How do you guarantee freedom?

Great Debates
1

It is amazing how some things polarize the American people. For a society that pretty much doesn’t give a damn about anything, gun control is a very touchy subject. Just ask a politician about it and they will spend ten minutes talking and still not answer your question.

It is generally understood and agreed upon by the open-minded that the original intent of right to bear arms was to provide defense to the people of the new nation against indigenous inhabitants and foreign aggressors. Some people even agree that the reason the people were given the right to bear arms was to keep a tyrannical and oppressive central government from forming.

Now days, people are in disagreement on whether Americans should be able to keep the right to bear arms. Those against the right argue that the army is there to protect their freedoms. But the army follows orders and if the wrong people are in charge, the army could be used to suppress the people. This is the argument that the pro gun people use.

My question is: If we eliminate the right to bear arms, how would the freedom of the American people be guaranteed?

2

Just a quick note:

The “right to bear arms” is documented as far back as the “Bill of Rights of 1689.”

“That the subjects that are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.”

And this was written in Britain for British subjects.

3

Mjollnir

It’s nice that you can quote ancient British Laws, but how do you gauruntee freedom?

4

We will all close our eyes and hope really really hard that no one decides to take advantage of us.

Of course, guns will never be totally banned from this country. In addition to the police and military, there will always be some way to get a license to carry a gun.

Of course it will be very expensive and it would probably help to know someone important. After all, the rich will always need to hire armed security people to protect them.

Next time you see Feinstein screaming for gun control ask yourself a couple of questions…

Why does this lady have a concealed carry permit?

Why doesn’t she eliminate all the armed security around herself and show us how safe this country is.

Then…maybe she can get her local police department to give up their guns, and prove once and for all that GUNS ARE BAD!!!

5

Daniel, if we eliminated the right to bear arms, the freedom of the people of the United States could not be guaranteed. This would be freedom not just from tyrannical government authority, but from the violent criminal element of society as well. I write as someone whose views on the issue have turned around 180 degrees in the last five or six years, as a direct result of some life experiences.

As a result of those experiences, I did some study and came to the realization the right to bear arms is just what the NRA says – and I’m not a member of the NRA and never have been. However, my belief in the right to have and bear arms is not based on the Constitution, but on human rights which derive from natural law.

The right of self-defense is a natural right.
If you have the right to defend yourself, then obviously you have the right to defend yourself effectively. The most effective means thus far devised for defending oneself is a personal firearm. The fact that such weapons can be used for attack cannot diminish that fact.

If criminals are allowed the opportunity to possess firearms for criminal purposes, as the result of lax enforcement of current regulations and failure by the judicial system to invoke long prison terms for the use of firearms, the right of lawabiding citizens to have firearms is that much more important.

“Television should be so real that when you close your eyes, it sounds like radio!” – Guess who, where and win a prize . . .

6

I read a letter in Anne Landers (or Dear Abby, whatever) a couple of weeks ago by a woman who had gotten a gun for self defense when she drives. Per the police’s advice, she carried the gun on the front seat and the clip locked in the trunk. She was terribly surprised to be advised by the teen-aged child of a friend that even when the clip is removed, there is still a round in the chamber- the gun is still loaded.
Now, leaving aside the issue of the defensive value of a gun which has no clip in it-
Does this woman have the right to carry a gun? It was made clear in the letter that she had NEVER fired it, had NEVER had a firearms safety course, knew NOTHING about guns OR self-defence. I have absolutely no doubt that had she not been advised by the teen, that eventually she would have allowed her children to play with the ‘unloaded’ gun, or even herself someday pointed it at someone in jest, thinking it unloaded, and pulled the trigger.
Does she have the right to be an idiot with a deadly weapon? Let’s think about the number of people who are killed by their own firearms(either accidentally or by having their own weapon taken away by a criminal), and compare that number to the number of people who actually manage to use a gun to defend themselves against a lethally-inclined criminal.

Now, then, as to the issue of whether or not the right to bear arms reflects on our freedom…
What is the relationship? Let’s discuss how having guns makes us more free from the tyranny of our government than not having guns, and then we can decide.

Felice

“There’s always a bigger fish.”

7

OK, it’s like this:

There’s no way to “guarantee” freedom.

“The People” do not want “freedom,” anyway.

2nd Amendment is OK, but it was written at a time when everyone had a similar playing field.

