Subject:
|
Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:43:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
314 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > So you think I'm less free as I don't/can't have a gun, even though I would
> > feel less free if I did have one? I’d rather have real freedoms than
> > theoretical ones!
>
> I said nothing about guns in specific. Nor does this address what I said:
> you can give up a freedom for security. Okay, this is what you have done:
> you can't carry a gun, but you feel more secure because of it. You'd rather
> have the security of not having to worry about guns. That's okay. I'm not
> trying to debate whether that is the correct decision. But you have given
> up a real freedom (of debatable value, but a *real* one) for something that
> is better defined as a security, and not a freedom.
Hmm. I see your point. Secure means this:
"able to avoid being harmed by any risk, danger or threat"
Simply, free means this "not limited or controlled".
I think the UK being "gun free", gives me both.
I suppose another freedom I have lost which has given me more freedom is the
freedom to drive as fast as I wish. The fact that the limit on my street is
20 mph (~33km/h ?) means that I am not "not limited or controlled" by the
fact that I have motorway speeds (70mph in the UK) outside my home.
Scott A
> Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
