burger king and KFC all try to market towards children and even use colors that're statistically made to make you hungry... In the end because the health care system is privatized, some people get special extra healthcare treatment and many others don't. Some hospitals are well paid and well staffed, some aren't. Some people can afford treatment that can save their lives, and people like my aunt are required to sell everything they own in order to get the same treatment.

Also your point about Americans being overweight is also pointed at the unhealthy, unethical practices that many fast food chains do. Like cooking the cheapest, overly greasy food possible in order to yet again, maximize profits with minimal costs. In turn most food cooked by these chains have 3-4x the calorie, or fat intake than what a person should have IN A DAY, along with 2-3x the sodium intake.

5) I'm ignoring this because it's not even a point of reasoning or the like, it's literally avoiding the arguments Brovo made. Brovo also summed it up nicely on how my response was going to be.

6) Oh yes... Some individuals... Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiike...

All of america when meat factories used unhealthy, unsanitary practices in order to maximize profits, risking people dying from poisoning or mass spread of disease.
Factories being careless about safety and refuse to have and safety regulation in order to minimize costs, thus resulting to many dying in some of the worst possible ways as they got locked in said factory when it was on fire.
For you modern lovers out there, using other countries to commit acts of slave or child labor in order to create your products since it'd be cheaper.

Yep, just some individuals inconvenienced with who and how businesses do their business. Nothing bad whatsoever.

But that's off topic... You also avoided Brovo's point that the Federal reserve is anything but a government owned bank, but rather it is Privately owned (the biggest mistake in US history imo)... I ask mainly because your points are now contradicting each other to better suit your ideology. So if a government kills people it is bad but i a corporation does it it is good? If the housing market crashes because of the government it's evil but if it's because of the private banks it's now good?

 

[Dipper]

That's like letting a stranger hold a gun to your head and trusting them not to pull the trigger.

A slippery slope is a slippery slope. When it comes to the Government, that slippery slope becomes a cliff. I doubt many of us would be surprised if they "forgot" to return our rights following a situation where such measures were required.

There's not much else to say.

 

[SacredWarrior]

1) No... Government should take healthcare over as it is a GOVERNMENTAL ISSUE. Not a private one. The subsidization of healthcare actually improved it as before there were major issues with families who were living in poverty getting treated and help without having a fukhuge amount of debt killing them.

Then let the poor people have that kind of healthcare. I'd rather have a two-tiered healthcare system than have the government completely rule over it. The same government that doesn't give us access to birth control over the counter (that's one of the many things wrong with it) and refuses to legalize marijuana but has cigarettes and alcohol completely legal. Let's not forget the negative effects that government-owned healthcare can have.

In the end because the health care system is privatized, some people get special extra healthcare treatment and many others don't. Some hospitals are well paid and well staffed, some aren't. Some people can afford treatment that can save their lives, and people like my aunt are required to sell everything they own in order to get the same treatment.

That's life. Some people have it better than you and have more money than you. They should be allowed to have access to the healthcare they can afford instead of getting government-owned healthcare. Just because you can't have it doesn't mean they should be guilt tripped for being well off. A two-tiered healthcare system would solve this issue much better.

 

[Darog]

Speaking from across the pond, I like the fact I don't have to pay a ton of money to get healthcare if I get injured or start to have problems with my health.

 

[Chewy Rabbits]

It's like 4:44 AM over here and I'm kicking myself for not having used this time to make RP Replies. Instead, I'm posting in random general threads that catch my particular fancy lol.

But, I was actually having a discussion with my grandma about this very thing earlier. I do believe that the right to free speech at the very least should be broken when actual threats to one's life are threatened. Like when the members of the Westboro Bapist Church threaten 'DEATH TO GAYS/BLACK/ASIANS/whatever minority we're rallying against this week!' then I think something ought to be done about that doesn't involve the families of the dead soliders who's funerals they picket having to do it themselves.

If we go on and on about the right to free speech, we should fucking know when it's being abused and used to threaten bodily harm to others. I'm not talking like banter between kid!siblings like 'OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO KILL YOU' but rather more so like the example I mentioned above. When you threaten violence against ANYONE, you're not 'exercising your right to free speech' you wanna fucking criticially injure/murder someone and isn't murder y'know...Bad???

sorry if i got a bit rambley, this bunny should be hopping off to bed ^^''

 

[Wulfenheim]

Liberty or death.

Unfortunately, it's never that simple.

