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

[richardhutnik]

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.

 

As I understand it, if you read the right to bear arms, it links to a "Well run miliitia" and the founding fathers didn't want the citizens to be unarmed, so that a government being oppressive couldn't be overturned.  From this, comes the right for individuals to bear arms, for personal protection.  However, when the focus becomes on how much firepower citizens need to protect themselves from criminals, then the bigger picture gets lost in this.