Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom

[TakeAStepBack]

False premise. Democracy is not the source of, protector of, or enabler of freedom.

 

[Saigon]

False premise. Democracy is not the source of, protector of, or enabler of freedom.

If you'd prefer to live in tyranny - try North Korea.

Myself, I think democracy is as good and as free a system as we have.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'd prefer actual freedom. Which has absolutely nothing to do with democracy at all. In the USA, back when it was actually a free country, we had a constitution republic, with democratically elected representatives.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where the biggest group gets to determine what the smaller group gets as far as freedom. Which is, nothing more than tyranny.

 

[editec]

I'd prefer actual freedom. Which has absolutely nothing to do with democracy at all. In the USA, back when it was actually a free country, we had a constitution republic, with democratically elected representatives.

You need to read more US history, amigo.

The USA was never the "FREE country" you imagine it having been.

The USA has, as but one example, never ever EVER tried to have a laisse faire economic system.

I point this out because many right winging ignoramouses imagine that we once had that kind of economy.

It's a big fat lie, amigo.

Doubt me?

What was the FIRST internal military action of this nation

REPRESSING the alcohol business of small farmers to be benefit of the RUM business.

Yeah that's right lad.

My guess is everything you think you know about this nation is a half truth at best.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'd prefer actual freedom. Which has absolutely nothing to do with democracy at all. In the USA, back when it was actually a free country, we had a constitution republic, with democratically elected representatives.

You need to read more US history, amigo.

The USA was never the "FREE country" you imagine it having been.

The USA has, as but one example, never ever EVER tried to have a laisse faire economic system.

I point this out because many right winging ignoramouses imagine that we once had that kind of economy.

It's a big fat lie, amigo.

Doubt me?

What was the FIRST internal military action of this nation

REPRESSING the alcohol business of small farmers to be benefit of the RUM business.

Yeah that's right lad.

My guess is everything you think you know about this nation is a half truth at best.

I don't need a lecture on the failings of the system, pal.

What i do know, is that there was a time when laissez faire WAS the dominant economic system in place. Have it ever prevailed in total? No, it has not. There will always be people who busy themselves with meddling in economic affairs. The idea is to maximize that level of economic freedom that people have in making decisions, entering the markets and voluntary exchange.


Lad.

 

[Erand7899]

In the dark days following the British Expeditionary Force's evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940, Great Britain was a nation virtually disarmed. And not just by the need to abandon equipment on France's beaches to save British "Tommies" to fight another day, but by the policies of its own government. The days of devotion to civilian markmanship, "volunteer rifle clubs" and the idea that there should be "a rifle in every cottage," as proposed by the Prime Minister Marquis of Salisbury in 1900, had given way to restrictive gun control laws that required subjects to demonstrate "good reason" to merely obtain a handgun or rifle. So with Hitler's legions poised to cross the English Channel, the British people were defended by an ill-equipped and defeated army and a "Home Guard" armed with little more than sporting shotguns and pikes.
Help for the beleaguered nation came from both the American government and from the American people, the latter through the "American Committee for Defense of British Homes." In late 1940, the committee sent an urgent appeal -- which, of course, appeared in American Rifleman -- for Americans to send "Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars" because "British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." Thousands of arms were collected and sent to England, one of which was a .30-'06 Model 1903 target rifle owned by Major John W. Hession. Hession was one of the pre-eminent highpower rifle target shooters of his day, and he used that rifle to win Olympic gold at Bisley Camp in England in 1908. The rifle, unlike the majority sent, was returned and can now be viewed int he national Firearms Museum


Send A Gun To Defend A British Home ... Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars

 

[Spoonman]

Neither does free speech, but its still a right. why do libs always try to twist things with stupid arguments?

 

[boedicca]

The Government preventing gun ownership doesn't preserve freedom.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

To borrow from Jefferson: A country which expects to be both ignorant and free expects what never was, and never will be.

 

[Staidhup]

The right to bear arms remains the sole fundamental protection guaranteeing freedom, rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, and safety. Legislation prohibiting such is the first step toward dictatorship and totalitarian rule.
The ever expansion of government in the manipulation of "free" markets restricts freedom and the rights of citizens. The problem with the liberal mindset is their inability to accept the fundamental premise of freedom and ability of citizens to exercise their right of self determination. The liberal views freedom through absolute government run by self ordained elitist intelligentsia. Simply put they do not view citizens as capable of self governance.

 

[Staidhup]

Never in the history of mankind is there a case whereby one tribe, nation, or group of people existed free from the fear of being conquered, exploited, and robbed of their possessions. The possession of weapons, and in our case guns, provides a sense of security guaranteeing freedom to defend their life, property, and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Erand7899]

I'd prefer actual freedom. Which has absolutely nothing to do with democracy at all. In the USA, back when it was actually a free country, we had a constitution republic, with democratically elected representatives.

