If a country that has guns made illegal and removed from citizens, does that country still consider a free country?

Question

Updates:

3 mo

Here look at this
cf.girlsaskguys.com/.../...2-843e-10143d19b4c4.jpg

Answer 1

Razp_Sorbet | 242 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 7

Sigh "slow learners" huh? What about just plain uneducated?

Non- Muslims were never able to privately own weapons under the ottoman rule. But some did. Guns were put into the hands of 10s of thousands Armenians to fight in WW1. After a massive losses early on the empire blamed it on Armenians and embarked on a program of simultaneously disarming and eradicating them. Only the Armenians were disarmed, in the interest of eradicating that part of the population.

1929? Russia? You mean the Soviet union?
Another communist government... I'm seeing a trend already. They aimed large scale gun confiscation at subpopulations for purposes of enforcing the social policy of “agricultural collectivization,” which played a role into Stalin’s genocidal activities. Stalin’s genocidal activities. Oop china 1935 communist government. They didn't disarm citizens though. "According to Lethal Laws, a 1912 law made it illegal to possess or import rifles, cannons, or explosives without a permit. The Security Administration Punishment Act of 1957 took the additional step of making it illegal to make, purchase, or possess firearms or ammunition without the government’s permission — though by that time at least a million “class enemies” had already died in the name of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution."Germany we already know who was in charge. Gun ownership was banned outright for all German citizens in 1919. A 1928 revision of the law lifted the ban, while still requiring individuals to obtain permits to own, sell, carry, or manufacture firearms. the Nazis used the extant law when they came to power in 1933 to revoke the permits of communists, Jews, and other “undesirables,” and disarm them. The first gun law actually enacted under Nazi rule, the German Weapons Act of 1938, eased some of the permit requirements (those on rifles and ammunition, though not on handguns), and lowered the legal age for the possession of firearms, but also forbade Jews, specifically, from manufacturing or selling arms. The Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, enacted later that year, prohibited Jews from possessing or carrying any kind of weapon at all. So, while the Nazis ultimately favored loosening gun restrictions on the German population as a whole, the disarmament of Jews and other targeted minority populations was an essential feature of Hitler’s genocidal programHonestly do I even need to go on. These statements are mostly false. Saying gun control causes genocide... Disgusting honestly.

React

3 People

TonyMetal___86

3 mo
Are you a history teacher? 🤣
humanearth

3 mo
No it's not, gun control does cause genocide.
Razp_Sorbet

3 mo
Can you not read?

Horrible people cause genocides. This picture has been going around the internet in various forms for years. It's been fact checked over and over. I'm sorry that you believe this, but it's simply not true.
Show All Show Less
Gal67

3 mo
Yes, people cause genocide, not gun control. Like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - the motto of the NRA. Isn't that right Mr. Humanearth? :D
Those who oppose sensible gun-control have never been consistent, and their arguments against such controls have never made any sense. "Ooh, it will lead to tyranny!" Pfft! What bullshit!
TonyMetal___86

3 mo
@Gal67 i agree that horrible people cause genocides, in the end it all goes if the person is able to kill or not...

A good person is never able to do something bad and for sure will never be able to kill and some other people will kill in a cold blood and never cares about what happens next...

Answer 2

TonyMetal___86

Are you a history teacher? 🤣

Answer 3

humanearth

No it's not, gun control does cause genocide.

Answer 4

Razp_Sorbet

Can you not read?

Horrible people cause genocides. This picture has been going around the internet in various forms for years. It's been fact checked over and over. I'm sorry that you believe this, but it's simply not true.

Answer 5

Gal67

Yes, people cause genocide, not gun control. Like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - the motto of the NRA. Isn't that right Mr. Humanearth? :D
Those who oppose sensible gun-control have never been consistent, and their arguments against such controls have never made any sense. "Ooh, it will lead to tyranny!" Pfft! What bullshit!

Answer 6

TonyMetal___86

@Gal67 i agree that horrible people cause genocides, in the end it all goes if the person is able to kill or not...

A good person is never able to do something bad and for sure will never be able to kill and some other people will kill in a cold blood and never cares about what happens next...

