Let's try this again : Right To Bear Arms Vs. Freedom of Speech

[Cremaster77]

So it is your position that an armed society is less likely to be free than a disarmed society. By my definition if you are prohibited from owning arms you cannot be truly free

That's not my position at all. You completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) my stance. In my opinion personal freedoms can come about independent of gun ownership. There are free countries that allow gun ownership and those that don't. Similarly there are countries where freedom is suppressed that prohibit guns and those where gun ownership is widespread. If gun ownership is the marker of a free society, then Lebanon and Sudan are free while England, Japan, and Canada are not.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's not my position at all. You completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) my stance. In my opinion personal freedoms can come about independent of gun ownership. There are free countries that allow gun ownership and those that don't. Similarly there are countries where freedom is suppressed that prohibit guns and those where gun ownership is widespread. If gun ownership is the marker of a free society, then Lebanon and Sudan are free while England, Japan, and Canada are not.

wrong again, Gun rights are an important aspect to freedom. They CAN be used to obtain freedom. I don't consider societies that ban guns to be completely free. The few states that really have gun rights that do not have other forms of freedom are not free either. You aparently are merely a contrarian, trying to argue for the sake of arguing. It is obvious that disarmed people are less able to secure other forms of freedom (as well as lacking a key right) than those who are armed

 

[Cremaster77]

wrong again, Gun rights are an important aspect to freedom. They CAN be used to obtain freedom. I don't consider societies that ban guns to be completely free. The few states that really have gun rights that do not have other forms of freedom are not free either. You aparently are merely a contrarian, trying to argue for the sake of arguing. It is obvious that disarmed people are less able to secure other forms of freedom (as well as lacking a key right) than those who are armed

How am I merely being a contrarian? I have made a very clear point that you disagree with. Now I'm just being a contrarian? I listed countries where private citizens are disarmed yet enjoy many more freedoms than some countries that have armed citizens. Your argument that you cannot be free unless you are allowed to own guns does not make any sense. Are we truly free in the US simply because we can own guns? There are many things the government restricts us from. Using drugs, soliciting a prostitute, committing suicide that are personal, yet we are not free do them. I hate to break this to you, but there are no truly free states. There are those that are more free than others, but none that are "truly free" as you are arguing. The fact remains that there is no direct correlation between gun ownership and whether one country is more "free" than another.

 

[TurtleDude]

How am I merely being a contrarian? I have made a very clear point that you disagree with. Now I'm just being a contrarian? I listed countries where private citizens are disarmed yet enjoy many more freedoms than some countries that have armed citizens. Your argument that you cannot be free unless you are allowed to own guns does not make any sense. Are we truly free in the US simply because we can own guns? There are many things the government restricts us from. Using drugs, soliciting a prostitute, committing suicide that are personal, yet we are not free do them. I hate to break this to you, but there are no truly free states. There are those that are more free than others, but none that are "truly free" as you are arguing. The fact remains that there is no direct correlation between gun ownership and whether one country is more "free" than another.

my premise-everything else being equal, if you cannot own weapons you are less free than those who can

second premise-if you have no power to kill someone, you are basically at their mercy

if you can kill someone, you have something backing up your claim to a right

you have not proven there is no direct correlation between gun ownership and freedom. owning guns is proof of some freedom

 

[Cremaster77]

my premise-everything else being equal, if you cannot own weapons you are less free than those who can

second premise-if you have no power to kill someone, you are basically at their mercy

if you can kill someone, you have something backing up your claim to a right

you have not proven there is no direct correlation between gun ownership and freedom. owning guns is proof of some freedom

I don't think you have understood what I have said at all. Yes, owning guns is a freedom. Much as choosing to take drugs or commit suicide is a personal freedom. I have never said otherwise.

I have said that owning guns does not guarantee other personal freedoms. If as you say that "if you cannot own weapons you are less free than those who can", would you say that those in Lebanon where there are clear laws allowing private gun ownership are more free than Japan or England? If there was a direct correlation between gun ownership and freedom, than this statement would be true. I think clearly it is not. Therefore, there is no direct correlation between gun ownership and other personal freedoms.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think you have understood what I have said at all. Yes, owning guns is a freedom. Much as choosing to take drugs or commit suicide is a personal freedom. I have never said otherwise.

I have said that owning guns does not guarantee other personal freedoms. If as you say that "if you cannot own weapons you are less free than those who can", would you say that those in Lebanon where there are clear laws allowing private gun ownership are more free than Japan or England? If there was a direct correlation between gun ownership and freedom, than this statement would be true. I think clearly it is not. Therefore, there is no direct correlation between gun ownership and other personal freedoms.

I disagree. Japan is hardly free.

 

[Cremaster77]

I disagree. Japan is hardly free.

So Lebanon and Jordan are more free than Japan?

 

[jfuh]

So Lebanon and Jordan are more free than Japan?

Don't know about Jordan, but Lebanon yes. They directly elect their leaders, not so with Japan. But then Lebanon is far from being as free as Great Britain.
But otherwise your premise of guns has been right on the money - gun ownership does not equate to greater freedom. Japan being less free has absolutely nothing at all to do with gun ownership.

 

[Doc Howl]

People need to hate guns and hate people who use them.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Indy]

you don't understand. If you tell me I will go to jail for speaking out on an issue and I am armed I will kill you and then I will speak. Arms are power, power protects my utilization of other rights. If I can kill you for violating my rights, my rights have a rather strong force guaranteeing them

Obviously you are not a Christian then.

 

[Ethereal]

Don't know about Jordan, but Lebanon yes. They directly elect their leaders, not so with Japan. But then Lebanon is far from being as free as Great Britain.
But otherwise your premise of guns has been right on the money - gun ownership does not equate to greater freedom. Japan being less free has absolutely nothing at all to do with gun ownership.

I don't necessarily think it's direct freedom that personal arms secure, but the potential for freedom. People who live in countries with little freedom but a lot of personal arms are simply allowing themselves to be repressed because of social or religious circumstances, however, should they choose to affirm their rights they would be capable of doing so.

On the other hand, those countries who enjoy freedoms yet have a small amount of personal arms are more predisposed towards being oppressed. They would have no recourse should their government choose to oppress them. Socioeconomic factors must be taken into account when considering the relative amount of liberty a society enjoys given their ability to keep and hold personal arms.