Would U rather live with the inherent dangers of freedom or the risk averse safety of subjugation?

Discussion in 'Member Casual Chat' started by Sahba*, Feb 7, 2019.

  1. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the difference between dangerous freedom, and anarchy? True freedom means lawlessness. That is the antithesis of the nanny State.
     
  2. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would [you] rather live with the inherent dangers of freedom or the risk averse safety of subjugation?

    What I'm missing is how the question lends itself to any kind of discussion. There is no shortage of people who prefer slavery to freedom, but it's hard to feature any of them coming out with a straight up case for slavery, especially seeing they see the security that slave masters promise as freedom.
     
  3. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pure delusion.

    Do people actually believe such crackpot nonsense?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  4. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Perhaps not thinking in such literal terms and understanding that we are taking Jefferson's words to Madison (in the 18th-19th century) into account here. :)

    - Safe Subjugation today would be representative of gov. continuing to mushroom their top down 'nanny state'; where they manage much of the decisions in our everyday lives, have increasing oversight in regulating us (if U're unsure of examples ask) - while ever constricting the ability of the people to ever stand up and say enough is enough (btw what tangible category of tools does it come down to in the end)
    - Dangerous Freedom today would be representative of a free people who recognize that the 'authorities' can't be at all places at all times & it is incumbent on them & ultimately their responsibility to be the last line of defense in ensuring the safety of themselves & what is 'theirs'. Recognizing that without the right to legally keep and bear arms all of the other rights they enjoy can be stripped away. Recognizing that the 2nd A is literally the key cornerstone of this nation & without it there is no possibility of standing up to an encroching / onerous government & saying 'U crossed the line & we're not going let U go there'. The 'dangerous' part would be the abuse of firearms within society.

    Obviously the Constitution is clear on the issue, however, NY, for instance, is whittling away at people's constitutional rights & that is the clear trajectory of the Democratic party.
     
  5. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously it isn't or it wouldn't have taken over 200 years for the SC to rule on it. And then it still doesn't say there is an unlimited right. In fact, there is no explicit right to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment only states that there is a right to bear arms. That could refer to guns distributed and controlled by the government. And given the close association of the right to bear arms, with the need for a well-regulated militia, it more likely was referring to entities like the National Guard.

    Why don't you answer my question?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  6. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    :) Wow ... 1st off if you're hazy on the ratification of documents dealing w/ 'militia' w/in the constitutional amendments it is probably because it has been amended a bunch O times. Madison (the guy Jefferson is corresponding to in the OP text) - had his thoughts on the issue, do I have to link them for U?

    - Wasn't aware that Cuomo's NY has been unchanged for the past "200 years" & the SCOTUS was just lazy getting around to it. Could it be that NY (& many other states) have been pushing da' evolved from what it once was....?

    - 'Right to bear arms', (expressly as a safeguard against tyranny) U are now contesting as only being applicable to "arms given to the citizenry by the state" ROTFL ... not going to dignify that w/ a response. Perhaps U should 'bone up a bit' on US history & our constitution, lol.
     
  7. saveliberty

    saveliberty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps you could use the Patriot Act as an example of freedom versus safety?

    Personally, I think we gave up too much liberty and legal protections in favor of safety on that one.
     
    Grau and Sahba* like this.
  8. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then pointing out a specific flaw in any of it won't be a problem, so get the hell on with it already.
    Not interested, as neither freedom nor slavery were invented by the Founding Fathers. What interests me is why you think the question in the thread title lends itself to intelligent discussion.
     
  9. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    These are the VERY issues increasingly presented to us in ea. & every election cycle!

    If you "yguy" are incapable of accepting the overarching parallels between the 'connotative' use of the word 'subjugation / slavery' with today's top down gov. model (presented by the Dems) & the push toward globalism - well that's your issue.

    Freedom was "not invented by our founders" good for you. :) Do you know what we call those freedoms, lol. ?

    What makes the debate between 'our relative freedoms' and 'our relative loss of freedoms' so important is that it is a tenuous balancing act for all of us. Parenting, finance, academia, tenant's association etc. etc.

    It just so happens that our very way of life, our society, our nation is inextricably at play here when it comes down to the preservation of personal freedoms (enshrined for us w/in the 2nd. Amendment) VS. the heralding of Socialistic ideals that engender a shift toward - tipping the balance to Gov. (oversight, regulation and infringement etc.) 'Top Down' governance (figurative slavery & subjugation).
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  10. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Honestly, I think that y'all get the gist of the argument & it's a wast of time hashing out every picayune irrelevancy here!

    Are we safer as a society if more good guys choose to have guns & are more prevalent within society than not.

    The assertion that our society might be safer by limiting good guys from having guns (on the off chance that bad guys might also be limited) + (that this would impact specifically those driven to utilize guns illicitly) + (that society would be safer as a result) Is essentially the flip side of the 'Big Gov.' "safety" vs. the personal freedoms argument.

    'For those that don't read so good'
    upload_2019-2-10_16-35-7.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  11. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't say. :roll:
    The parallels are obvious, but I have no idea what that has to do with anything I said.
    What have I got to do with it?
    Umm...not freedoms?
    Such talk would have been more in place in the founding era, when Americans still had an intuitive understanding of freedom. We've devolved way the hell past that point in the last half century or so.
     
  12. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Just a thought 'yguy', perhaps U could not parse & uncontexually " " snippets of my text, to suit your individual assertions. Rather underline, with the body of my text, the parts that U take issue with. :)
     
  13. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As long as you can prove yo the satisfaction of the government that you are good guy then fine.


    But we will not take your word for it
     
  14. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Excuse me!!! Lol, we don't have to prove jack S--T! U are assumed innocent until They prove otherwise... Form 4473 is cursory paperwork & that is fine - but that's the extent of effort we the people have to do (2' max) usually to fill out.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  15. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me get this straight . You want to eliminate all background checks and all restrictions on where you can carry a gun....right,?
     
  16. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RULES:

    1. ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WEBSITE
    If you don't like my posting style today, you won't like it tomorrow either. 8)
     
  17. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody wants Sharia law in the U.S. except for a minority of Muslim Americans.

    Both sides want to curtail some freedoms, while giving more freedom in other areas. It's a matter of perspective. Personally, I feel more restricted by what liberals want restricted. It effects my everyday life, but I'm also a heterosexual married man. If I were a gay man, I might think differently.
     
    Sahba* likes this.

Share This Page