Answer 7

InYourHead

Xper 6

No it can't be a free country if you aren't free to defend yourselves from the government

React

4 People

Answer 8

Guffrus | 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

If a democratic country only has a choice of 2 parties and the same agendas are pushed regardless of which is in power, is that still a free country?

Is it still relevant to promote the idea that an armed populace can fight state tyranny in an age where autonomous drones can kill you in your sleep?

Where cameras and computers can identify you if when you are dressed in a gorilla costume by your gait?

What does it matter if you have a few guns in your house if you never bothered to learn and understand what the 2nd amendment actually says and why?

What is the point in making posts about politics when you are so blind and clueless that you can't even identify that there are no left wing parties in the United States?

React

1 Person

humanearth

3 mo
I must have missed this post, your 100% right
Guffrus

3 mo
Thanks, though I wish I wasn't.

Things sure would be easier / better if i were the crackpot your television would have you believe that I am.

Answer 9

humanearth

I must have missed this post, your 100% right

Answer 10

Guffrus

Thanks, though I wish I wasn't.

Things sure would be easier / better if i were the crackpot your television would have you believe that I am.

Answer 11

Fuentes | 879 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

No it means they want 100% power over the people.

React

1 Person

humanearth

3 mo
Bingo

Answer 12

humanearth

Bingo

Answer 13

Anonymous

It depends by how you define free. Guns in America were/are intended for the purposes of protection (hunting too, but that wasn’t the original reason), most notably from the government. Taking away guns would be interpreted as a way of the government attempting to gain more control or influence, which is why we see so much resentment for the process.

I’m not opposed to placing limits- there’s far too many options for mentally ill and deranged people to own a gun, and that’s a case for the people’a safety, not the government’s influence, but at the same time outright forbidding gun ownership is dangerous.

React

AllThatSweetJazz

3 mo
The problem is that with that logic we can say there should also be limits on your free speech or whatever else because "society" deemed your politics to be "deranged" aka wrong.

There are laws against mentally ill people having guns, but who decides what "mentally ill" is or how bad it has to be to make a ruling? These rulings come from courts and so have to meet a high standard if the government is going to be permitted to decide someone's rights are void. e. g you shouldn't be deprived of a firearm just because you're feeling depressed -- or at least have the appearance of it.
Opinion Owner

3 mo
There are limits on free speech- it’s why you can’t run into a building and scream “fire”, or why people sue for defamation. We have a very open speech privilege, but what you are describing is unlimited free speech. And there is a difference between a conceptualized construct (words), and a tangible machine designed to cause harm.

Yes.. there are laws, but I was pointing out there should be more concise regulations. Mental illnesses do not come from the courts- they are understood through an evaluation of symptoms that culturally differ from the norm, and that pose a threat to wellbeing.

If you are so worried about the government taking away your rights, maybe you should learn what the government actually does first 😒
AllThatSweetJazz

3 mo
“t’s why you can’t run into a building and scream “fire””
You’re allowed to do that fyi. So that’s a bad example.

“And there is a difference between a conceptualized construct (words), and a tangible machine designed to cause harm.”
Not in the hands of a lawful citizen. The sole argument for constraining lawful citizens is fear. It’s completely unreasonable to enforce anything against a lawful citizen because *someone else* decides they’re scared of them or something about them.

“Mental illnesses do not come from the courts- they are understood through an evaluation of symptoms that culturally differ from the norm”
No, symptoms can be evaluated, but the *ruling* ultimately comes from the courts. Experts can be consulted by the courts, but academics don’t have any authority to curtail anyone’s rights. The fundamental concept here is that rights can only be touched after due process, hence why felons can have gun rights restricted.

“If you are so worried about the government taking away your rights, maybe you should learn what the government actually does first”
Nonsensical. Rights are literally everything the government can’t do to you. Doesn’t matter what they do or say they’re doing. By definition, rights take precedence over anything the government wants to do.
Show All Show Less
Opinion Owner

3 mo
Man, everything just flew right over your head there, didn’t it?
AllThatSweetJazz

3 mo
Or it flew over yours, who can rightly say?
Good thing free speech allows for the exploration of any and all opinions in order to try to make the determination, lest someone decide I'm too "deranged" to have free thought.

