Is the blood of the dead just the price we pay for freedom now?

Is there a threshold of dead bodies that must pile up before we, as a nation, are willing to put all options on the table in trying to find solutions to problems, or will the principle of “…from my cold, dead fingers” apply until the last American is left standing?

I’m speaking about any right in general, not just guns.


Can’t keep the tree of liberty alive without some shed blood, or so I have heard.



Restricting guns isn’t the answer.
Restricting people without a court hearing isn’t the answer.
Getting people help, and finding a way to change society in general in the answer.

Take 2.

None of that answers my question.

This kind of says it all - an NRA ‘A’ rated GOPer suddenly backs gun control measures. His daughter was across the street when the murders in Dayton were committed. So suddenly he is concerned about guns…

When things effect the people in power, they are willing to consider options…it’s no coincidence that lawmakers fly frequently and in the post 9/11 world, we are all asked to give up certain freedoms in teh name of safe air travel.


Restricting guns is AN answer. It’s just one that you don’t like.

‘Getting people help’…what does that mean exactly? And at what point in the ‘getting people help’ process do we keep guns out of their hands? And how? If we can’t have red flag laws, are we going to lock them up instead? Put them on 24hr survalliance? What?

Changing society in general? How? Change it to what?

No, that’s absurd. You might change society into something worse…

A simpler and more effective answer proven to work the whole world over is thoughtful gun regulations.

1 Like


The NRA threatened trump not to sign a background check bill. It looks like that is the price we have to pay until Republicans stop kowtowing to them.

No it isn’t. That’s just a generic feel-good saying with zero specifics on what to do and how to go about it. Ergo, not a real answer.


You think we don’t already have background check?

1 Like

I didn’t say that. Please read.

My thread is not about background checks, and I won’t want it to devolve to just another gun thread. Thanks!

Looks like most posters are already discussing guns.

My OP was quite clear. This thread isn’t to argue about whether background checks exist or are effective-there are plenty of other threads to argue about whether we need gun control.

This thread is about whether we are willing to accept the blood of the dead as the price we pay for freedom.

To the OP’s question, I think yes. Most people have to realize at this point that having most guns of any country on the planet does not make us safer due to ample evidence to the contrary.

But a lot of us still choose our guns, mostly due to conditioned fear and we believe that gun violence and random massacres are simply the price that we have to pay for living in a free country.


Yes, we apparently are.

If two dozens dead school kids, their bodies scattered over the bloodstained floors of their classroom didn’t do it, the chaotic terror of a lone guy in a Hotel room killing over 50 didn’t do it, the walls a black church splattered from within by a man they invited to their bible study didn’t do it, then what makes you think two mass murders committed back to back would do it?

Our country is bathed in blood and enough of the country is fine with the prospect, so that nothing shall be done. Not enough have been sacrificed to

1 Like

I see a lot of irony in the title myself.

Threshold of dead bodies?? 60 million babies dead in the womb makes it pretty clear there is no threshold that will compel liberals to put all options on the table to find solutions to a problem.