If I say, "People should be forced to give up their AR-15s because that would prevent at least some school shootings and that's worth any price. By not agreeing, you're saying that some school shootings are ok, as long as you can keep your toys, and that's objectively wrong," that's an idea Lemmy readily agrees with.

However, if I say, "People should be forced to give up their RAM and only access compute power via the cloud, where they can be monitored, because that would prevent at least some child porn from being produced and distributed, and that's worth any price. By not agreeing, you're saying that some child porn is ok, as long as you get to keep your toys, and that's objectively wrong," that's an idea Lemmy abjectly disagrees with.

Just because child porn is one thing you can do with a lot of RAM doesn't mean that's what everyone with a lot of RAM wants to do. Even though banning high-capacity RAM would theoretically stop at least some hacking and child porn, that doesn't mean everyone should be forced to live without high capacity RAM. Having a lot of RAM is fun and there's nothing wrong with having fun with a computer.

Just because some people abuse their right to own computers doesn't mean everyone should be forced to give up their right to own computers.

If someone hacks somebody or creates, edits, or distributes child porn with their computer, that's a problem with the person at the keyboard, not a problem with the computer.

These are all pro second amendment arguments with the words changed; instead of high-capacity magazines in AR-15s, were talking about high-capacity RAM in computers. I've even seen the "Come and Take It" flag co-opted with the AR-15 replaced by a RAM stick.

So, what's the deal? Does Lemmy secretly agree with Sam Altman or does the Fediverse secretly support the second ammendment?