Answer 14

AllThatSweetJazz

The problem is that with that logic we can say there should also be limits on your free speech or whatever else because "society" deemed your politics to be "deranged" aka wrong.

There are laws against mentally ill people having guns, but who decides what "mentally ill" is or how bad it has to be to make a ruling? These rulings come from courts and so have to meet a high standard if the government is going to be permitted to decide someone's rights are void. e. g you shouldn't be deprived of a firearm just because you're feeling depressed -- or at least have the appearance of it.

Answer 15

Opinion Owner

There are limits on free speech- it’s why you can’t run into a building and scream “fire”, or why people sue for defamation. We have a very open speech privilege, but what you are describing is unlimited free speech. And there is a difference between a conceptualized construct (words), and a tangible machine designed to cause harm.

Yes.. there are laws, but I was pointing out there should be more concise regulations. Mental illnesses do not come from the courts- they are understood through an evaluation of symptoms that culturally differ from the norm, and that pose a threat to wellbeing.

If you are so worried about the government taking away your rights, maybe you should learn what the government actually does first 😒

Answer 16

AllThatSweetJazz

“t’s why you can’t run into a building and scream “fire””
You’re allowed to do that fyi. So that’s a bad example.

“And there is a difference between a conceptualized construct (words), and a tangible machine designed to cause harm.”
Not in the hands of a lawful citizen. The sole argument for constraining lawful citizens is fear. It’s completely unreasonable to enforce anything against a lawful citizen because *someone else* decides they’re scared of them or something about them.

“Mental illnesses do not come from the courts- they are understood through an evaluation of symptoms that culturally differ from the norm”
No, symptoms can be evaluated, but the *ruling* ultimately comes from the courts. Experts can be consulted by the courts, but academics don’t have any authority to curtail anyone’s rights. The fundamental concept here is that rights can only be touched after due process, hence why felons can have gun rights restricted.

“If you are so worried about the government taking away your rights, maybe you should learn what the government actually does first”
Nonsensical. Rights are literally everything the government can’t do to you. Doesn’t matter what they do or say they’re doing. By definition, rights take precedence over anything the government wants to do.

Answer 17

Opinion Owner

Man, everything just flew right over your head there, didn’t it?

Answer 18

AllThatSweetJazz

Or it flew over yours, who can rightly say?
Good thing free speech allows for the exploration of any and all opinions in order to try to make the determination, lest someone decide I'm too "deranged" to have free thought.

Answer 19

Lionman95 | 466 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

No because most of countries captioned in your picture were dictatorships. Germany in 1938 was no where from being comparable to the US now, neither was Russia in 1929. China was in 1930s already controlled by a communist socialist party.
Venezuela is also closer to a dictatorship than to a democracy. Elections there are faked and no international government acknowledges them.
So that your view of the US arguing what I don't want can't be true?

React

humanearth

3 mo
How is that answer the question
Lionman95

3 mo
These countries weren't or aren't free countries even if they didn't forbid guns. These countries were or are dictatorships where criticising the government could get you a death penalty.
Daniela1982

3 mo
@Lionman95 And why do you think they were dictatorships? Why do you think was the reason the Jews were exterminated? None had guns to fight back with as they were all confiscated. When you have nothing to protect yourself with you are a sitting duck.
Show All Show Less
Lionman95

3 mo
@Daniela1982 Weapons wouldn't have changed the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Firstly they wear a very small minority. The Jews weren't examinated because they had no weapons they were examinated because they were hated by at least the conservative part of German population back then. The Nazis were supported by a silence majority. Even if the Jews had weapons all the other people that hated would also have had weapons. The majority was against them including the police.
Nazi Germany was a dictatorship because since 1933 there was only one party was allowed by law, the parliament had no power and there were no further elections. In 1935 Jews were actively separated from the German society in so called Nuremberg laws.
Making fun or criticising the government was enough for a death penalty.
When Jewish shops or synagogues the police often stood by but didn't bother to take part or help the jews they just enjoyed themselves.
Daniela1982

3 mo
And as can be seen by the Warsaw Uprising when people had guns they could fight back. The Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps and death. Most probably didn't know they would be killed. But if I knew I would be killed I would at least take some with me than be like a lamb sent to slaughter.

