Does freedom require civilian gun ownership? (Regarding South Korea, gun control)?

There are many free democracies throughout the world where the citizens do not feel the need to carry a weapon. If you need to carry a gun to feel safe, then you are not really free.

Oh Man, I didn't now there would be a pop quiz or that I would have to spot the 5 logical fallacies. Do most Americans know what logical fallacies are? Do they mind if I end sentences with prepositions?

I don't need to read the article because I can answer your question out of what's left of my brain. (or is it the right side, I forget ;)

It does not "require" but it recognizes the natural Right humnans have to arm themselves, which has been going on for somewhere between 50,000 and half a million years and became enshrined into law via the US Constitution.

But of course S Korea is not subject to American law.

Our founding fathers knew that the 2nd amendment protects all the other Rights.

Korea could learn from that, If they have any interest in natural rights. I do not know if they do or do not care about that.

EDIT:

Answering your 4b question. Because the controllers know that civilian gun ownership is a threat to them. That's why the treasonous revolutionary George Washington thought the 2nd amendment was a good idea.

In the USA that is likely true.

Though we peoples, world wide, are all human we have different cultures. I can not adequately evaluate the influence of Freedom, Rights and Liberty for Everyone in All cultures, I know that in the USA, and in Europe, the lack of the ability to personally defend your Rights and Freedom have a history of permitting the creation of tyranny.

In much of the world, tyranny is a way of life and they have never really embrace the need for personal responsibility so their ownership of weapons seems to be a big negative in those cultures.

I'm a Canadian, and I have the freedom to be able to walk down the street without having to worry about taking a stray bullet. There's no snipers with a sniper rifle just hoping I'll make a wrong move. We have our share of lunatics, but we don't get word of a mass shooting several times a week. In the US, it's routine.

Unfortunately, some people think that "freedom" comes at the price of a gun cartridge, they can't think beyond their rifle sights. Just ask these dumba**es what "freedom" actually means. They won't be able to define it. No less a genius than Socrates (yes, he was a real person) said that you can't claim to "know" anything unless you can describe it.

Stupidity is slavery - and refusal to think is death. Maybe a good start would be making the gun manufacturers liable for the crimes that their products are used in. If I hand you a weapon in the full knowledge that it could be used to commit a crime, I'm just as guilty as you are if the weapon is used in a murder.

I think freedom as it's understood here in america mainly requires a huge windfall of free land out west for the dregs and failures of society to escape into and possibly die in.

Guns are often useful in places like that but they aren't essential to the freedom part, only the land.

I'd be thrilled to see more freedom in this country as soon as somebody supplies the required land but I think the prospects are not entirely good at present

Freedom allows gun ownership just like The Constitution

of the United States. It does not "require" anyone to own

a gun.

South Korea's gun control is the US military parked on the North Korea border.

Those aren't logical fallacies they're all true, and the author didn't present a single good argument about them that wasn't an emotional appeal. After the recent events in Nevada you'd have to be an idiot to think you can't fight government corruption with guns.

With Mexico needing "living space" Armed Texans are the only thing keeping the horde at the boarder.

With the gun debate, too many guns and no guns are both extremes that should be ignored.