I don't think Dan's comment was intended as provocative or aggressive; I certainly didn't take it that way. I also understand that firearms ownership is something inherent in the American psyche and culture to some degree defines people that may never even own or use a gun. Though I do find it paradoxical that a largely Christian society should feel the need to define itself through having tools designed to kill or injure people.
 
BTW. Here in Australia we actually can quite readily own and use firearms provided we have the appropriate licence, training, belong to a shooters club, etc. etc. We can even own handguns but for a private citizen to carry a concealed handgun for personal protection is not allowed.
 
As I have said at the start of this thread, I fully agree that the US is a very free society. However, let me also echo Mauro's comment that many other societies are also as free nowdays even if if the US largely "led the way", historically speaking.

Quote from Aussie on Mar 30^th, 2012, 6:08pm:
I can understand that it seems paradoxical but I think it is internally consistent. The cultural part of it begins with how important they were as tools for living in the American wilderness. I think that Europeans don't fully appreciate that being without a gun in the American wilderness was tantamount to suicide. Even our guns couldn't adequately put down a grizzly bear when we went further west. Mainly these were hunting implements, but also for protection, and without the personal firearm the brits would have put our uppity rebellion down very quickly.  
 
I think the other thing is that, coming from a conservative christian upbringing, the ethos is "Murder is a sin and never acceptable.  Killing is not always murder and might be necessary. Protect yourself and your family."  So from this standpoint, the gun should never have to be used but in this fallen world it might need to be used. I think it's also related to how nasty the rebellion was down in the south. The southern colonies during the revolution had nasty, stomach turning, feuds between the tory and the rebel citizens. The armies were fairly removed and this survives somewhat in the belief that you can't rely on the government to protect yourself and your family. You might have to do it yourself. The gun then is our means to protect ourselves from tyranny and victimization, and maybe the only thing when the chips are down. Sure you could try to overthrow the government or defend your home with a repurposed kitchen knife but a firearm is a much better choice. Even though the odds are low, to those in the gun culture, the risk is too real and too great to ever relinquish the guns.
 
I've not heard of that at all Mauro, though that was a few years before my time   What is your take on it?

Yes, "lead ages" was a few years before me too  
By the way, that decade has been called that way because of an impressive succession of terroristic attacks. These were days when politics fanatics managed to get pistols and explosives, and many people died for that.  
Red terrorists or fascist ones, they wanted to take control of the constitutional republic, and used weapons to do so. It is not the same concept you explained before, but it's just my attempt to explain how paradoxal can be the use of weapons to mantain (or change, depending by the side) a current form of government.
It surely show that, if there's the will to proceed, it is not hard at all to get some weapons, even if there's no right to bear them.
 
By the way, I'm genuinely curious about how Christianity and firearm ownership can coexist consistently: where in the Bible does Christ carry a gun?
Thanks,
Mauro.

Well, maybe this will help http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

Luke 22:35-38
 
35And he [Jesus] said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
 
 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
 
 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
 
 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
 
 
 
So there is Christ himself telling his disciples to 1, prepare to take care of themselves and 2, carry weapons. Indicating that there is a congruence between weapons and Christian philosophy. However, it would be misleading to not mention that then in the garden of Gathsemone Christ does also tell Peter that "those that live by the sword die by the sword"
 
 
It really depends how deep you want to get into Christian theology. You could have a Bible centered debate over this and quote and critique and never get anywhere. The quakers agree with you that Christian theology should preclude violence to your fellow man. Most, if not all other sects argue that there is such a thing as moral use of force and even killing. Not that it should be the aim, the heart of Christianity is "love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind [...] and love your neighbor as yourself". That is the goal, but at the same time, there are times when killing and fighting is acceptable. So really, you can support (till both parties die of old age and boredom) both positions from a bible based theology.
 
oh, one other quick point. The whole NT vs OT thing, is generally an insulting critique to level at Christians as they believe that there is an immortal, unchanging God speaking and represented in both. The question is whether the revelations in the OT are meant to be specific to the tribe of Israel at that point, or if they are meant to reveal something unchangable about God's nature is the question from a Christian worldview.
 
 
Again, I'd like to note that I am not espousing these beliefs as much as I am trying to show them. As I've mentioned, I'm no longer sure what I believe. But I am fairly familiar with this worldview and I think that is generally given short shrift.
 

FWIW, if one wants to define American liberty there is no better way in my opinion than simply quoting the constitution. The entire motivation behind the document is to craft a government that endows the people with the most freedom possible as well as limiting the government's ability to oppress as much as possible.
 
Which is also why when someone asks for specific examples of liberties lost I begin to rattle off the long list of constitutional infractions committed. To me, for the most part, they are one and the same.

Quote from Morphy on Mar 30^th, 2012, 11:26pm:

 
I'll have to disagree.
 
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
"The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
 
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
 
The constitution was a good idea, but it had it's major flaws. That it still allowed slavery is my biggest pet peeve. A nation that seems to pride itself on freedom and bam. Slaves. If we want to find examples of American liberty lets look to history and observe the way we've acted towards others.

Quote from Woonilsra on Mar 31^st, 2012, 11:00am:

 
I agree with you on the 3/5ths compromise.  That's where my statement "for the most part" comes in.  Thankfully the ability to amend it made it possible to begin to right such wrongs. Many of the founding fathers were strongly opposed to slavery but unfortunately they needed to create a constitution that everyone could back and so for diplomacie's sake flaws crept in to an otherwise inspired document.