Originally posted by Gromle
The thing I dont understand is what kind of freedom does owning a gun give you?
What freedom does the americans have that the average european dont?
It is not so much a direct connection between guns and freedom. It’s more of an indirect connection.
One of the basic tenets of a free person is the right to defend themselves. If you do not have the right to defend yourself, and your life, then your
life is meaningless because someone else who has authority, could deprive you of your life any time they want. The right to defend your life means you
can be safe in your own existence, no mater who may want you gone. Be that the government, the criminals, and any other highly powerful person or
The constitution lays out the rights that are self evident. A person or state that is deprived of all weapons is defenseless. Someone who is
defenseless is at the mercy of other people that have weapons. Without the ability to defend yourself, you have no freedom.
A free person has the right to bear weapons to protect themselves, their family, and friends.
The weapons/arms that the person shale have the right to bear is not stipulated. That is because they include all weapons that a person may use to
effect in his own defense, or the defense of others. That includes knives, clubs, chemical, arrows, or guns.
Weapons that are considered “personal” weapons, are the weapons that the 2nd amendment is most designed to protect. One of the most effective
personal weapons of the modern world is a GUN! It trumps all other personal weapons. And when someone comes at you with a gun, the only thing that you
can reasonably use to combat him, is your own gun.
So, the gun holds a special place in that continuum. If you are not allowed to use a gun to defend yourself, then you basically have no defense
because the person that tried to deprive you of your life will probably be using a gun. And in that situation, you have no defense, so you have been
deprived of your right to self defense.
Other larger arms and weapons systems do not fall under the 2nd because they are to wide in effect to be used against a person attacking you, or a
group of people attacking you. You would no longer be defending yourself, you would be launching an indiscriminate attack on innocent bystanders.
That is why mace should be protected by the 2nd, but nerve gas should not.
That is why semi autos should be protected, but full autos are kind of outside that bound. Fully automatic weapons are generally used to
indiscriminately spray bullets at everyone, while semi autos are the most effective for laying aimed fire on an enemy.
It all depends on what threat a person may find themselves presented with, in day to day life.
If criminals start using armored tanks to rob people, then RPGs may be a perfectly applicable weapon under the 2nd . Until that time comes, not so
And the weapons protected, will change with time. If a new, more powerful, personal weapon is invented that can be used to defend yourself. Then
it’s possession by people should be reasonably expected to be protected under the 2nd. That is why they used the ambiguous term “arms” instead
of stating what individual items are protected. Because what people classify as “arms” will change with time.
Right now, Guns just happen to be the top of the list.