sc94597 said:
The problem is that there is always a "middle ground" It reminds me of Zeno's paradox and how one might seemingly never reach their destination if they keep moving half the distance they moved before, but essentially the sum of the limit of each adds up to a finite number. So with each "compromise" we get closer and closer to that nanny state, and it only remains a nanny state when it's benevolent, otherwise it turns totalitarian. No thank you! I value freedom very much, and invidual liberties are very important for living a "good life" albeit not necessarily a totally safe one. However; these idealisms always lead to dissapointment and often ruin (substantiated by history.) Hence, when it comes to individual liberties there is no compromise which deals with the state's involvement. Compromise must be within the society, which is a separate and distinct entity from the state and which has a different origin and different values. The state is meant to protect our liberties as long as they don't intrude upon the liberties and freedoms of others. Hence, lawful citizens should be able to own what they want. There ARE other solutions, and it is clear with the diversity found among the various states in the U.S, in which many have many guns but few homicides. |
The thing about the "nanny state" argument is that if you live in a society where the citizens can't be trusted to govern themselves voluntarily, and manage to prevent mentally unstable people from getting guns, then the state will have to increasingly babysit the citizens and act like a nanny, for their safety. Complaining about a "nanny state" and trying to win an argument, doesn't address people's concerns, and does nothing to reduce the shootings, or getting people concerned about them.
Also, I have to ask about the "gun-free school" initiative, and if people here thimnk that parents want to send their kids to schools where there are armed individuals about, and kids can bring their own guns to school.
