>>19417034>With the exception of all of the other human rights that they violate.Gun owners there don't seem to mind
>You seem to think that guns are automatically harming you simply by existing. They aren't.Neither are nuclear bombs, grenades, chemical weapons, etc. It's about the potential threat to security.
>All things that don't inherently violate human rights are "freedom-enabling" under Classical Liberalism. That includes guns, drugs, speech, etc. I disagree, certain drugs cause severe addiction (not to mention death), which make you dependent and therefore less free for example. Freedom is a complex question and anyone who offers simple answers is usually not worth paying attention to.
>And you're off the boat of classical liberalism. Welcome to statism you pathetic piece of filth. Don't worry, it's not an insult, it's just the position to prescribed to yourself through the statist ideology. After all, you can't determine what's best for yourself.I can, but it's because I can't do the same for others than certain consensus is needed to establish what's acceptable and what's not when living in society. Social contract provides a framework for political ideologies, including liberalism, classical or otherwise. If you believe in absolute ethical values which can be individually determined, then you are an objectivist, not a liberal.
>If guns are so bad, why do you want the Police or Military to have them? To protect you? What about protecting yourself? Is that not just?Who says I do?
>Classical liberalism can't be abstracted to correspond to modern liberalism, they simply don't coincide. It's not that my view is narrow, it's just that yours don't fit into the philosophy by definition.I think it's you who's trying to objectify it in order to correspond with your personal choices, another crude intent on claiming ideological monopoly of liberalism for people who hold gun ownership as the value by which all others are to be measured.
