Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[Fullquiver]

So, do you have any explanation why the conservative/libertarian CATO institute characterizes both as freer than the US?

Do you have any personal experiences with living in those counties or speaking with citizens of those countries to base your conclusions on?

Any of our HT Canadian friends care to comment on their supposed lack of freedom?

Nope I don't care to. I do know plenty of people who live around the world and I have lived outside of the US. I'm not sure what metrics these institutes use and don't care about that or whatever you think. Just calling them how I see em.. You need not agree..

However I would say that we are trading and have been trading away our freedoms and liberties for the allusions of safety and wealth for far too long..

 

[VikingsGuy]

Looks like folks in NYC better hope that 2A stays strong. They will likely need it.

New York City Lawmakers Approve $1 Billion Cut From NYPD Budget; Protesters Say It Still Falls Short

City Council Speaker Corey Johnson said he stands with the protesters and was also disappointed, saying he is committed to “holding the mayor’s feet on the fire on this and continue to work for reform.”

“I wanted us to go deeper. I wanted us to take larger head count reductions. I wanted a true hiring freeze. I wanted us to cancel addition classes. But this is a budget process that involves the mayor, who would not budge on these items,”

New York City Lawmakers Approve $1 Billion Cut From NYPD Budget; Protesters Say It Still Falls Short

Protesters have been demanding cuts to the NYPD's nearly $6 billion spending in favor of education and social services to address he root of what drives people to crime.

newyork.cbslocal.com

Lots of window dressing and noise on both sides. 40% of the "cut" is just moving in-school officers under the Dept of Ed budget. After the actual $600MM cut the NYPD budget is still bigger than it was in circa 2012.

 

[Panda Bear]

Yes I would say that Canada nor Finland are free.. There are no guarantees left of free speech in our neighbors to the north. I am not exactly familiar with the laws in Finland but I highly doubt that any resemblance of "freedom" in most Northern European countries resembles what our freedoms look like..

Why do you say this ?

we do have freedom of speech, however it does not include, Hate, obscenity, defamation type speech or violence----- masked as freedom of speech ,unless it is on private property

I certainly do not like all our gun and hunting laws, but I do feel our Indians have a bit better shake, especially if you live and work in one of our territories. However, our indians as well a your indians CAN obtain an education in a field of their choosing and find work in that field as well. In fact we get a lot of free stuff and opportunities compared to the white man, and I will bet it is the same in your country.

To many people spend more time whining about what they dont have than working toward improving themselves and I say that as one of the minority race. Did I observe and even experience racism and sexism---YES, but I did not wallow in it. In my humble opinion if those people who are currently tearing down some cities in the United States, would get a job and help build those cities, everybody, including them would be better off.

 

[BigHornRam]

Lots of window dressing and noise on both sides. 40% of the "cut" is just moving in-school officers under the Dept of Ed budget. After the actual $600MM cut the NYPD budget is still bigger than it was in circa 2012.

Both sides, meaning establishment left (Mayor) vs. hard left (AOC crowd). Glad I live in the USA. Also glad I dont live in New York. It's a dumpster fire.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Glad I live in the USA. Also glad I dont live in New York. It's a dumpster fire.

We agree on all three accounts.

 

[ignorethefringes]

I don't know how many responses I have started to type and ultimately deleted lately . . .

 

[Fullquiver]

Why do you say this ?

we do have freedom of speech, however it does not include, Hate, obscenity, defamation type speech or violence----- masked as freedom of speech ,unless it is on private property..

Then you don't have freedom of speech... When you have to conform to social ideological constraints to not be treated as a bigot. (ie; misgendering someone) You have lost your freedom of speech. When I have to indulge another's fantasy instead of reality you have taken my freedom..

Panda I respect you and understand. My Grandmother was born on the reservation here and in her time suffered greatly because of her heritage.. Taken to a boarding school forced to stop speaking her native language and beat when she did. Forced to conform to the government rules on speech and what their truth was. So yeah I'm a little sensitive to freedom of speech issues. To trade freedom of speech for the security of conforming is not where I want to go..

 

[VikingsGuy]

Nope I don't care to. I do know plenty of people who live around the world and I have lived outside of the US. I'm not sure what metrics these institutes use and don't care about that or whatever you think. Just calling them how I see em.. You need not agree..

Yup - sometimes the right outcome is to agree to disagree.

However I would say that we are trading and have been trading away our freedoms and liberties for the allusions of safety and wealth for far too long..