Answer 20

humanearth

How is that answer the question

Answer 21

Lionman95

These countries weren't or aren't free countries even if they didn't forbid guns. These countries were or are dictatorships where criticising the government could get you a death penalty.

Answer 22

Daniela1982

@Lionman95 And why do you think they were dictatorships? Why do you think was the reason the Jews were exterminated? None had guns to fight back with as they were all confiscated. When you have nothing to protect yourself with you are a sitting duck.

Answer 23

Lionman95

@Daniela1982 Weapons wouldn't have changed the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Firstly they wear a very small minority. The Jews weren't examinated because they had no weapons they were examinated because they were hated by at least the conservative part of German population back then. The Nazis were supported by a silence majority. Even if the Jews had weapons all the other people that hated would also have had weapons. The majority was against them including the police.
Nazi Germany was a dictatorship because since 1933 there was only one party was allowed by law, the parliament had no power and there were no further elections. In 1935 Jews were actively separated from the German society in so called Nuremberg laws.
Making fun or criticising the government was enough for a death penalty.
When Jewish shops or synagogues the police often stood by but didn't bother to take part or help the jews they just enjoyed themselves.

Answer 24

Daniela1982

And as can be seen by the Warsaw Uprising when people had guns they could fight back. The Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps and death. Most probably didn't know they would be killed. But if I knew I would be killed I would at least take some with me than be like a lamb sent to slaughter.

Answer 25

goaded | 2.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

This Brit was alseep in bed in Georgia and got shot in the head this morning. He's dead.

If a country that has guns made illegal and removed from citizens, does that country still consider a free country?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-60088087

React

humanearth

3 mo
That does not answer the question
goaded

3 mo
Do you know how many intentional gun killings there were in the UK last year? 30. (That's 1 in 2 million population, or about the equivalent of 165 in the US.)

Being free of the fear of morons you can do nothing about killing you is an important freedom. And, guess what, the police and army are less likely to fire into unarmed crowds than armed ones.

Answer 26

humanearth

That does not answer the question

Answer 27

goaded

Do you know how many intentional gun killings there were in the UK last year? 30. (That's 1 in 2 million population, or about the equivalent of 165 in the US.)

Being free of the fear of morons you can do nothing about killing you is an important freedom. And, guess what, the police and army are less likely to fire into unarmed crowds than armed ones.

Answer 28

DaveToo | 796 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Obama also asked the media to compare the number of Americans killed through terrorist attacks in the last decade with the number of Americans who have died in gun violence. Using numbers from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, CNN reported that 316,545 people died by firearms on US soil from 2004 to 2013 – a thousand times more than 313 killed by terrorism.

That's our decade of gun violence. I don't care how many died in other countries. We don't need to disarm every American. We need tax and insurance laws for those enthusiasts that must have guns. Then when a gun is used in a crime, the legitimate gun owners will demand tougher laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

React

1 Person

Answer 29

Seangreen | 245 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 6

Well I'll tell you this about a free country it's not just about guns our sons are nice because that's the people's check and balance with the government. If your government can't trust you with Firearms you shouldn't trust your government with firearms. Freedom ain't free

React

Answer 30

Anonymous

Course it is you uneducated American mutt.

If you are so utterly pathetic to think guns = freedom you should get sterilized & go back to preschool as you likely contribute absolutely nothing of value to society.

React

10 People

humanearth

3 mo
Well, Little Miss Anonymous that wants to hide themselves. I disagree with you. See look at the photo closely. Look at what happening to countries that had their guns pulled from citizens Greece, Australia, England, and Venezuela currently.

They are having a totalitarian government taking over. Forced vaccines, Their government have total control over everything. One country is locking citizens up for not getting a vaccine, another is fining people 200 dollars a week, and in Venezuela you speak out against your leader you disappear.

So maybe you should rethink your views on freedom means to you.
Opinion Owner

3 mo
@humanearth - ROFL. People like you don't contribute anything of value to society and it's a damn shame the "great" American society made it illegal to sterilize people with mental issues in the 60-70s. That's how 'great" your country is, no better than the fucking Nazis.
humanearth

3 mo
Don't worry, you got your wish. With all the vaccines for COVID-19, everyone who got the shot will be faced with being sterilized, and it will reduce the human population by 60%.