The government has access to much bigger guns that common folk.

8

I am in precise agreement with George Papoon on this issue. And I speak as one who has shot a firearm three times in his life, and has never (except for six hours between my father’s death and a sympathy call from a hunter friend) himself owned a firearm.

Those who are interested in pursuing the argument might check out some correspondence in Robert A. Heinlein’s Grumbles from the Grave, where he ably discusses the differing viewpoints that have come to the fore over the last ten years – but the correspondence dates from the 1950s!

Obviously, the question of personal responsibility enters into the picture. And there are strong arguments on both sides about what limits may legitimately be placed, and why. And before anyone decides to make a case, consider that we are talking laws that include a feisty 62-year-old widowed sheep rancher in Montana and a 24-year-old burger flipper in Harlem, a millionaire with an island estate and a poor-as-dirt cotton farmer in rural Mississippi. Be sure that you aren’t arguing from a perspective that only includes where you are.

9

Guarentee freedom?

Words of one of your folks. (from a while back I understand)

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots…” and I paraphrase.

Its not from gun control, or even the right to bear arms on your own property (which, IMHO, is far from 2nd amendment’s spirit and intention, and I’m not American so I woulnd’t know). I DO think that when the “Certain inaliable rights” come into question, particularly freedom/liberty, we guarentee them by defending them with our lives: Putting yourself between all you hold dear and the desolation of state-sanctioned violence.

To quote Moxy Fruvous:

“Fighting for Texaco, fighting for power. Fighting for longer turns in the shower. Don’t tell me I can’t fight or I’ll punch out your lights…”

It continues:

“I’m just a peace-nik, She’s just a war-hawk… That’s where the beach was, that’s where the sea… What cold we say, we’re only 25 years old. And history seems to agree… that I would fight you for me. That us would fight them for we. Thats how it always will be.” - The Gulf War Song.

Regards.

Jai pey

10

addendum:

Polycarp’s touching on RA Heinlien is good… Starship Troopers has many salient discussions on the need for violence (state sanctioned) to maintain freedom. Don’t let the movie throw ya… the book is an intriguing read.

TTFN,

Jai pey

11

You think a gun gives you freedom?

12

Stop trying to be a telepath, and just try to debate rationally. No one has ever said a gun gives anyone freedom. It imparts an enhanced ability to maintain and defend your own freedom.

And, by the way, Polycarp:

:dancing around in the happy-puppy dance:!

13

Point of fact: The above is only true if a round has been placed in the chamber. Simply putting a magazine in a weapon does not ready it for firing. You must put the mag in, and then (depending on the weapon) cock the hammer or operate the slide to chamber a round.

That having been said, no weapon of any kind belongs in the hands of a person who doesn’t know how to use it. This is as true for a handgun as it is for a knife, a stunner, or a can of pepper spray. A wise character in a story (I believe it was Gandalf) once said that “A treacherous weapon is ever a danger to the hand.” The same is true of an ignorant weilder: they are in as much danger with the weapon as without, and can harm innocents to boot.

To the OP: The only way to guarantee freedom is to live on an uncharted island, all alone, fully stocked with supplies and armed to the teeth.

If anybody is wondering aboiut my position on firearms, I’ll try and state it now.

I think the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted by those who claim it means anyone and everyone can have a gun – I place a lot of value on the part that refers to “for the purposes of forming a militia.” However, this amendment was written when the ability of the private citizen to provide for the defense of himself, his family, his community and his nation was important. Today, we have a professional standing military and a large police force formed from private citizens. The defense of the nation is not in doubt. The groups who try to pass themselves off as militias are extremists who have (rightly) been marginalized. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and should be stricken or altered.

HOWEVER, I believe honest, law-abiding citizens deserve weapons for self-defense, and should have access to personally-owned firearms for defense, as well as for hunting and sport. There is no reason that such a citizen needs to own an assault rifle, or a Tec-9 (or other silly ultra-high capacity handgun), or grenades, etc. And all weapons must be licensed and tracked, not just handguns. I don’t care if it’s a .22 varmint rifle or a 10-gauge shotgun – both can kill ya, and only responsible people should have them.

Responsibility includes locking your guns up so kids can’t get to them, and teaching those kids not to want to mess with said guns. Teach your kids to shoot, sure, but don’t let him/her have his own weapon, or easy access to yours. Responsibility also means identifying your target before you pop a cap in it. This way, no more kids will die because they came home late and scared their parents into thinking they were being robbed.

