Why do we as Americans refer to our country as "free"?

[fumanchu182 23]

I think it goes a long way to say that with recent legislation and all the political tie downs that we now have on our rights we are not really free. Police now engage us for just walking on the streets no rhyme, no reason. Our rights to protest are being blocked by a "permit" process in most states which directly contradicts our first amendment rights to "interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.". I feel freedom in this country is not a right anymore it is a privilege just like driving, it can be taken away. Are we living a lie? Have we been indoctrinated with a lie that we are the land of the free from birth till death when we really aren't?

 

I used to think freedom was the ability to wake up every morning enjoy breakfast, go to work happily, enjoy dinner with friends and family and then rest. Repeat until bored and then take a vacation. However I learned that with the serious shit that is going on in our government and its failures we can't redress our grievances. If you speak out in this country, your life is in danger, the NDAA does not protect you as we have learned that the President can and will put you on a kill list. You can't reason with a domestic drone (even the ACLU is suing the gov't over this ).

 

So I ask again, why do we as citizens of the United States of America consider our country as "free" when other countries have more civil liberties and can redress their government? I hope you all don't think I'm tin foil hatting it today, just want to hear other peoples opinions on the matter.

 

(Also by redress our grievances I mean Senate and House listening to it's citizens for once instead of corporate lobbying, which is now all messed up thanks to SCOTUS and citizens united.)

[lunker 274]

I agree with you for the most part. I do disagree about Citizens United though. "Special Interest group" is thrown around as if it is always a bad thing. When you are talking about corporate conglomerates like Monsanto, I would agree. But you and I belong to interest groups, like the NRA, Second Amendment Society, etc. Why should we be denied the opportunity to pool our resources and be a voice in government? The law that was struck down in Citizens United painted with a very large brush. It stopped the good with the bad. In a Constitutional Republic such as ours, I think the default always has to be to allow the both, accepting the fact that we won't like some of it. It's like hate speech. We may find it repugnant, but putting limits on freedoms is a greater evil.

[BigHayden 77]

Because when you come here illegally, you get everything for FREE!

[johnp 45]

"Rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter." ~George Carlin

 

I think he hit the nail on the head here.

[db1775 4]

Fumanchu - (bitter sarcasm alert) man, you must be one of those crazy tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy nuts. Just ignore any drones you see overhead in the coming years, they will not really be there. And just look away when the TSA agents at Newark Airport jam their hands down the front of your kids' pants or under your wife's shirt - its not really happening. This is all just your mind reinforcing what your inner right wingnut self wants to believe. Remember, we're crazy and It Can't Happen Here. Keep repeating that and all of this will go away. Your rights are doing juuuuuuussst fine.

[Anselmo 87]

I perceive a slight against the ACLU. The ACLU has been fighting for civil freedoms but since their political alignment went counter to some beliefs, they didn't get much support as their causes were not sympathetic or popular. It was a slippery slope. We're slipping down it.

[rightisright 3]

I perceive a slight against the ACLU. The ACLU has been fighting for civil freedoms

 

Maybe if they fought for the Second as hard as they fight for the First, they would get a helluva lot more $$ from donors.

[Anselmo 87]

Maybe if they fought for the Second as hard as they fight for the First, they would get a helluva lot more $$ from donors.

 

They are big on the 4th amendment, too.

[rightisright 3]

They are big on the 4th amendment, too.

 

I know. But it's their complete lack of, erm, anything when it comes to 2A that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[BigHayden 77]

I know. But it's their complete lack of, erm, anything when it comes to 2A that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

To be fair, their position was consistent with court rulings, which was that the 2A was not an individual right and did not apply to the states. From what I understand, they are getting better and getting more involved in 2A cases.

[lunker 274]

 

 

To be fair, their position was consistent with court rulings, which was that the 2A was not an individual right and did not apply to the states. From what I understand, they are getting better and getting more involved in 2A cases.

 

It's also becaue most of their donors are/were liberals who hate guns. No point in using resources to fight for something most of your members don't like.