BF2S Forums Freedom of Speech or Right to Bear Arms?

Give me the right to bear arms.

The right to say whatever you want means precious little when the government can inflict its will on you by sheer force.

Even properly used freedom of speech can not ensure you the right to bear arms, however, properly used the right to bear arms can surely guarantee you freedom of speech.

Turquoise wrote:

Even though I agree with the above poster's logic, I will counter it with the following....

While I personally enjoy the right to bear arms in America, I see that several countries have populaces that enjoy comparable (if not preferable) amounts of freedom even without guns.

Ireland and Norway are good examples.

Which would probably explain why every European country ( except England, they had the channel) got bowled over so damned easily by Germany, TWICE.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Even though I agree with the above poster's logic, I will counter it with the following....

While I personally enjoy the right to bear arms in America, I see that several countries have populaces that enjoy comparable (if not preferable) amounts of freedom even without guns.

Ireland and Norway are good examples.

Which would probably explain why every European country ( except England, they had the channel) got bowled over so damned easily by Germany, TWICE.

*shrugs* What are the odds of it happening again?

Dunno, crystal ball is in the shop. I will have to hold onto my guns until it is ready for pick up.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not suggesting you give up your guns.  I'm just saying that ownership of guns isn't worth much if you don't have the ability to legally speak your mind.

If you don't have arms, dictators enforce no freedom of speech anyway.  I'm still going to keep my firearms at the ready.

Miller wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not suggesting you give up your guns.  I'm just saying that ownership of guns isn't worth much if you don't have the ability to legally speak your mind.

If you don't have arms, dictators enforce no freedom of speech anyway.  I'm still going to keep my firearms at the ready.

Let's assume you have a choice of living in one of two countries for a good paying job with some multinational corporation.  Both countries are identical in almost every way and are parliamentary republics in the Western European style.  One country has the freedom of speech, but you can't own a gun.  The other has the right to bear arms, but the only way you can voice your opinion about the government is through voting.

Which country would you choose to live in?

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-12 20:56:13)

Turquoise wrote:

Miller wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not suggesting you give up your guns.  I'm just saying that ownership of guns isn't worth much if you don't have the ability to legally speak your mind.

If you don't have arms, dictators enforce no freedom of speech anyway.  I'm still going to keep my firearms at the ready.

Let's assume you have a choice between two countries for a good paying job with some multinational corporation.  Both countries are identical in almost every way and are parliamentary republics in the Western European style.  One country has the freedom of speech, but you can't own a gun.  The other has the right to bear arms, but the only way you can voice your opinion about the government is through voting.

Which country would you choose to live in?

The one with arms.  Still.  If I want to change the laws, and others want to also, with our weapons in tow, the government will know we mean business if we want to have the freedom of speech.  In voting, the law can change.  In speech, the voice is heard first, then action is taken.  So, after being heard, lets say we get someone like Hitler in power, just for taking his country and no where else. What can someone without arms do? Yell at him? You'd be shot.  Whereas, you could get a huge number of people outside the persons building and demand a change before you go in and shoot.

Well, this is all theoretical.  So, I'm done with it for now.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is essential that a govt. FEAR its citizens, more than the citizens fear its govt.

I completely agree, but this thread was forcing you to pick between the two freedoms.  Ideally, you'd have both rights.

Ok, but what kind of govt. do you have if the govt. knows it has complete and utter power over you. What does your freedom of speech mean then??

This thread has taught me one thing.........It is like asking what is most important to you. Food or Water??

Umm, water, without that you couldn't hunt for food.

Miller wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I completely agree, but this thread was forcing you to pick between the two freedoms.  Ideally, you'd have both rights.

Ok, but what kind of govt. do you have if the govt. knows it has complete and utter power over you. What does your freedom of speech mean then??

This thread has taught me one thing.........It is like asking what is most important to you. Food or Water??

Umm, water, without that you couldn't hunt for food.

LOL, yeah but with out food you would be too weak to go find water.

