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

[humanearth]

Updates

+1 y

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

[Razp_Sorbet]

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.

[TonyMetal___86]

Are you a history teacher? 🤣

[humanearth]

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

[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.

[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!

[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...

[InYourHead]

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

[Anonymous]

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?

[humanearth]

I must have missed this post, your 100% right

[Opinion Owner]

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.

[Fuentes]

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

[humanearth]

Bingo

[DaveToo]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 😒

[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.

[Opinion Owner]

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

[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.

[NathanDavis]

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

[humanearth]

Bingo

[Lionman95]

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?

[humanearth]

How is that answer the question

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Avicenna]

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.

[goaded]

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

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

[humanearth]

That does not answer the question

[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.

[Seangreen]

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

[purplepoppy]

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.

[RolandCuthbert]

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.

[Gal67]

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.

[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.

[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.

[jshm2]

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

It's far from a "Free" country.

[humanearth]

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

[Avicenna]

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

[slatyb]

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

[humanearth]

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

[ChrisMaster69]

Well the UK has not made guns illegal.

They have made specific ones illegal.

We are definitely free as most other democracies

[AllThatSweetJazz]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[tartaarsaus]

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

[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?

[Anonymous]

We are much more free than the USA, and we don't need guns either.

[humanearth]

What do you have then to stop your government from tyranny

[Adam1978]

It's quite simple, if you have a country full of people that doesn't like violence, there is no people to recruit to oppress those people from that group, so the government will not have those treats.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Regardless of whatever country you're talking about, that's obviously not true.

[XXblack88]

Nope Countries where gun laws are stricter there higher % in stabbings.

[goaded]

But a lower number of deaths and suicides overall.

[XXblack88]

@goaded I rather live in a country where guns aren't ban.

[goaded]

I've never lived in a country where guns are banned. UK, Germany, Australia all allow firearms if you've got a good reason for one. "Everybody else has got one and that scares me" is not a good reason.

[Adam1978]

I rather get stabbed then shot. So it's an improvement.

[XXblack88]

@Adam1978 How is that an improvement?

[goaded]

You're three times more likely to survive it, for a start.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

I’d rather shoot the knife attacker.

[Adam1978]

The reason he has a knife is because he can't get a gun. Otherwise you will be in a fire fight. And since they are so deadly it shoot first don't risk waiting. It not good to be the other guy. So you would be shot and walk around being afraid, knowing that anyone can if they like open fire on you. But a knife person you can fight or flee with much better odds, even if you are unarmed.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 I'd rather have the gun to shoot the shooter. It should be higher stakes, the more dangerous the weapon the more equalized the situation is. I have no interest in nor think it's reasonable for society to expect me to defend myself with fists. If I'm in the right, then there's no reason why I shouldn't be entitled to use extreme deadly force at the very least as a deterrent. Good people have no reason to be feared, bad people will be outgunned. This is all just absurd musings anyway, the reality is that nothing could actually prevent criminals from getting guns with the advent of 3D printing. The only option is for everyone to have guns -- as is their right.

[Adam1978]

I disagree I rather fight a bad odds fist fight then a fair fire fight. Because the first I probably lose but I will be alive and have learned a lesson. The second has to big odds of me ending up dead. Because the fight will not be fair and we might both be dead at the end of it. You can't dodge bullet like in movies and since the bad guy always will have initiative. Your most likely fucked. And if the criminal isn't alone your certainly fucked. It's better to learn self-defense. Because that is something you always have with you, while markmanship requires you to have access to a gun and have the distance and time to use it.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 Now tell women they're expected to fight off rapists with their fists, and they're wrong for having an equalizer.

Then there's also that it's not a matter of guns vs guns or fists vs fists. The actual choices are guns vs guns or fists vs guns. That's all. If you like your odds better with fists then I'd bet the criminals do as well. Give everyone a gun and let the criminals decide how they like their odds.

[Adam1978]

You don't do fist vs gun unless your desperate and trained. And can fool the person close enough so you can disarm him. Give them what they want instead. It's easier to replace than your life. You release that majority of rapes are done by family and partners right? Not out in the streets. There won't be a chance to add a gun into the mix there. So yes women should learn how to fight dirty. Wait for a opportunity and go for their family jewels. But best of all be better picker of who they select. If they go for the bad boys why are they surpriced when no doesn't cut it?

[humanearth]

Do you guys know how easy it is to make a simple crude gun made from scrap metal? Plus, it only takes an hour or less to make one. The hard part is making bullets, but not impossible.