I think it is a mixed bag. We have experienced a fair amount of post-9/11 erosion of the 4th amendment. But at the same time, the 4th amendment is still far more protective of individual liberty today than it was in 1950. For the 65% of our fellow Americans who are not white and male, there has been a significant increase in freedom/liberty over the last 50 years. Heller has created more personal firearms rights than existed before 2008, yet we are seeing lots of attempts to unwind its effect. Yet we also see an increased access to conceal/open carry and increased access to suppressors in most states over the last 15 years. A mixed bag indeed, with areas of concern and areas of progress. Probably a true statement during every era of our 200+ year history.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't know how many responses I have started to type and ultimately deleted lately . . .

no fair teasing . . .

 

[beginnerhunter]

I don't know how many responses I have started to type and ultimately deleted lately . . .

Haha, i start 3 responses for every 1 that gets posted. Think we'd be better off if everyone did that.

 

[Shangobango]

I wouldn't say that. Many of us wish for a simpler way through our many current disagreements, unfortunately a simple and universal reading of the constitution has not proven possible at any time in its 231 years (heck, there are plenty of writings that showed the actual drafters themselves didn't fully agree on some of it at the time of ratification).


And just for clarity's sake, neither, “all men are created equal” or “liberty and justice for all” are in the constitution. And the original constitution cleary identified slaves as non-citizens so the 14thA was necessary. But I agree with the sentiment that it should not be necessary in a just and moral society.

For the record I was aware the those two phrases are not in the Contitution. “ All men are created equal” is in the Declaration of course, but that is the document that stated tge reasons for founding this Nation so I hold it in high esteem.

I get what you are saying about the Constitution being interpreted differently by different people as well. That is sort of the issue though isn’t it.

If we would have just stuck to the ideals laid forth in the Declaration and Bill of Rights from the jump we would of been much better off. But of course the founders were human and humans are imperfect so we have what we have. That doesn’t mean that we should not still strive toward those ideals laid forth in our founding documents.

To bring it back to the 2nd, it is obvious and well documented as to why that Amendment was originally put in The Bill of Rights. It wasn’t because the colonists wanted to go shoot a deer and it wasn’t because the colonists were worried about there neighbor stealing their wagon. I don’t mean to be an absolutionist but I think any other interpretations of the 2nd other than its intended one of the people having defense from tyranny are ignorant at the least and disingenuous and agenda driven at the worst.

 

[Shangobango]

For the record I was aware the those two phrases are not in the Contitution. “ All men are created equal” is in the Declaration of course, but that is the document that stated tge reasons for founding this Nation so I hold it in high esteem.

I get what you are saying about the Constitution being interpreted differently by different people as well. That is sort of the issue though isn’t it.

If we would have just stuck to the ideals laid forth in the Declaration and Bill of Rights from the jump we would of been much better off. But of course the founders were human and humans are imperfect so we have what we have. That doesn’t mean that we should not still strive toward those ideals laid forth in our founding documents.

To bring it back to the 2nd, it is obvious and well documented as to why that Amendment was originally put in The Bill of Rights. It wasn’t because the colonists wanted to go shoot a deer and it wasn’t because the colonists were worried about there neighbor stealing their wagon. I don’t mean to be an absolutionist but I think any other interpretations of the 2nd other than its intended one of the people having defense from tyranny are ignorant at the least and disingenuous and agenda driven at the worst.

@VikingsGuy I just reread and wanted to be sure that you did not think that my last paragraph was a jab at you because it isn’t. I suspect you fall fairly close to my opinion as it concerns the 2nd.

 

[ignorethefringes]

Then you don't have freedom of speech... When you have to conform to social ideological constraints to not be treated as a bigot. (ie; misgendering someone) You have lost your freedom of speech. When I have to indulge another's fantasy instead of reality you have taken my freedom..

Panda I respect you and understand. My Grandmother was born on the reservation here and in her time suffered greatly because of her heritage.. Taken to a boarding school forced to stop speaking her native language and beat when she did. Forced to conform to the government rules on speech and what their truth was. So yeah I'm a little sensitive to freedom of speech issues. To trade freedom of speech for the security of conforming is not where I want to go..

Now this I have to disagree with. The freedom of speech does not protect you from other's opinions of you. You can say what you want, and others can call you a bigot if they want. They can even treat you as a bigot if they want (assuming there's no physical altercation); none of that has any bearing on your freedom to say what you want. Your comment about indulging another's fantasy is ludicrous. Social pressure may guide your speech, and you may be encouraged to not say all sorts of things, but you technically have the freedom to say them. If you're skin is thick enough and you genuinely don't care whether people hate your guts, you can say all sorts of things.

