Economy vs Gun rights

[ddenny5]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about the 2nd Admendment. He says that our economy is more important than defending our gun rights. My answer is that we need to stand for and obey our Constitution regardless of the economic outcomes. What is your opinion? Should our economy out weigh our gun rights?

 

[Joe Williams]

Your friend wants to be a slave, not a free citizen.

It takes courage to accept the risks associated with freedom. Not everybody has it.

 

[printcraft]

......... What is your opinion? Should our economy out weigh our gun rights?

Call me thick but I'm corn-fused.
In what context?
How are they related?

I guess that during a "crisis" like oh, I don't know.....
economic depression and subsequent social chaos
that people like rahm emanuel who said "never waste a crisis"
would take the opportunity to curtail our right to bear arms.
Is that the place you are leading to?

Just tell your friend that as soon as the 2nd is gone the 1st will follow and
ask him how he feels about that.

 

[pudly]

Sounds like an excuse, what is incompatible about defending gun rights and working towards a better economy?

 

[antsi]

I don't understand these things as being in conflict or contradictory. Is this an either/or choice?

Just taking a wild guess, but I wonder if your friend is trying to justify his support of Democrats (ie; they're bad on gun rights but supposedly good on the economy). This rests on the extremely shaky assumption that the Democrat policies are better for the economy than Republicans'. Personally I see very little difference between the two parties economically, if we are talking about the Bush and Obama administrations.

 

[mike8170]

My feeling that their is a direct correlation between Gun Rights and the economy, the worse the economy, the more I value my gun rights in order to defend myself from those that would take advantage of me. I am sure most on this forum would agree.

I think that your friend has bought into the far left approach that firearms are evil, and the left will use any excuse to limit our rights as citizens of this Republic.

 

[vtxrecruiter]

Sounds like your friend is a Mao-ron. (get it?)
Economic concerns have NO impact on personal freedoms, and in actuality, during times of extreme strife, the average citizen NEEDS to be armed to protect what he has from those that would take it by force. Slap your friend and get him to watch "innocents betrayed", it is a shocking expose on the gun control movement. As Adolf Hitler would say (if he hadn't ended up in a ditch, covered in gasoline, on FIRE) every totalitarian regime needs a good gun ban...

 

[darinb]

Your friend wants to be a slave, not a free citizen.

It takes courage to accept the risks associated with freedom. Not everybody has it.

+1 well said.

 

[Astrocreep]

The economy may grow or shrink, be guided by idiots or geniuses, or let us down when we really depend on it to do well.

In a real crisis, however, there's little that will provide more comfort than a trusted firearm and ample ammunition.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Denny, to me that presents a false choice. Why can't we have them both? Freedom is always the answer.

And now . . . rapping economists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk]YouTube - "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem[/ame]

 

[southern.in.guy]

Hopefully the economy will get better but if it doesn't all these people who think we shouldn't have the right to bar arms well be sorry they didn't buy a gun to defend their family and loved ones. Because no matter what happens the bad guys are going to get guns if they want them. I watched a video on this sight the othier day from cnn that was showing bad guys getting othier bad guys guns in us and taking them across the Mexican border to use in drug wars or what ever . Who's to say if we lost our right to bar arms those same bad guys wouldn't bring those same guns right back across that same border and now use them agianist use unarmed citizian's. I think we should stand for our right to bar arms no matter what the economy is doing.

 

[eldirector]

Heck, one of the few industries doing well IS firearms (and ammo). Folks may not be buying new cars and TVs, but they are exercising the 2nd and supporting the companies that do as well.

The State also received record revenue from LTCH fees. It isn;t a lot of money, but certainly more tah they expected. Folks are spending $$$ on what is important to them. In this case, security and freedom.

So, maybe they ARE correlated: The worse the economy, the more people invest in security.

 

[cosermann]

Human rights are inherent and exist regardless of economic conditions (and regardless of whether gov'ts recognize or violate those rights).

However, one's ability to exercise those rights is affected by a lack of prosperity. Example, a poor man has the right to defend himself (and a right to the means of doing so, hence the right to bear arms), however he may not be able to afford a gun or the ammunition to feed it.

So, I see poor economic conditions as tending to enslave people because it adversely affects their ability to exercise their inherent rights.

They're both important. Furthermore, there's no need to violate any rights in order to truly stimulate the economy (i.e. cutting taxes, reducing the size of goverment, and eliminating unnecessary, commerce-constricting regulations don't violate anyone's rights). It is a false choice, imo.

 

[ocsdor]

He'll see how valuable the 2a is when the economy collapses.
[Hint: No firearm = easy target]

 

[IUGradStudent]

Can you point out a practical instance where we have to choose between the two? I mean, where are all the politicians who are bad on guns but good on the economy? I can't think of any off the top of my head....

 

[ddenny5]

My friends and I discussed that the economy is more important than our gun rights when choosing political candidates. The discussion was over Dan Coats who he supports. My arguement is that we need to obey the Constitution which I believe would allow for us to have a strong economy by limiting government. He disagrees with this. He believes that we should pursue economic policies that may go outside the guidelines of the Constitution. He believes we should explore socialistic ideas to fix the economy. He does believe in the right to bear arms but not at the expense of the economy. Sadly, he believes that parts of the Constitution is outdated.

 

[Joe Williams]

Then your friend is not an American, no matter his birthplace.

 

[ddenny5]

Can you point out a practical instance where we have to choose between the two? I mean, where are all the politicians who are bad on guns but good on the economy? I can't think of any off the top of my head....

I believe that the this was the case in 1992 with Bill Clinton. Remember the saying "its the economy stupid." Ronald Reagan was not as gun friendly as he should have been also.

 

[thej27]

My friends and I discussed that the economy is more important than our gun rights when choosing political candidates. The discussion was over Dan Coats who he supports. My arguement is that we need to obey the Constitution which I believe would allow for us to have a strong economy by limiting government. He disagrees with this. He believes that we should pursue economic policies that may go outside the guidelines of the Constitution. He believes we should explore socialistic ideas to fix the economy. He does believe in the right to bear arms but not at the expense of the economy. Sadly, he believes that parts of the Constitution is outdated.

Show him a few articles on the economy in Venezuela. See if that changes his mind about socialism. The economy will always fluctuate. The 2nd never does.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

I'm looking at a copy of it as we speak, and

"Gun Rights" is on page One of The Constitutional Amendments, and "Economy" isn't even in the book. Hmmmmm Pat