[Adam1978]

Yeah but let some dumb asses build old style guns that risk blow up in their hands. It's better than having real guns in their hands. And 3d printing anything except plastic isn't common outside factories and labs. And like you said you still need bullets. Anything that makes it harder reduce amount of guns out there. It's not like it will be zero.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@humanearth
Even better is to buy a small 3D printer and print a gun. Things like this are going to be the norm, especially for criminals. Technology means it will require increasingly authoritarian state control. The only right way to go about it is for everyone have it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9

[Adam1978]

You can't bundle criminals into a group and expect a common behavior. It will be more common when it becomes more common to 3d print at home. But it is still less risky than a proffessional made gun.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 I mean, the only thing stopping people is to buy the printer for a few hundred dollars. Whether this becomes prevalent sooner or later doesn't really matter, this is the factor that will necessitate expanding gun rights.

[Adam1978]

I am actually in favor for 3d printing stuff, that is perfect for retaining parts for old stuff and keeping them alive. It's also a requirement for space expansion. You can't expect to transport or building up factories everywhere. I don't see how it would require new gun laws. Just because you can make something, it doesn't need to be legal. So if you print a gun, you suddenly make yourself into a criminal since you now have a unlicensed gun. Not likely to get caught if it just sit at home unless someone is monitor the site you downloaded the blueprint from. If you designed it yourself there is no risk in it self. It's not different from building your own car and it's fine until you try to drive it on public roads.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 "I don't see how it would require new gun laws. Just because you can make something, it doesn't need to be legal."
There won't be more guns laws, there will be fewer, and the reason is because any restrictions become increasingly unjustified with this technology.

[Adam1978]

So what would be removed? I don't see any element that should be removed. You should still not be allowed to create one unless you meet the requirement to own one. Or carry one in public. An shooting range might need to forbid home made weapons because of the risk they pose to other around if they malfunction. So I see more rules not less.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 "You should still not be allowed to create one unless you meet the requirement to own one. Or carry one in public."
The only requirement is don't be a violent felon. Otherwise there aren't any requirements for those things, owning, carrying, or printing.

"An shooting range might need to forbid home made weapons because of the risk they pose to other around if they malfunction."
They have no reason to believe it would malfunction anymore than any other weapon. Printed guns aren't the rickety flimsy garbage people like to image them to be.

Where there are restrictions, they will go away because there's no justification for them, they have always been framed as needed to keep guns away from bad people, but if bad people have no issue getting guns then even that excuse goes away.

[humanearth]

You sound like a bunch of gun grabing fools. Why not give everyone guns. Then see who lives and dies. No gun control at all.

[Adam1978]

Well we have different laws, I am not allowed to own guns, unlike I get a weapon license, it doesn't matter how I get my hands on it.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 And that is going to be increasingly unjustified, that's my point. Technology will push it more toward one extreme or the other, either you have increasing authoritarianism to try to control it, or people have full freedoms with firearms.

[Adam1978]

Not really, 3d printing just makes things easier, if I really wanted I could build a gun without it. We have plenty of illegal things that anyone can do, like stealing. Anyone can do that and it's not even hard for most things. We all just agree it's the wrong thing to do so most of us don't do it. Same can be said about making and carrying and using guns. It's wrong so we don't do it unless we are desperate.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 I disagree. Printing is a completely different beast. You can make a shitty thing that can fire a round, but it would is no where near comparable to the ease and effectiveness of a printer and a schematic file producing the equivalent to finely machined parts.

But again, there's no justification for why anyone shouldn't be able to have guns. It's an absurd conclusion for people to decide that making, carrying, or using guns would be bad. As I've said, it's unjustified. There aren't valid reasons for it -- making it absurd.

[Adam1978]

So if you can build a nuke you should be able to have it too? Or what about regular bombs? They are forbidden for a reason, for everyone safety.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 "They are forbidden for a reason, for everyone safety."
I disagree. That's the excuse one side likes to make for guns. Specifically their reasoning is fear -- society will constrain lawful citizens not because of some transgression against another person, but out of mere fear. That's really what it is. What actual relationship that has to safety is a different story.

As for the specifics of bombs, people are allowed to buy and use explosives. In the US, you used to be able to buy dynamite at hardware stores in the 50's and 60's. But even today, you can still get binary explosives for personal use without any licensing. Just like with guns, the only restriction is that you can't be a felon. I don't know where to set the upper limit, but it's not with guns.

[Adam1978]

Really the people of US is yhe country that fear things the most. While if you look in most European countries we don't have that fear. So your opinion is build upon fear. I actually think it's good that you can't easily get your hands on guns and dynamite. Because the less risk some nut job get them in their hands. And that means we need to spend less time and resources on keeping track of them. Only people in the construction business has a reason to have dynamite after all. So requiring education and license before they can buy and use it is good. It's the same reasons you have a lock on your door, it's not to stop every criminal, it's to stop majority of people to get in.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 “While if you look in most European countries we don't have that fear.”
Any country with the gun laws has the fear, it’s literally a manifestation of it. If you didn’t have the fear, there wouldn’t be the gun laws. The calm you refer to is the people’s comfort with authoritarian governments that soothe their fear. That’s different from being a trusting, liberty-minded person.

“So your opinion is build upon fear.”
No, it’s built on individual rights and liberty.