Answer 31

humanearth

Well, Little Miss Anonymous that wants to hide themselves. I disagree with you. See look at the photo closely. Look at what happening to countries that had their guns pulled from citizens Greece, Australia, England, and Venezuela currently.

They are having a totalitarian government taking over. Forced vaccines, Their government have total control over everything. One country is locking citizens up for not getting a vaccine, another is fining people 200 dollars a week, and in Venezuela you speak out against your leader you disappear.

If a country that has guns made illegal and removed from citizens, does that country still consider a free country?

So maybe you should rethink your views on freedom means to you.

Answer 32

Opinion Owner

@humanearth - ROFL. People like you don't contribute anything of value to society and it's a damn shame the "great" American society made it illegal to sterilize people with mental issues in the 60-70s. That's how 'great" your country is, no better than the fucking Nazis.

Answer 33

humanearth

Don't worry, you got your wish. With all the vaccines for COVID-19, everyone who got the shot will be faced with being sterilized, and it will reduce the human population by 60%.

Answer 34

NathanDavis | 1.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

well, the government of that country will feel more free to impose further decisions on their people, that's for sure

React

2 People

humanearth

3 mo
Bingo

Answer 35

humanearth

Bingo

Answer 36

Avicenna | 4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

There is, as you point out, a huge correlation with a reduction of freedom when private firearm ownership is banned. The UK, Canada, Germany, and especially Australia are examples of this. Banning firearms is a pretty totalitarian act, and a regime that does that will usually feel free to enact other measures that restrict basic freedoms.

React

4 People

Answer 37

RolandCuthbert | 4.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Yawn. . .

You guys post the same thing every other week.

If someone says you can't have an assault rifle, you are somehow disarmed, even as you have 45 other weapons.

React

Answer 38

Anonymous

In a society where guns have been implemented for so long, completely removing them can cause damage because it’s the norm and people are used to having them to protect themselves. But in a society that is used to not having them like Canada or Italy (where the crime rates are quite low) it should just stay that way.
Tldr: if something works for a country then keep it that way. Don’t change what’s not broken.

React

Answer 39

ChrisMaster69 | 2.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Well the UK has not made guns illegal.

They have made specific ones illegal.

We are definitely free as most other democracies

React

AllThatSweetJazz

3 mo
UK doesn’t have free speech for starters...
ChrisMaster69

3 mo
@AllThatSweetJazz but that’s really over hyped.

We also don’t have to teach kids when they very first start school what to do if there is an active shooter at school.

Free speech, or school shootings.
We also don’t have the same level of fuckwits that believe things like flat earth or micro chips in vaccines etc.

Free speech is not all it’s cracked up to be, it’s usually just a vehicle for extremists.
AllThatSweetJazz

3 mo
"We also don’t have to teach kids when they very first start school what to do if there is an active shooter at school."
Neither does the US.

"Free speech, or school shootings.
We also don’t have the same level of fuckwits that believe things like flat earth or micro chips in vaccines etc."
I would bet money you have zero authority to speak about microchips, vaccines, or science.
Just because it sounds absurd to ignorant normies doesn't mean anything. We protect the dissident precisely for the possibility that they might be correct or can reflect a problem.

"Free speech is not all it’s cracked up to be, it’s usually just a vehicle for extremists."
lol there a parroted opinion rather than a well thought-through one. It's brilliant and fantastic, because *definitionally* it's a vehicle for reason far more than extremism. The absence of freedom of speech is not the absence of extremism, it just makes the speech more extreme and the people more dangerous and harder to reach.
Show All Show Less
ChrisMaster69

3 mo
@AllThatSweetJazz is the US a polarised society?

😂😂😂😂 yeah.

How’s gun ownership helping that.

Was it’s seat of democracy attached by a violent mob and ransacked like would happen in a tin pot dictatorship?

