Sure it is. On the one hand there is an advocation for removing of one right for a supposed public good. On the other hand is a removal of another right for another supposed public good. In neither instance is the outcome - the intended result of the removal of rights - guaranteed.

Just because they can be phrased similarly at an extraordinarily broad level of abstraction does not mean they are the "exact same thing." Many things can be described at the highest level of generality as "restricting a right for a supposed public good," and those things can be enormously different from each other. There is a world of actual difference between, for example, a society that outlaws fentanyl and a society that prohibits people from eating or drinking anything without prior governmental permission - even though both of those involve restricting your right to ingest substances for the public good of better health.

The details matter. There are societies that have eliminated civilian ownership of firearms (nearly entirely) without becoming terrible places. There are no societies that have eliminated all restrictions on government searches and seizures of property without becoming terrible places (they're all either dictatorships or security states or both).

Albaby

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.