“I actually think it's good that you can't easily get your hands on guns and dynamite. Because the less risk some nut job get them in their hands”
*There’s the fear*. That’s literally what I was just talking about. Don’t say the US fears things the most and that my opinion is based on fear and then own up to the *exact* psychology I described before.

“And that means we need to spend less time and resources on keeping track of them.”
No, regulation means more resources. The least resources would be to not have any restrictions whatsoever – which would be totally free.

“Only people in the construction business has a reason to have dynamite after all.”
No there are others, but that thinking shows how people can get screwed because others decided they knew better.

[Adam1978]

No it's not its the natural state of things for us, if the government ever go that bad we will not follow those rules. It will be civil war. So we don't fear it because we have the laws. Besides the government is us in a more broaden sense. I could go that route in life if I wanted, no need to be rich or anything. Unlike your system that is completely corrupt by the elites.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 "No it's not its the natural state of things for us, if the government ever go that bad we will not follow those rules."
It is the natural state though, these countries don't really have free speech or many of these other important liberties. Authoritarian state doesn't need to be kicking in your door or oppressing people boldly. The effective tyrannical state doesn't need to force you because it convinces people to subjugate themselves willingly. Authoritarian state get people to beg for them to take over and applaud them when they do. e. g "Let us keep you safe from all the guns" or "we'll keep you safe from the virus".

"So we don't fear it because we have the laws."
That's just re-wording what I said.
You have the authoritarian laws in the first place because of the fear.
The authoritarian laws soothe that fear. So yes, saying you don't fear it because you have the laws is people being soothed by the government control. It just sounds like you're making my point for me.

"Besides the government is us in a more broaden sense."
That's the attitude too few people have. Most don't see like that and treat them more like an authority meant to take care of all their problems, not an extension of their own participation in society.

"I could go that route in life if I wanted, no need to be rich or anything. Unlike your system that is completely corrupt by the elites."
I don't care where you're from, it's corrupt. Doesn't matter where anyone is from, it's all corrupt by default. Keeping guns from people is it's own kind of corruption. But corruption is not an argument against me anyway, it's just deflecting from the fact the US has the better fundamental rules in it's constitution. It doesn't matter who is in charge or how corrupt they are, the point is that the ideal is brilliant independent of people in charge.

[Adam1978]

Well you can't see it from our view point because your to stuck in your own. So you failed. The gun laws doesn't supress us it liberate us from having to deal with a lot of shit we otherwise has to deal with. If I really want a gun I can get one. It comes with responsibility and having a gun safe. I need to prove I can be responsible with it and go through proper training while doing so. I have done my military service and I have weapon training. We only want guns in the hands of people who needs them and knows how to use them. And I support this decision and I don't want it changed.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Adam1978 “The gun laws doesn't supress us it liberate us from having to deal with a lot of shit”
You still seem to be missing that point is that it’s exactly what the sheep would say. You’re just deep in it and don’t want to see past it. It *definitionally* doesn’t liberate you. Understand? You *objectively* have the fear and have let it govern you. This is not a matter of my opinion, it’s the necessary logical consequence of the axioms you yourself stimulated to. Given that three times you’ve restated the answer that supports my position rather than dismiss it, we can drop the point.

“We only want guns in the hands of people who needs them and knows how to use them. And I support this decision and I don't want it changed.”
And that’s the authoritarian attitude. Look, you can just say yes you want the authoritarian control of people and we can leave it at that. But you don’t get to control people while claiming not to be authoritarian. Just own it dude. You already like the ideas, so don’t get hung up on the label.

[Adam1978]

If people share a common belief, it's not oppression. It is if the minority wants it. A sheep don't want a wolf among them. Sure they oppress wolf freedom by doing so but it's for the majority of the sheep intrest to not harbor wolves among them. I am sure the wolf would love to be around the sheep and just take their pick. I am not brainwashed sheep who follow what the government wants. I use logic and apply it to the large picture. The army is us, the government is us, there is no chance for a military takeover in sweden. They couldn't rally under such a union nor would they have the resources to do so. Our culture simply doesn't make such actions possible. Sweden simply cannot go to war unless someone attack us. And then they can't win, just temporarily hold it. I don't see how you guys don't see that you basically lost every war because of it. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Kuwait. We have been in peace for over 200 years and since we removed the power from the king, there has not been any wars and I prefer that this tradition continues. I don't want a president nor do I want a king. No single person should have that much influence.

[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. 🤔

[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.

[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.



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

[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.

[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%.

[Snakeyes7]

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

[EnglishEuropean]

Freedom is relative. An absence of laws isn't freedom, it's anarchy.

[nawtee_me]

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

[anylolone]

Nope.

[humanearth]

Bingo

[fireforeffect]

Hell no!!!

[humanearth]

Bingo

[Pterodon]

Fuck no

[FunkyMonkee]

Of course not!!

[noohair]

Not in my view.