Miller wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Miller wrote:

The one with arms.  Still.  If I want to change the laws, and others want to also, with our weapons in tow, the government will know we mean business if we want to have the freedom of speech.  In voting, the law can change.  In speech, the voice is heard first, then action is taken.  So, after being heard, lets say we get someone like Hitler in power, just for taking his country and no where else. What can someone without arms do? Yell at him? You'd be shot.  Whereas, you could get a huge number of people outside the persons building and demand a change before you go in and shoot.

Well, this is all theoretical.  So, I'm done with it for now.

I see where you're coming from, but the reason why I still pick the freedom of speech is because there are quite a few countries where you can own guns, but the government still restricts speech.  A lot of South America and Africa fit this description.  The governments are corrupt and do not really represent or fear the people, but you can own and acquire weapons rather easily.  However, the media of these countries are heavily censored, and public displays of anger toward the government are usually crushed -- despite the armed populace.

But, what is the average IQ of people in Africa.  Not nearly high enough to get them to riot or display their anger in a mob, or an army if you want that.

ummmmmm ya might wanna take that one back before it is too late

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok, but what kind of govt. do you have if the govt. knows it has complete and utter power over you. What does your freedom of speech mean then??

This thread has taught me one thing.........It is like asking what is most important to you. Food or Water?? and you can only pick one.......It doesn't matter, you are eventually gunna die.

If a government really wants to oppress you, your weaponry really isn't going to help you much.  You might be able to start a rebellion or act as an insurgent, but more often than not, you're just going to get killed.

If a society doesn't allow you the freedom of speech, that already speaks volumes about the culture you live in.  It usually means the government is corrupt.  Whether or not you can own a handgun in a country usually has more to do with the necessity of it.  Norwegians don't need handguns, because violent crime is very rare there.  In America, guns are necessary because of our relatively high violent crime.

You are an American, as such you know, ..................Do you really really think our citizens are going to lay down in the face of an opressive govt. such that is seen in other countries?? honestly??

Hell, I doubt our govt. would really even be able to turn its soldiers on their fellow citizens in such a major campaign.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-12 21:09:45)

Turquoise wrote:

Miller wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I see where you're coming from, but the reason why I still pick the freedom of speech is because there are quite a few countries where you can own guns, but the government still restricts speech.  A lot of South America and Africa fit this description.  The governments are corrupt and do not really represent or fear the people, but you can own and acquire weapons rather easily.  However, the media of these countries are heavily censored, and public displays of anger toward the government are usually crushed -- despite the armed populace.

But, what is the average IQ of people in Africa.  Not nearly high enough to get them to riot or display their anger in a mob, or an army if you want that.

Um...  that's a strange idea.  First of all, riots happen all the time in Africa.  It's a very wartorn continent.

Second, I wouldn't exactly say that rioting or rebellion is a sign of intelligence.  It depends on the context....

An unplanned riot doesn't require intelligence.  I should have been more specific and said, a planned riot and storming of the warlords or dictators palace or whatever they use there.

Miller wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Miller wrote:

But, what is the average IQ of people in Africa.  Not nearly high enough to get them to riot or display their anger in a mob, or an army if you want that.

Um...  that's a strange idea.  First of all, riots happen all the time in Africa.  It's a very wartorn continent.

Second, I wouldn't exactly say that rioting or rebellion is a sign of intelligence.  It depends on the context....

An unplanned riot doesn't require intelligence.  I should have been more specific and said, a planned riot and storming of the warlords or dictators palace or whatever they use there.

Well, coups happen all the time as well.  Look at the Congo.  Perhaps, a coup takes a certain amount of intelligence, but I guess what I'm getting at here is that, if your country lacks the freedom of speech, you can pretty safely assume that you live in a fascist country.

lowing wrote:

I don't think you give us enough credit, our people are NOT afraid of our govt. in any way shape or form. Any real oppression would be seriously responded to. There is no way in the world our citizens would accept a Saddam style rule. First, he would not have the support of the citizen soldiers AND his ass would be swinging from a light post in no time.

Surely to god, you know that!!!

It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity.  It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.