Yes it was.
AllThatSweetJazz

3 mo
The US is polarized because of the people who are anti-freedom, not because of a problem with freedom. The UK may not seem as polarized, but that could just be because all the cancer people won -- that's not a preferable scenario. The polarization can in that way be an indicator of the health of a society's liberty. Absence of polarization just means homogeneity, not healthy liberty.

"Was it’s seat of democracy attached by a violent mob"
Because it's failures being democratic and liberal, yes. Being more illiberal is not a solution to complaints about government tyranny.
ChrisMaster69

3 mo
@AllThatSweetJazz yeah it’s a failed state, people against people, attacks on the seat of government, people openly and seriously talking about civil war.
You can keep your free speech if it means that, oh and racism and homophobic views, crazy religious views.
Free speech but no freedom of choice, no freedom of expression.
AllThatSweetJazz

3 mo
"yeah it’s a failed state, people against people, attacks on the seat of government, people openly and seriously talking about civil war.
You can keep your free speech if it means that"
It obviously doesn't mean that, you're just being stupid on purpose to pretend like it's a point.

"Free speech but no freedom of choice, no freedom of expression."
It's one more thing than you have. I don't see how that's supposed to be a criticism... like yes, you're right they do have it better than you... okay.
Regardless of whatever else you want to bitch about, they have a superior constitution to you.
You're looking at the nation with superior foundations and principles and criticizing it for an eb.
So was Brexit super chill and totally not polarized?
What about the collapse of the empire? Did the lack of free speech and liberty totally save the most powerful empire in the world from shriveling up back to it's native land?
You trying to equate the absence of liberty with stability when they don't connect is a distraction from the lack of upside to your absence of rights. You've bitched about a lot of stuff yet they objectively have more rights than you lack an argument as to why their superior rights would be a negative.
ChrisMaster69

3 mo
@AllThatSweetJazz oh I am more than happy to accept UK short comings.

The thing is you have Free Speech and that’s it.

It’s invariably free for straight white Christians.

I really would not big up the US that much.

Not with its history of hate and bigotry

Brexit, it was at the time, also we don’t have the same level of fuckwits polarising the nation.
It was people across the political spectrum both for and against Brexit.

Answer 40

AllThatSweetJazz

UK doesn’t have free speech for starters...

Answer 41

ChrisMaster69

@AllThatSweetJazz but that’s really over hyped.

We also don’t have to teach kids when they very first start school what to do if there is an active shooter at school.

Free speech, or school shootings.
We also don’t have the same level of fuckwits that believe things like flat earth or micro chips in vaccines etc.

Free speech is not all it’s cracked up to be, it’s usually just a vehicle for extremists.

Answer 42

AllThatSweetJazz

"We also don’t have to teach kids when they very first start school what to do if there is an active shooter at school."
Neither does the US.

"Free speech, or school shootings.
We also don’t have the same level of fuckwits that believe things like flat earth or micro chips in vaccines etc."
I would bet money you have zero authority to speak about microchips, vaccines, or science.
Just because it sounds absurd to ignorant normies doesn't mean anything. We protect the dissident precisely for the possibility that they might be correct or can reflect a problem.

"Free speech is not all it’s cracked up to be, it’s usually just a vehicle for extremists."
lol there a parroted opinion rather than a well thought-through one. It's brilliant and fantastic, because *definitionally* it's a vehicle for reason far more than extremism. The absence of freedom of speech is not the absence of extremism, it just makes the speech more extreme and the people more dangerous and harder to reach.

Answer 43

ChrisMaster69

@AllThatSweetJazz is the US a polarised society?

😂😂😂😂 yeah.

How’s gun ownership helping that.

Was it’s seat of democracy attached by a violent mob and ransacked like would happen in a tin pot dictatorship?

Yes it was.

Answer 44

AllThatSweetJazz

The US is polarized because of the people who are anti-freedom, not because of a problem with freedom. The UK may not seem as polarized, but that could just be because all the cancer people won -- that's not a preferable scenario. The polarization can in that way be an indicator of the health of a society's liberty. Absence of polarization just means homogeneity, not healthy liberty.

"Was it’s seat of democracy attached by a violent mob"
Because it's failures being democratic and liberal, yes. Being more illiberal is not a solution to complaints about government tyranny.

