No, reality decides the difference. Either it's a fact that doesn't depend on point of view, or it isn't.
In that it does not depend on a point of view and can be verified by examining material reality, as opposed to a claim of "feeling" in danger to shut down people and speech they do not like.
Nothing is 100% airtight, but physical evidence counts for more than "I feel in danger" every day of the goddamn week.
This is either hyperbole, you trust a bunch of people to have guns who shouldn't, or you want a bunch of innocent people locked up. There are plenty of people without the mental capacity to look after themselves and handle responsibilities like driving and firearms who are much better served living in the community.
That statement stands just fine on its own. Either you merit that level of trust, or you exist in some level of custody. These are my terms.
To all you kids out there lurking, and you future cockroach-people archeologists, let UA be a cautionary example. Libertarianism turns your brain to melted ice cream Just say no.
The kind based on individual merit, as opposed to mindless, one size fits all, guilty until proven innocent collectivism. The kind that maximizes individual freedom, on the strict condition of absolute individual accountability when you threaten or harm others.
Ah, the slogan type. Let's say you have someone who struggles to speak. Their fine motor control is limited, and basic tasks like picking up cutlery often require a couple of attempts. They have an intellectual disability that gives them a low IQ and emotional age. Living in a shared home they have friends, present no threat to the community, and are able to leave and move around as they wish. When out in the community they have direct phone line they can use to call for assistance from a carer when in an overwhelming situation. I've known dozens of people like that who absolutely should not be walking around with a firearm, but also are capable of living satisfying lives in the community. To say that they should be carrying around a firearm is incredibly irresponsible, to say they should be in custody is overbearingly oppressive. Nuance exists in the real world.
Then they may live under direct supervision, every hour of every day, in order to restrict their access to anything that may cause harm to themselves or others, up to and including firearms. This is just a repackaging of the delusion that the whole of society can be made into a nerf-padded safe space for such individuals to roam freely, to be then used as the rationale to restrict the freedoms of those of us who can be trusted with access to dangerous items. No sale. I don't care if it's a chaperone in tow at all times, either you merit full exercise of individual rights, or you do not. I'll not accept any degree of infringement so that you and they can pretend they are fully actualized adults, but with an asterisk. There is an absolute demarcation where you have proven yourself a threat. After that, your feelings rank a distant second to the safety of everyone around you.
Scratch a libertarian, and you'll probably find there's an authoritarian lurking just underneath the surface.
You're willing for your tax dollars to be spent on spending 24 hours a day monitoring people who are medically judged as not needing that? Like I said, authoritarian shit. You don't give a fuck about rights, just anything that you perceive as potentially limiting you.
Once they are proven a threat, yes. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than hassling people who have done nothing. Same difference.
But the sense of being "in danger," at ;east m this context. is largely derived from collective exxperience. The expectation is that outside prison, hetero men are generally not sexually assaulted. It happens but it's exceedingly rare. Whereas studies show that something like a quarter of women have experienced sexual assault, and the perpetrators are often people who know them. One should not dismiss, then, women feeling they might be in danger of rape without some more particularized "objectively verifiable evidence" in their individual cases.
You do not seem to be listening to his ideas. Like you say, they are ideas people should have to give credit to because he spoke them. You are not being fair and giving him a chance.
I benefit by way of not having my freedoms constrained by some futile effort to idiot-proof the world.
Do you benefit if the country ends up run by someone elected by idiots? Because your "let's let fools be fools" schtick had you skirting VERY close to the drain for the last four years, and the idiots aren't back in the monkey cage yet by any means. I can picture the US in the flames of war and you'll be huddled in a burnt-out shack proclaiming it's all fine as long as no-one tries to tax you.
Not today! Holding people who he considers a threat to him does in his mind directly benefit him. This is in part because he does not see himself as ever being one of the people who are going to be taken into custody and he doesn't particularly care about the rights of those who might be.