Where the above can get really messy is when it comes to private property, which is everywhere. We like to think that everything outside one's home is public space but that is grossly incorrect. Nearly everywhere you step while interacting with other people is the private property of someone else. And your rights while on the property of someone else are (rightly) significantly more limited.

 

[ignorethefringes]

no fair teasing . . .

I am a better person when I keep my mouth shut more often than I open it. Some days it's a bigger swing than I care to admit.

 

[VikingsGuy]

@VikingsGuy I just reread and wanted to be sure that you did not think that my last paragraph was a jab at you because it isn’t. I suspect you fall fairly close to my opinion as it concerns the 2nd.

Not at all. And even if we disagreed more than we do, I still wouldn't find it a "jab".

 

[Irrelevant]

I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning, and while it isn't related to the OP it is to where this discussion has wandered.

Do you think your freedom is based on you owning guns or _______________?

I personally don't think my safe of small arms is doing a damn thing to keep me free. But my overall support and believe in the US system of government from the Federal to the City/County level along with my willingness to abide by the rule of our collective laws is the foundation on which all of my freedoms are based. So when someone says better vote for a 2nd A candidate if you want to be free, I'm just not buying it, I would much rather support a candidate that works to support our systems, even if that means correcting its flaws, than someone who.... let's say is trying to undermine the entire election process, or lying to the public about our own safety (at a national level).

 

[Shangobango]

I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning, and while it isn't related to the OP it is to where this discussion has wandered.

Do you think your freedom is based on you owning guns or _______________?

I personally don't think my safe of small arms is doing a damn thing to keep me free. But my overall support and believe in the US system of government from the Federal to the City/County level along with my willingness to abide by the rule of our collective laws is the foundation on which all of my freedoms are based. So when someone says better vote for a 2nd A candidate if you want to be free, I'm just not buying it, I would much rather support a candidate that works to support our systems, even if that means correctly flaws, than someone who.... let's say is already trying to undermine the entire election process.

I think you underestimate the usefulness of an armed populace in defending the foundations of freedom.

It is not about the weapons in your safe. It is about the collective weapons of the American population.

 

[FI460]

I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning, and while it isn't related to the OP it is to where this discussion has wandered.

Do you think your freedom is based on you owning guns or _______________?

I personally don't think my safe of small arms is doing a damn thing to keep me free. But my overall support and believe in the US system of government from the Federal to the City/County level along with my willingness to abide by the rule of our collective laws is the foundation on which all of my freedoms are based. So when someone says better vote for a 2nd A candidate if you want to be free, I'm just not buying it, I would much rather support a candidate that works to support our systems, even if that means correctly flaws, than someone who.... let's say is already trying to undermine the entire election process.

This is exactly what I've been thinking on the topic. I used to staunchly believe that guns were the only freedom that mattered, but there are absolutely people living happy/ fulfilling lives in other countries that do not share the same firearms ownership rights that we do.

I'm starting to suspect that if we want to avoid going the way of England we as gun owners are going to have to contribute to some more nuanced conversation than "from my cold dead hands."

 

[LWC55]

I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning, and while it isn't related to the OP it is to where this discussion has wandered.

Do you think your freedom is based on you owning guns or _______________?

I personally don't think my safe of small arms is doing a damn thing to keep me free. But my overall support and believe in the US system of government from the Federal to the City/County level along with my willingness to abide by the rule of our collective laws is the foundation on which all of my freedoms are based. So when someone says better vote for a 2nd A candidate if you want to be free, I'm just not buying it, I would much rather support a candidate that works to support our systems, even if that means correcting its flaws, than someone who.... let's say is trying to undermine the entire election process, or lying to the public about our own safety (at a national level).

I'd be curious to hear from some folks in UK or Australia who have fairly recently had their gun rights severely restricted. If they had more freedoms before or after the restrictions.

 

[Shangobango]

This is exactly what I've been thinking on the topic. I used to staunchly believe that guns were the only freedom that mattered, but there are absolutely people living happy/ fulfilling lives in other countries that do not share the same firearms ownership rights that we do.

I'm starting to suspect that if we want to avoid going the way of England we as gun owners are going to have to contribute to some more nuanced conversation than "from my cold dead hands."

This just baffles me. I am so glad that the folks that fought the American Revolution did not try and contribute to a more nuanced conversation.

I bowing out of this conversation. I like and respect the vast majority of you folks and I can feel my blood pressure rising...