Took me a bit to find the ref.; in his intro to Liberty and Freedom, Fischer gives us the following: “… liberty comes from the Latin libertas and its adjective form liber, which meant unbounded, unrestricted, and released from restraint.” He goes on to add that this was “… similar to the Greek eleutheria and eleutheros…” which they used to mean a condition of independence, or being separate and / or distinct. Both (Greeks and Romans) implied here, according to him, a degree of separation and independence.So too, Fischer outlines the sources of the word freedom; coming from various northern European languages with a common root. "... from the Indo-European priya or friya or riya, which meant dear or beloved. ... freedom and free have the same root word as friend, as do their German cousins frei and Freund. Free meant someone who was joined to a tribe of free people by ties of kinship and rights of belonging."He goes on to say that the original meanings of the two (liberty and freedom) were not just different but opposed... liberty meant separation (autonomy) and freedom implied connection (inclusion within a group) that carried the rights and responsibilities of the group as a condition of inclusion.Most people have a tough time understanding that liberty and freedom are different, but Fischer makes a good case, readily understood. Liberty is our unrestricted autonomy and freedom is the sum total of our rights within the structure our society has agreed upon... the fact that our founders recognized a difference and tried to maximize our liberty with in the structures of our freedom shows how far-thinking they were. Withour becoming political I'd say our current leaders could learn a great deal if the studied the Founders a bit more....Sadly, even if they did have it,  most folks would have a hard time with true liberty; we've lived too long assuming we aren't in control and that the freedom we have is given to us by the gov't., rather than being the product of our connection to our society.

Those are the definitions I was looking for.  It is amazing how many people think the meaning of the two words is synonymous.  They have vastly different meanings.You really do have a lot of time on your hands, huh? ;D  I barely manage to steal the time to post.  I definitely cannot keep up with you and willy, you both have the time to be much more prolific on the board than I do.

This one was a slam-dunk; after having read the book this became part of my lesson plan... you are sooo right that people don't "get" the difference. I think for the sake of us all that might be okay, as not everyone could handle total liberty without running wild. Freedom implies society has the hammer to keep those that would run amok inside the lines while most of us can do that for ourselves; true liberty requires self-control.On the time issue... I'm busier now than when I was working... just doing different things; rainy day today and all my projects take me right by the computer. The forum keeps me from Ol'timers Onset.  ;D

If you ask me (and you didn't), I think people should be allowed to buy fully automatic weapons, rpg's, cannons, whatever they want so long as they complete the proper paperwork on them and keep their weapons secured.

Considering that the argument that these are state-of-the-art military weapons with no other legitimate use would be forthcoming I'd counter that the 2nd Amendment is silent on what the arms can be (and these do have legitimate sporting applications); yes, at the time flintlocks were the order of the day and thats what we could have. I agree and will put up with the paperwork issue (much as I detest it... lists of what guns are owned by whom, and where they live... :o.

Agreed and they get to vote too.

+1 to both ideas; the second is why the 2nd Amendment really exists IMHO.

Arnold is working on the paperwork as we speak… the CA budget.

I've been involved in NRA programs for over 40 years and can vouch for the well planned and structured formats they provide for safety training and marksmanship instruction. I totally agree that the parent aspect is important but how does that play for the anti parent? They will opt-out like many do for any item that can be assumed to be intruding on their right to raise their child as they see fit… so be it because, most parents will see the point (if not the hidden benefit is the classes will be smaller) and allow their kids to participate. (Disclaimer: If too many were to opt-out, this would allow anti school boards and admins an excuse to pull the plug on such a program.)Schools should run the Eddie Eagle programs which is better suited for the intellegent teaching of gun safety than anything coming out of the academic community IMHO. The NRA recognizes that non-gun owners have the right to be non-gun owners, the inverse cannot be said for most of the anti community. Eddie Eagle is about safety in the home and community and not about a political agenda.

The telling statement in the original article is this...

This is because the big diconnect is the absence of traditional gun usage in most families today. Forty years ago you could buy .22 shell in almost any gas station in my area; today you have a hard time finding a dedicated gun shop or even a sporting gooods store that carries more than a few air rifles and a shotgun (usually home-defense type) or two.

.... It is much easier and better to teach the right thing about guns than to make them mysterious and pique a child's curiosity about them in my opinion.

We are, by nature, attracted to the strange and new... we seek to order our existance by finding out if something is good, and going to be a benefit to us, or bad, and be a hazard... like any other device, a firearm has the potential to go either way based on how it is handled.