(November 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: One of the things I still fail to understand (as was pointed out in the OP and by numerous others in discussion I have read before), is how a gun is what determines if a society if free or not. This sounds like nothing more than just plain old bad logic. There are plenty of countries where its citizens are free who have either limited access to guns or very strict gun laws, and they are in no danger of losing their freedom.
Freedom is not about an armed society, it is about an informed electorate. If it ever comes down to needing a gun to get your freedom back, it is because you fucked up with your vote.
In any event, in case it isn't obvious, I am pro-legislation and I guess if you must label me, then I am more inclined to be "anti-gun", although I would hesitate to consider myself against them, just against the ease with which one can attain them, the lack of training and accountability that should accompany the operation of something designed to kill, and the fact that there are no inherent restrictions that prevent the mentally unstable (or those who are likely to become mentally unstable) from attaining a firearm.
If the government can take your guns away, then they can take away everything else you have. When Ferdinand Marcos became dictator of the Philippines, the first thing I did was order everyone to turn their guns in. He justified this by saying it was to keep the country safe from terrorism. The biggest mistake you can make is believing that something like that won't happen here.
Democracy won't solve anything. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
No amount of legislation will keep criminals from obtaining guns. Did banning drugs keep people from getting drugs?