I'd take liberty every single time, given the opportunity. I love the idea and concept of freedom so dearly, that I'll fight, kill, and die to keep it. I don't care whether you think freedom is just an illusion or what-have-you. That's your view, high five buddy. What I see is real to me, and I'll reach for it every day, no matter how faded it seems. I yearn to be free, and I shall be free.

However, I do think that liberties CAN be suspended temporarily in dire circumstances. The circumstances have to be truly dire, though; the draft, as an example. I may believe in liberty and independence, but by God, if there is an enemy threatening my way of life, I will support my country to the best of my ability. If I have to see some of my freedoms temporarily suspended so that the greater evil is defeated, then so be it. HOWEVER, you can bet your ass I'll be coming back for my rights as soon as the enemy is gone.

In terms of free speech, I acknowledge that people can truly say some hateful things. However, I do believe they have the right to say those things. I'm extremely patriotic, but not blindly so. Someone can get right in my face and fully believe that the US of A is the literal spawn of Satan, and anyone who supports it is a racist, homophobic creature not worthy of being considered as a human being, and I'll still support their right to say it. Sure, I disagree, but they aren't harming me. They might make me angry or salty, but they have the right to say what they want, unless it puts someone in danger. There's the obvious example of yelling "fire!" in a theater, but it works. If someone is using their freedom of speech to put someone else in danger, it cannot be tolerated. Up until that point, whether they're the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, the Nazi party, LGBT, or Clinton supporters (I'm kidding, don't kill me), I believe they have the right to state their beliefs, no matter how much I disagree.

On the subject of guns and firearm rights, I am extremely in favor of gun rights/opposed to gun control. I think it's a shame that people use these "murder machines" to kill other innocents, but firearms are simply weapons. They don't decide who dies. They spit hot lead and cause death, sure, but they aren't sentient beings, or at least won't be until the 41st millennium. However, I do believe in the right of one to defend them and theirs. I do believe that the 2nd amendment isn't simply about self defense of the individual; I believe in the idea of the militia. The citizenry must be sufficiently armed to oppose threats, both foreign and domestic. If the country falls apart, which I highly doubt it will any time soon, I need to be able to defend myself, and my loved ones. If the government becomes tyrannical, which I doubt, the citizenry must be able to stand up and fight back. My 870 shotgun will not cut it outside of anything further than 50 yards, and that's pushing it. My M1 is a battle rifle, and is a weapon to "reach out and touch someone", as a few are fond of saying. But these two weapons have a bit of a gap in range efficiency, which is where the more modern, magazine-fed weapons come in, such as the ArmaLite-15, or many of the AK brands. These weapons are great at varying distances, which is why people love them. If invaded by a foreign power, which is highly unlikely unless something along the lines of an EMP detonation over the central power grid happens, we need to be able to sufficiently fight back in guerrilla warfare. It can be done very effectively, as our armed forces have learned over the years in the Middle East.

This doesn't mean I want M249's or other automatic weapons on the streets, though. I accept the ban on automatic weaponry, and it doesn't make sense to have an actual assault rifle with selective fire being anything higher than burst. I accept background checks, because I don't believe the mentally unstable should have access to one of these aforementioned "murder machines", nor should people who have a history of unlawful violence. I believe in reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, but not so that it begins to infringe on the right itself.

I do not, however, accept registries, or supposed limitations on "assault weapons". I don't believe in the necessity to ban high capacity magazines. If someone is going to kill, they're going to kill. It'd very likely be easier to make a bomb to achieve mass casualties. I don't believe in registering ammunition sales. I don't believe that a pistol grip makes an AR-15 a murder assault weapon, and increases its deadliness tenfold.

So, looking back, I suppose I'm willing to give up several of my freedoms, but never my right to bear arms.

I suppose I've ranted a bit, so sorry. For context, I live in California in the USA, where we've recently had a large gun control bill passed through state legislation and signed by the governor. That sounds fine in itself, but the bill was originally an agricultural bill. It was gutted at the last second, and changed into a bill regarding gun control, passed through legislation before anyone knew what was happening, and signed by Governor Brown at about 5 AM, when most of us were asleep. The bill is all kinds of fucktarded, and is turning many of the responsible gun owners I know into criminals. Many are not registering their "assault weapons", as is required come January 1st. I know a guy who actually went the full "fuck it" route, and modified his AR-15 to be fully automatic, simply because he's going to be breaking the law already by not registering. He'd never use it on innocents, though. I could rant on and on about it all, but I'll stop before I go crazy.

tl;dr Liberty>Security. Guns go pewpew, people try to make them stop going pewpew through silly means. 'Murica.