Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Weapons as Political Protest: P.A. Luty's Submachine Gun" video.

As an Englishman I did find Ian saying that freedom is a "Fundamental argument of gun control." To be something very odd. After finding this channel I've talked about guns with friends here in England. And the mention of "freedom" never comes up other than to agree we don't understand why Americans consider it part of the argument. I mean, I'm not free to grow opium in my greenhouse and sell it to addicts. I'm not free to purchase chemicals and build a bomb. I'm not free to cultivate anthrax. All thoes things kill people, the bomb being designed to kill. The anthrax is lethal and the opium will eventually kill and addict. That's how it is with guns here. They are just something that is supposed to kill and that we aren't allowed to own unless we have the correct permits, much like laboratory can cultivate anthrax for study. Or a pharmaceutical company can have opium to use as a base for making medicans. Ian is impressively unbias. I love that about him. But the argument of "freedom" just doesn't translate outside of the USA.
3
As an Englishman I did find Ian saying that freedom is a "Fundamental argument of gun control." To be something very odd. After finding this channel I've talked about guns with friends here in England. And the mention of "freedom" never comes up other than to agree we don't understand why Americans consider it part of the argument. I mean, I'm not free to grow opium in my greenhouse and sell it to addicts. I'm not free to purchase chemicals and build a bomb. I'm not free to cultivate anthrax. All thoes things kill people, the bomb being designed to kill. The anthrax is lethal and the opium will eventually kill and addict. That's how it is with guns here. They are just something that is supposed to kill and that we aren't allowed to own unless we have the correct permits, much like laboratory can cultivate anthrax for study. Or a pharmaceutical company can have opium to use as a base for making medicans. Ian is impressively unbias. I love that about him. But the argument of "freedom" just doesn't translate outside of the USA.
3
The thing is. In most countries. Certainly in Europe. The criminals don't have guns. I can't remember the last time a crime involving a gun was reported on the news in my part of England. I remember a kid killing his 'friend' with his dad's gun. It was a big deal. About 20 years ago. I don't think America could put in place the gun control laws we have here. The horse has bolted on that one. But I'm sure any rational person agrees that there should be control. I mean, you wouldn't say that anyone has the right to own a nuclear weapon. Or build bombs or cultivate anthrax on an industrial scale. Or have a artillery piece and a stock of shells filled with sarin. Society has to have law and control to protect the safety and yes, freedom of the population. Even if that freedom is freedom to go about your daily life without fear that you'll be killed. As a side note. I'm what Americans call "pro gun". I would like to own one. Ideally a small hand gun. I'd like to buy one for reasonable money. I'd happily pay rent to keep it at a local shooting range (if one existed). And pay to pop down and enjoy shooting in the same way I could go to a golf driving range. Of course I'd register for a licence and happily submit my DNA and finger prints to a national database. I'm not a criminal so no issues there. I think that's perfectly rational and reasonable. And no need for the guns to be out in the public. Sadly I can't see it happening as there isn't the demand. Few people here have any interest in shooting a gun. Just like they don't on sumo wrestling. Or line dancing.
1
@jeffdishong7095 the point about being able to resist the government and the right to bare arms. I wonder, how is that an argument in the 21st century? You could give 90% of the population handheld firearms and they still wouldn't have much luck against a division of tanks. Much-less a modern air force. Plus. The experiment that is America has been proven. It works. Sure the trump lot last year tried to overthrow your democracy. But your democracy works. It's proven and you are justified in being proud in it. So why does one need to be armed incase of tyranny? After all it's never been a factor in the past. Historically democracies have collapsed into tyranny and despotism with popular support. Look at the fall of the Weimar Republic. Guns were common in Germany. Post ww1 the Frei corps were heavily armed and that didn't change in the late 20s. This actually helped the Nazis gain power. Not stop it. The same in Russia in 1917-25. The same in italy, the march on Rome wasn't contested by any members of the public with a ww1 rifle. The Blackshirts WERE the public with a ww1 rifle. So you have to ask. What's the biggest threat to American freedom and democracy. It's government which is said democracy. Or an armed populace that attempts to overthrow that democracy? In short. Isn't the right to bare arms the biggest threat to an Americans freedom? As mentioned in other post. I'm pro gun. I just don't see why control is a bad thing.
1