Greetings beautiful Steemians!

It's Friday again, and I'm happy to be here taking a swing at another Freedom Friday prompt, brought to us by @EagleSpirit & @FreedomTribe. This week's topic should be a fun one:

"How Do I Feel About The Freedom To Bear Arms?"

This topic is one that I find myself on both sides of in some ways, and in large part I feel like it's a concern that we will not have to even consider a century or two into the new paradigm.

For many thousands of years, humans have been committing large-scale violence against each other in the name of various dogmas (religion, government, etc). In an age of mass violence, when you might be under threat of invasion, robbery, kidnapping, and other violations at just about any time, the ability to defend yourself seems pretty dang important.

The paradigm shift that we are going through now, the mass awakening, the growth of communications technology, the move towards a global take on the human race, is changing things in a BIG way. Humans are rapidly remembering the absolute interconnectedness & interdependence of all life on this planet, and how necessary it is for us to live in peace with ourselves and other life.

As this age of awakening continues to unfold, governments and their euphemistically named "wars" will cease to exist, the illusion of "race" and the "racial supremacy" that goes along with it will cease to exist, the huge economic disparities that lead to much violence will cease to exist, and the violence against children that leads to ALL violence will cease to exist.

I would guess that in just a century or two, there will no longer be any need for the average human to even consider needing to defend themselves with deadly force.

The 2nd Amendment

It seems extremely clear to me that the first-wave American politicians (in American mythology referred to as the "Founding Fathers"... which says a lot) put heavy emphasis on the need for each individual to have the right to own firearms because they had just finished battling a well-equipped & well-trained government, and they knew that every government ends up being totalitarian & violent. If they hadn't all owned firearms, the Revolutionary War would certainly have been a lot shorter, and the Queen of England would have a whole lot more people worshiping her.

I think Penn & Teller put it really well in this bit from their old show BS:

Gun Control?

Obviously the topic of "gun control" is quite big in the mainstream in the Euro-American world. What most folks don't seem to realize is that "gun control" has nothing at all to do with guns, and everything to do with controlling the masses.

Back before he went a little alt-right, Stefan Molyneux put out probably the best video on "gun control" ever:

If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you are very pro-gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.

Whatever the issue is, asking government to solve it will only lead to more violence & coercion. Gun violence is no different.

Gun Violence... Shining Some Truth

Since the main arguments against the right to bear arms don't have anything to do with philosophy, but is a carefully directed emotional response, here's a few points that poke some major holes in the arguments that "gun control" advocates use to justify disarming the oppressed & centralizing gun ownership in the hands of the most violent humans on the planet: