That's a pretty cool map with the 'free' countries of the world. I agree, the differences between the countries marked 'free' on the map are trivial. You could argue that the netherlands are more 'free' than the rest of those countries because of their lenient stance on drugs, or could argue that the US is because of their lenient stance on guns. I'm sure every 'free' country has something to this effect that they are more lenient on and thus more 'free'.
The freedomhouse site is pretty cool, too. I, too, agree that America isn't as free as it thinks it is--we've been fighting to keep our civil liberties and political rights here for a long time, and we're still fighting to keep the government from trampling our rights.
That's where we have to agree to disagree.
Absolutely; it's probably engrained in us because of the cultures/societies we were raised in. It's what our values are all about.
Still, speed limit serves just this purpose - limits your freedom to increase my security - and speed limit exists in US just like everywhere else.
Speed limits are different in every state in the US, as we are allowed to set them, and Montana does not have a speed limit on the interstate. Germany's autobahn has not speed limit. These are an agreed-upon societal limit, but you can still break the law. If we outlawed cars that could go over the speed limit for that state, then we would be talking about something different. A firearm in some ways is like a car in that sense; one can break the speed limit, just as one can use a firearm in an irresponsible manner. In the same vein, the right to own a firearm is also an agreed-upon societal limit as well. Your society has a different speed limit than us, and they also have a different attitude toward gun ownership.
My intention was to quote this earlier:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's been attributed to Benjamin Franklin, though I don't know if that's correct or not. In any case, the point is moot as the sentiment is more important than the author.
First, one has to figure out what is 'essential' and then the society has to agree upon it. It will differ from society to society.
Same about limitations when you are buying nitrates and powdered zinc.
Funny you mention this. The US is dealing with the CPSC overstepping its bounds and trying to regulate commodities such as this once again.
But it is not the same when it comes to guns. With all due respect - it doesn't fit.
That is strictly your opinion. You state it like fact. It isn't. It's your opinion, and probably your society's opinion if yours doesn't allow firearms. It's our country's opinion to allow them. We also don't allow drugs, contrary to the netherlands and probably some others. I bet in Poland you can buy Absinthe liquor--you can't legally here. It all comes down to societal values. I respect that you do not believe that guns should be allowed in society. You should respect the fact that others do and not state your opinion as fact. Perhaps that is an affect of the language barrier, though I find your English to be very good. (Better than many of the native english-speaking posters on here as a matter of fact...)
Hopefully we can agree to disagree. I think that we both agree that the VT shootings were a tragedy, as it is whenever there is an innocent loss of life. Just what our society is willing to accept or do about it is a matter of opinion.