Answer 45

ChrisMaster69

@AllThatSweetJazz yeah it’s a failed state, people against people, attacks on the seat of government, people openly and seriously talking about civil war.
You can keep your free speech if it means that, oh and racism and homophobic views, crazy religious views.
Free speech but no freedom of choice, no freedom of expression.

Answer 46

AllThatSweetJazz

"yeah it’s a failed state, people against people, attacks on the seat of government, people openly and seriously talking about civil war.
You can keep your free speech if it means that"
It obviously doesn't mean that, you're just being stupid on purpose to pretend like it's a point.

"Free speech but no freedom of choice, no freedom of expression."
It's one more thing than you have. I don't see how that's supposed to be a criticism... like yes, you're right they do have it better than you... okay.
Regardless of whatever else you want to bitch about, they have a superior constitution to you.
You're looking at the nation with superior foundations and principles and criticizing it for an eb.
So was Brexit super chill and totally not polarized?
What about the collapse of the empire? Did the lack of free speech and liberty totally save the most powerful empire in the world from shriveling up back to it's native land?
You trying to equate the absence of liberty with stability when they don't connect is a distraction from the lack of upside to your absence of rights. You've bitched about a lot of stuff yet they objectively have more rights than you lack an argument as to why their superior rights would be a negative.

Answer 47

ChrisMaster69

@AllThatSweetJazz oh I am more than happy to accept UK short comings.

The thing is you have Free Speech and that’s it.

It’s invariably free for straight white Christians.

I really would not big up the US that much.

Not with its history of hate and bigotry

Brexit, it was at the time, also we don’t have the same level of fuckwits polarising the nation.
It was people across the political spectrum both for and against Brexit.

Answer 48

jshm2 | 6.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

America imprisons, enslaves and kills more of it's population than any other country.

It's far from a "Free" country.

React

humanearth

3 mo
I hear you, and you're right, but that don't answer my question
Avicenna

3 mo
Don't bother thinking you can have any discussion with a leftist European

Answer 49

humanearth

I hear you, and you're right, but that don't answer my question

Answer 50

Avicenna

Don't bother thinking you can have any discussion with a leftist European

Answer 51

purplepoppy | 2.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Guns don't give you freedom, they take it away. If I can't do something because my gun toting neighbour disappoves that is not freedom.

React

8 People

Answer 52

Snakeyes7 | 4.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

When you remove the means of which citizens can defend themselves, the government can do whatever they want to them.

React

Answer 53

Gal67

Xper 5

The post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after the fact, therefore because of the fact) fallacy. If B follows A, it's not necessarily because A came first, or because A caused B to happen.
Guns never solve problems, they only cause them.

React

2 People

Gal67

3 mo
I didn't answer your question. Yes, that country is still free if guns have been taken from the hands of those who can't be trusted to have them.

Answer 54

Gal67

I didn't answer your question. Yes, that country is still free if guns have been taken from the hands of those who can't be trusted to have them.

Answer 55

slatyb | 2.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

In a way they are more free. They are free from being killed by mentally ill people with guns.

React

1 Person

humanearth

3 mo
Really, did you not read the photo I posted. Here it is again. Take a real close look at it.

Answer 56

humanearth

Really, did you not read the photo I posted. Here it is again. Take a real close look at it.

If a country that has guns made illegal and removed from citizens, does that country still consider a free country?

Answer 57

nawtee_me | 344 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

When only criminals have guns? Nope that would not be free...

React

Answer 58

tartaarsaus | 7.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

So when exactly did the governments of basically all OECD countries except a few commit genocide or persecute its own population?

React

2 People

Answer 59

Anonymous

yes, guns are dangerous tools. What do ordinary citizens do with guns? a psychopath comes out, takes a gun, shoots whatever he wants. is this a good thing?

React

4 People

Answer 60

Anonymous

And how many of the same people think the earth is overpopulated? And the population needs to be drastically reduced? (For climate change, of course) I wonder what the motivation could be to disarm people. 🤔

React

1 Person

If a country that has guns made illegal and removed from citizens, does that country still consider a free country?

Most Helpful Girls

Most Helpful Guys

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes