Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom

[BallsBrunswick]

I think guns are a necessary component of any democracy and essential to the American experience. It's not that people can fight the Army or any professional fighting force with their arms (they can't) but for the price of a 25 cent bullet, we can alter the course of this country and check tyranny with one shot.

There's an old story about a corrupt mayor in a little town in Mexico. One day the Mayor had his brains blown out by an assassin on the town hall steps. Not much corruption has gone on since.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think guns are a necessary component of any democracy and essential to the American experience. It's not that people can fight the Army or any professional fighting force with their arms (they can't) but for the price of a 25 cent bullet, we can alter the course of this country and check tyranny with one shot.

There's an old story about a corrupt mayor in a little town in Mexico. One day the Mayor had his brains blown out by an assassin on the town hall steps. Not much corruption has gone on since.

I am following your reasoning to the logical conclusion. We need our guns in America, because the next Lee Harvey Oswald might need one?

 

[Saigon]

There's an old story about a corrupt mayor in a little town in Mexico. One day the Mayor had his brains blown out by an assassin on the town hall steps. Not much corruption has gone on since.

It's interesting that you choose one of the most violent countries on earth as your example. I believe more than 22,000 Mexicans were murdered last year - and you story explains why.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I think guns are a necessary component of any democracy and essential to the American experience. It's not that people can fight the Army or any professional fighting force with their arms (they can't) but for the price of a 25 cent bullet, we can alter the course of this country and check tyranny with one shot.

There's an old story about a corrupt mayor in a little town in Mexico. One day the Mayor had his brains blown out by an assassin on the town hall steps. Not much corruption has gone on since.

I am following your reasoning to the logical conclusion. We need our guns in America, because the next Lee Harvey Oswald might need one?

Take it up with Thomas Jefferson, it's his line of logic.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

There's an old story about a corrupt mayor in a little town in Mexico. One day the Mayor had his brains blown out by an assassin on the town hall steps. Not much corruption has gone on since.

It's interesting that you choose one of the most violent countries on earth as your example. I believe more than 22,000 Mexicans were murdered last year - and you story explains why.

The violence in Mexico has more to do with being America's drug farm and being pushed into complete chaos because it's easier for America to have a destabilized Mexico than any kind of inherent evil involving guns.

 

[Saigon]

Balls -

I don't think guns are inherently evil - but I do think that Mexico would be a much, much, much safer country if they could reduce the amount of guns in play.

You can talk about guns defending freedom all you like - but what freedom did they 22,000 Mexicans killed last year have?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think guns are a necessary component of any democracy and essential to the American experience. It's not that people can fight the Army or any professional fighting force with their arms (they can't) but for the price of a 25 cent bullet, we can alter the course of this country and check tyranny with one shot.

There's an old story about a corrupt mayor in a little town in Mexico. One day the Mayor had his brains blown out by an assassin on the town hall steps. Not much corruption has gone on since.

I am following your reasoning to the logical conclusion. We need our guns in America, because the next Lee Harvey Oswald might need one?

Take it up with Thomas Jefferson, it's his line of logic.

Well, as a matter of fact, I have read Jefferson extensiively, and even the other founding fathers considered him a radical. In fact, when Jefferson continued to praise the French revolution, even during the "terror" stage, Adams honestly thought that he had lost his mind. It seems that only Madison considered him to be worth listening to in his later years..

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Balls -

I don't think guns are inherently evil - but I do think that Mexico would be a much, much, much safer country if they could reduce the amount of guns in play.

You can talk about guns defending freedom all you like - but what freedom did they 22,000 Mexicans killed last year have?

Mexico is in turmoil not because of the amount of guns because of the drug cartels running Mexico. Those 22,000 people died largely in narco wars as large drug cartel who recruit special forces operatives from the Guatemalan (I can't make this up) and Mexican special forces have gone tear assing through Mexico unchecked in their aggression and literally beheading anyone who stands against them. The US could fix this if it actually got a pair and went after the cartels but then that would mean Mexico wasn't destabilized and there wouldn't be a ton of black market money floating through our economy or through are politics.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I am following your reasoning to the logical conclusion. We need our guns in America, because the next Lee Harvey Oswald might need one?

Take it up with Thomas Jefferson, it's his line of logic.

Well, as a matter of fact, I have read Jefferson extensiively, and even the other founding fathers considered him a radical. In fact, when Jefferson continued to praise the French revolution, even during the "terror" stage, Adams honestly thought that he had lost his mind. It seems that only Madison considered him to be worth listening to in his later years..

I'm a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson. He and Teddy Roosevelt are definitely the most radical and interesting men in American Presidential history. You ever listen to the Thomas Jefferson Hour with Clay Jenkinson?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I am following your reasoning to the logical conclusion. We need our guns in America, because the next Lee Harvey Oswald might need one?

Take it up with Thomas Jefferson, it's his line of logic.

Well, as a matter of fact, I have read Jefferson extensiively, and even the other founding fathers considered him a radical. In fact, when Jefferson continued to praise the French revolution, even during the "terror" stage, Adams honestly thought that he had lost his mind. It seems that only Madison considered him to be worth listening to in his later years..

