Cosmoline
Member
I've been thinking about FDR's famous "four freedoms" lately and how they relate to the RKBA. I realize that to an older generation of Americans FDR's fatherly voice pretty much rendered the four freedoms coequal to the Bill of Rights. But while freedom of expression and freedom of religion are in the First, there is no such thing as "Freedom from Want" or "Freedom from Fear" in the BOR.
But there's no denying that these ideas have become a central part of modern liberalism both here and abroad. The idea is that the state has a duty to guarantee that its subjects are fed, clothed and kept safe. While this SOUNDS like a fine idea, in practice it is inherently opposed to the Founder's notion of sublime Liberty and the RKBA. A state that has a duty to feed you, cloth you and keep you safe is standing in loco parentis. You are a child of the state, and as a child your rights can be limited as needed. Indeed your right to keep and bear arms can be limited in order to give you "freedom from fear."
I think we need to take a long, hard look at FDR and his ideas if we want to understand where the anti-gun movement comes from. After all it started in many respects with his administration. He took the tools created by Prohibition and used them to expand federal law enforcement even further, to include a de facto ban on a wide array of firearms. And of course the internationalists who were a central part of FDR's power base made sure the Four Freedoms were a basic principle behind the UN. They did not use the Bill of Rights, which tells you something about where their loyalties lay. And even today we see the concept that people have "freedom from want" inherent in the actions and policies of the UN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
What gets lost in this, but what our Founders knew very well, was that Liberty demands the possibility of disaster. You can't be really free unless you're free to fail and be left cold, jobless and hungry in a shed without power, phone or prospects. If there's always a government to bail you out, then you're never going to be more than a subject of that government. And you'll become so used to taking handouts that you forget what real freedom is. Likewise, the "freedom from fear" concept runs counter to Liberty. Liberty requires that each of us be prepared to take responsibility for our own safety. Any fear we personally have is our own problem. A government that can tuck you in and night and protect you is a government that no longer treats you as a citizen to respect but as a subject to sneer at. This is one result of having a huge standing army and reyling on a small cadre of professional soldiers to defend us.
But there's no denying that these ideas have become a central part of modern liberalism both here and abroad. The idea is that the state has a duty to guarantee that its subjects are fed, clothed and kept safe. While this SOUNDS like a fine idea, in practice it is inherently opposed to the Founder's notion of sublime Liberty and the RKBA. A state that has a duty to feed you, cloth you and keep you safe is standing in loco parentis. You are a child of the state, and as a child your rights can be limited as needed. Indeed your right to keep and bear arms can be limited in order to give you "freedom from fear."
I think we need to take a long, hard look at FDR and his ideas if we want to understand where the anti-gun movement comes from. After all it started in many respects with his administration. He took the tools created by Prohibition and used them to expand federal law enforcement even further, to include a de facto ban on a wide array of firearms. And of course the internationalists who were a central part of FDR's power base made sure the Four Freedoms were a basic principle behind the UN. They did not use the Bill of Rights, which tells you something about where their loyalties lay. And even today we see the concept that people have "freedom from want" inherent in the actions and policies of the UN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
What gets lost in this, but what our Founders knew very well, was that Liberty demands the possibility of disaster. You can't be really free unless you're free to fail and be left cold, jobless and hungry in a shed without power, phone or prospects. If there's always a government to bail you out, then you're never going to be more than a subject of that government. And you'll become so used to taking handouts that you forget what real freedom is. Likewise, the "freedom from fear" concept runs counter to Liberty. Liberty requires that each of us be prepared to take responsibility for our own safety. Any fear we personally have is our own problem. A government that can tuck you in and night and protect you is a government that no longer treats you as a citizen to respect but as a subject to sneer at. This is one result of having a huge standing army and reyling on a small cadre of professional soldiers to defend us.
I "Want" a bigger TV and I "Want" to eat in a fine restaurant every night. I guess the term "want" meant something to people who were truly destitute and starving in the 1930s.