Gun-control laws help ensure that only serious, responsible citizens can buy these weapons. If you run into a gun store and say “Quick! I need a .357 Magnum NOW!” it means that either (a)you want to kill somebody and therefore shouldn’t be sold a weapon, or (b)you’re in danger and should be calling the police. Waiting periods, licensing, and safety courses are perfectly reasonable.

What we need to stop is the illegal flow of guns to people who would misuse them, and people who try and get around technicalities in the existing gun laws. Tough prison sentences for violators of gun laws are a good idea, but the laws shouldn’t be zero-tolerance, especially when relating to accidental or non-attack oriented violations. More important than jail time is keeping illegal guns off the streets in the first place.

I could go on, but I’ll save space for the more passionate arguers and go my merry way.

–Da Cap’n
“Playin’ solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one.”

14

Cap’n Crude wrote:

Unless the gun is one of those neato Glock “double action” semi-auto pistols. They can chamber the first round, cock the hammer, and fire, all with one long pull of the trigger. (Subsequent rounds are already chambered with the hammer pre-cocked, so their trigger pull will be much shorter and easier.)
Oh, and as for how you guarantee freedom: You give freedom-owners a full refund if they’re not satisfied.

The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

15

Begin with this quote… a FINE understanding IMHO.

This is the spirit of the 2nd… has to be. OK, if the NRA had written the Amendment, maybe a more liberal reading could be found.

I’m with you all the way here.

Of course, you have to assume the general populace is going to abide by “normal” laws of responsibility and “normal” ideas of whats right. Personally, having a loaded shotgun in the rear window of the ol’ pickup ain’t normal (hearken back to the original post).

With regards to Cooper’s question… Nope, I don’t think guns buy freedom. I don’t even think that guns enforce the cause of freedom too well… for the “efficiency and best defense” idea to work, you’d have to beat the odds that guns have, which are abyssmal… how many shots fired in defense hit a target? A lot less than punches that land. So you have the lazier man’s way out of karate… the firearm.

Oh you can get training for your little 9mm handgun. And you can prove to the world what the military proved for years… that you’ll use thousands of bullets forcing the bad guy to keep his head down.

And you know what else cooper? That approaches the are of “Violence never solved anything”. As R A Heinlein wrote… “You can ask the city fathers of Carthage about that myth… Their fate was settled rather nicely, wasn’t it? Or conjure up Napolean and Wellington’s ghosts and let them dispute it for you.” Violence routinely solves problems… the States has gone to police actions and wars for years to try to illustrate the point. Sometimes more effectively than others. Its no good, though, to just settle it all with the ol’ A bomb. Better to go into a situation, bloody a few noses, twist the arms and hear them say Uncle… then you’ve used force to get them to do your will.

2nd amendment rights are about this on home turf… putting resistence to the invaders who’re tryin to bloody up your nose a tad and make you say uncle. Its not about a single individual going around and making everyone say “uncle” with the threat of violence from a firearm… to legalize it, you stuck it into a political framework so that the will of the State decides when, where, how, and how hard to bloody a few noses.

Regards to you all, great discussion.

Jai Pey

16

tracer:

I think they said the woman never fired her gun, therefore even if she loaded it (how did she even know how to do this?), once she takes the clip out it would not have a bullet in the chamber.
Most guns require that you have the clip in and then cock it (and how did she know how to do this also?)to put a bullet in the chamber.
If she knew how to do both these things and did them, and still took the clip out and thought the gun was not loaded, then it was the worst of all cases - what’s that quote again, something about some knowledge is dangerous… Someone help me with that one?

PeeQueue

17

Cap’n:

This is a dangerously false statement! Your freedom hangs by a couple of gossamer threads. The 2nd Amendment is one of them. Study history.

The Constitutional guarantee of militia-based firearm ownership was not enacted to help the citizens hunt elk or shoot house burglars, but was intended to arm the populace against a possible tyrannical, abusive government.

The first sign of a dangerous, tyrannical government is the confiscation and forced disarmament of the population.

Hell is Other People.

18

I also meant to include danielnsmith’s name, as he completely misunderstands the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Hell is Other People.

19

That’s interesting - I wonder how many posts I can make without changing my post count?

Hell is Other People.

20

Oh, I get it now :smiley:

Hell is Other People.