Isn't freedom merely shorthand way of saying "getting what you want"?

[Mr Khan]

Viper1 said:

Mr Khan said:

You're pretty much correct. We can call the repeal of DADT to be liberty but call the second amendment idiocy, or vice versa ("You can pry this gun from my cold dead hands, but i'll use it to shoot any f*gs as think they can get hitched," or something like that)

Freedom is relative. Communism was freedom in its own right, and the revolutions that toppled Communism also cried freedom. The freedom-loving founding fathers held slaves, etc., etc.,

2 issues.

1. The right to bear arms has more to do with keeping the government from ever becoming a tyranny than simply being a right to shoot whatever.  The first thing a tyrannical regime does it disarm the people (or at least try to).  One of the first rights established to us is the right to change our government if it ever extends beyond the means it was established for and becomes oppressive.  The only way a citizenry could ever overthrow and restablish a government is with arms.  It's a sad fact but one the founding fathers understood.

2. Slaves.  Most of the founding fathers owned slaves but didn't actualy believe in slavery itself.  At that time, most "freed" slaves still had a far harder time than did those owned by sympathetic owners.   There was also miles of red tape and money required to free slaves.  Thomas Jefferson, for example, found it more economical to own slaves, feed them well, shelter them well, pay them well, than it cost to actually free them.  Again a sucky deal that took far to long to alleviate.

I understand the logics behind both of those, the moral logic of slavery as better for people than an indifferent capitalism where you have no incentive for the health of the worker who can be easily replaced if he becomes too sick or weak to work, as well as the grand check-and-balance that is the 2nd amendment, i was merely providing examples that some people will vehemently support "freedom" in some guises, while opposing it in others.