Well if true, Jefferson was crazy as hell at that point.....but he also wanted to hang murders the day after conviction.....I'm all for it

 

[Vandalshandle]

Take it up with Thomas Jefferson, it's his line of logic.

Well, as a matter of fact, I have read Jefferson extensiively, and even the other founding fathers considered him a radical. In fact, when Jefferson continued to praise the French revolution, even during the "terror" stage, Adams honestly thought that he had lost his mind. It seems that only Madison considered him to be worth listening to in his later years..

I'm a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson. He and Teddy Roosevelt are definitely the most radical and interesting men in American Presidential history. You ever listen to the Thomas Jefferson Hour with Clay Jenkinson?

No. My personal hero is Harry S Truman!!!!!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Take it up with Thomas Jefferson, it's his line of logic.

Well, as a matter of fact, I have read Jefferson extensiively, and even the other founding fathers considered him a radical. In fact, when Jefferson continued to praise the French revolution, even during the "terror" stage, Adams honestly thought that he had lost his mind. It seems that only Madison considered him to be worth listening to in his later years..

Well if true, Jefferson was crazy as hell at that point.....but he also wanted to hang murders the day after conviction.....I'm all for it

I agree, but I'd toss Jackson in as well, he did change alot of stuff and pissed off a whole lot of people.....especially elites....

 

[Darkwind]

It simply amazes Me the lengths that people will go to just to justify their fear and willingness to put on the chains of slavery to government.

 

[bripat9643]

There's an old story about a corrupt mayor in a little town in Mexico. One day the Mayor had his brains blown out by an assassin on the town hall steps. Not much corruption has gone on since.

It's interesting that you choose one of the most violent countries on earth as your example. I believe more than 22,000 Mexicans were murdered last year - and you story explains why.

Yes, and it has very strict gun control laws.

 

[Agit8r]

the responses in this thread remind me of a quote I read recently:

"If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.
"The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another."

Anarchism ?Ayn*Rand Lexicon

 

[Sunshine]

Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom - Casey Michel - The Atlantic

Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.

After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"

It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."

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.

But harboring terrorists DOES peserve freedom. Why don't you just accept that, like muslims, some guns are good and some guns are bad.

 

[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.

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.

Never happened, lad.

From the inception of this constitutional republic the government was heavily involved in choosing the winners and losers.

In the first copuple administrations the FEDERALISTS controlled the government and imposed heavy tariffs, and controlled all the territories that were no yet states.

When Jefferson's ANTI-=Federalists came to power they pretty much followed in the footsteps of the FEDERALISTS doing unconsitutional and FEDERALIST policies things like?

The Lousiana purchase (borrowing money).

Building a navy (again, something the Republicans claimed they opposed)

Tell you what you ought to do, kid.

READ the history for yourself.

You have been misinformed and fed a load of lies.

Looks at what government DO, not what they claim to believe.

The USA never ever, ever, everremotely practiced a laisse fair policy.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom - Casey Michel - The Atlantic

Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.

After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"

It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."

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.

Responding to owning guns doesn't preserve freedom propaganda - ( it's a flat out lie )

Actually studies show exactly the opposite. For the size of the UK I am told their crime rate is 4 times higher than the USA. Why? No guns. France? Go at your own risk. Very dangerous - during Muslim riots the half of it was not told. I have friends over there and they told me they thought Paris would be burned to the ground. The democratic turned communists amongst us who desire to disarm citizens here are busy telling everyone the statistics prove guns make little difference in keeping your freedom. They tell you this in order to cause you to consider compromising on your 2nd amendment rights ( for safety purposes ) This is their lie and they are quite good at it. But if you want the truth you'll have to look at Switzerland where crime truly is not a probem and every single citizen owns a firearm. It is the law. You see, in France, Denmark, UK the crime rate is through the roof - much higher than armed nations - I've seen some very dishonest methods being used. They refuse to count any murders, rapes, muggings done by knife, bat or other deadly weapon and count only gun violence done by criminals illegally using guns. Of course the crime rate would be less in that case!

I live in a city where probably every citizen living here owns guns. Our crime rate is almost non existent. No home invasions because people would be afraid of getting shot. For the entire year our crime rate was 1 rape. The rapist wasn't from here and probably didn't know everyone has guns here. There is another city nearby that has made it a law every citizen must own a gun. Do you know that city was declared one of the safest cities in the united states of america this past year? So when americans learn more and more the truth they will surely wake up and realize exactly why these democrat turned communists have lied to them hoping they could disarm america so their comrades can have it. Good luck with that. It isn't happening. The Japanese General was right.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom - Casey Michel - The Atlantic

Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.

After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"

It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."

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.

But harboring terrorists DOES peserve freedom. Why don't you just accept that, like muslims, some guns are good and some guns are bad.

Yes and some pressure cookers are good and some pressure cookers are bad....

 

[squeeze berry]

Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom - Casey Michel - The Atlantic

Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.

After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"

It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."

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.

and banning/restricting does preserve freedom?