The Politics Test: #10

[DavidB.]

It's a stupid question, because even if you agree with it you're not necessarily for gun control ("useful tool" =/= "morally right tool"), whereas one's result will undoubtedly be interpreted as "pro-gun control".

As for my answer, I think people have a right to defend themselves. No gun control. Period. Voted "strongly disagree".

So, this:

Sums up my thoughts exactly.

[DavidB.]

I believe in negative liberties firmly; positive liberties, not so much.  Granting positive liberties as "rights" necessarily means more government and higher taxes, taking even more of people's earnings by force, which I staunchly oppose.  Public services are not rights and to say they are is a huge distortion of the term.

I don't like emptyquoting in an otherwise quite high-quality thread, so I'll just say that I really agree with this and that I'm glad to see there are more people making this distinction.

(That doesn't mean I'm not in favour of some form of universal healthcare - I am. But it's not a right. It's just the moral thing to do.)

[DavidB.]

That's my point ... you are arguing from the POV that gun ownership is a right, by definition; but fail to see that other people have sufficiently different philosophies that the "right to gun ownership" is itself a distortion on the definition of the word "right". To pontificate on "the rights of gun ownership" with me (just like myself waxing about "right to healthcare" to you) is meaningless to someone in a different context, like somebody arguing for the right to have the sexiest waifu, or something.

No, it's not. Because the right to bear arms is not a positive right, it's something you can do regardless of any government intervention - you're free from government intervention. That's something entirely different from the supposed (positive) "right" to healthcare, which implies you have a right to government intervention to your benefit.

Or are you simply arguing that people have different conceptions of the word "right" so my POV doesn't make sense to you? Obviously, but that's like saying "we disagree so it's meaningless for you to say X". I might very well not convince you, but that doesn't change my argument.