You need to read more US history, amigo.

The USA was never the "FREE country" you imagine it having been.

The USA has, as but one example, never ever EVER tried to have a laisse faire economic system.

I point this out because many right winging ignoramouses imagine that we once had that kind of economy.

It's a big fat lie, amigo.

Doubt me?

What was the FIRST internal military action of this nation

REPRESSING the alcohol business of small farmers to be benefit of the RUM business.

Yeah that's right lad.

My guess is everything you think you know about this nation is a half truth at best.

A half truth is a half truth, even when it is coming from you. Yes, early America did have laissez fa-ire economics, and it worked quite well. The few exceptions, mostly due to government corruption, did not make the rule.

For government to exert control over the economic system, the government must have the means to exert that control. There was no such mechanism in early America, and in much of America there was not even a federal government to deal with.

However, that is an immaterial fact for the argument that we face today. The question is not over whether we will have an economic system without government regulation, or with government regulation. The question is the degree of regulation that is necessary to maintain fairness to all players in the system.

Loons always want to form the argument in extremes, when the questions are usually about suitable ranges. That is because they cannot find justifications for their desire for more control.

 

[Spoonman]

here is what james madison said. you know, the dude who wrote the second amendment

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."

 

[KevinWestern]

Personally, that attitude, the swaggering and blustering about how the nutter are gonna save us from the government or from invasion - its downright silly.

But, one can ignore the Mighty Mouse nonsense, its the rest of the article that's interesting.

Luddly - Lets just use some common sense here.

Let's say Gov't A decides that a certain group of people needs to be sent to a death camp, which community (below) would they have more difficulty executing the plan at?

1.) Community 1 - Citizens are armed with powerful weapons and are trained to use them
2.) Community 2 - Citizens are unarmed and have no weapons training



.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Would anyone who knows anything about Ghana or Indonesia call them free?

I would - and I have been to both several times.

Both are stable democracies with growing economies, both are free countries.

I do think France, Germany and the UK are better examples because they are western countries - and of course we know they have less than one quarter of the homicides the US has, because they have safety-based gun laws.

Indonesia is rated 108 on the Heritage Index of economic freedom. Ghana is rated 77. Those are low rankings. A "stable democracy" is not the equivalent of freedom.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Right. That is what the Communists want you to believe.

What communists?

I can list 20+ countries that are free democracies, and that all have a fraction of the homicides the US does. When did the communists take over Australia? Germany? The UK?

And guess what - none of them live in fear of their own government.

Dont they teach history anymore in school?.......I kind of think.......correct me If I am wrong East Germany was part of Germany

 

[boedicca]

here is what james madison said. you know, the dude who wrote the second amendment

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."

And hence, the leftist/progressive obsession with disarming the American people.

More than anything, this reveals their true agenda of totalitarian control and neo-serfdom to The State.

 

[Spoonman]

Personally, that attitude, the swaggering and blustering about how the nutter are gonna save us from the government or from invasion - its downright silly.

But, one can ignore the Mighty Mouse nonsense, its the rest of the article that's interesting.

Luddly - Lets just use some common sense here.

Let's say Gov't A decides that a certain group of people needs to be sent to a death camp, which community (below) would they have more difficulty executing the plan at?

1.) Community 1 - Citizens are armed with powerful weapons and are trained to use them
2.) Community 2 - Citizens are unarmed and have no weapons training



.

you, know you lost her at common sense don't you

 

[Intense]

here is what james madison said. you know, the dude who wrote the second amendment

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."

Also from Federalist #46

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.
The Federalist #46

There's something here that Madison clearly understood about the will and the consent of the Governed that seems to systematically be both trampled on and denied by the Conceit of Government. At best, in a Federalist Republic, Government tries to reflect and serve the will of the people, as opposed to dictating it. To some of us, this obstacle is seen as both an illusion, at least the source that feeds it's great appetite, and a corruption of a trust.

 

[Spoonman]

here is what james madison said. you know, the dude who wrote the second amendment

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."

And hence, the leftist/progressive obsession with disarming the American people.

More than anything, this reveals their true agenda of totalitarian control and neo-serfdom to The State.

absolutely, and it is the path so many others who had that same objective took. Hitler laid out his plan in black and white for everyone to see in mein kampf. but no one took it seriously until it became a reality. same with the far left of today. their agenda has been made clear from redistribution of wealth, to expanded government control and reliance of the people on the government. look at the gun legislation they proposed. they want guns gone completely. that we don't have that as law now has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't there intent, but more they do not have the votes and support - yet