2 : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
ya learn some *** every day.
good lookin out
Don't fall for that, spend some time reading about Nihilism and you get a better sense of how it is being twisted by some in an attempt to apply it where it does not fit.
If you believe that's true, then why not start a discussion about it?
2 : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
ya learn some *** every day.
good lookin out
Don't fall for that, spend some time reading about Nihilism and you get a better sense of how it is being twisted by some in an attempt to apply it where it does not fit.
it really is an accepted use of the word. the argument can be debated. ... but frankly i dont feel like debating it. some interesting points made in this thread. ive come to my own conclusion but sharing it here is pointless. its all pointless. im the Nihilist now.
And you said you didn't have a sense of humor!
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
But there's lots of European socialists there, so you might not like it too much.
I have never indicated I would leave, quite the contrary, I will never leave or bow to the new emporer and you are an a$$.
If were talking about leaving the country guns are illega now in Canada, England, and Austrilia so maybe you should look into those. Two out of three the there crime rates are soring though JDH so good luck.
But there's lots of European socialists there, so you might not like it too much.
I have never indicated I would leave, quite the contrary, I will never leave or bow to the new emporer and you are an a$$.
If were talking about leaving the country guns are illega now in Canada, England, and Austrilia so maybe you should look into those. Two out of three the there crime rates are soring though JDH so good luck.
But there's lots of European socialists there, so you might not like it too much.
I have never indicated I would leave, quite the contrary, I will never leave or bow to the new emporer and you are an a$$.
If were talking about leaving the country guns are illega now in Canada, England, and Austrilia so maybe you should look into those. Two out of three the there crime rates are soring though JDH so good luck.
Where did you get the idea I wanted to leave?
You picked Belize since it fit his political views so I thought England would fit in your wheelhouse. Guns are completeley owtlawed and you need to apply for a permit to purchase a cutlery set. The only problem is that in ten years since the handgun ban crimes involving handguns has doubled so I'm not sure if that move is a good idea. Australia's crime increase since they banned guns is even worse 43 percent rise in violent crime since the ban. So I guess the only option is to go north to Canada.
But there's lots of European socialists there, so you might not like it too much.
I have never indicated I would leave, quite the contrary, I will never leave or bow to the new emporer and you are an a$$.
If were talking about leaving the country guns are illega now in Canada, England, and Austrilia so maybe you should look into those. Two out of three the there crime rates are soring though JDH so good luck.
Where did you get the idea I wanted to leave?
You picked Belize since it fit his political views so I thought England would fit in your wheelhouse. Guns are completeley owtlawed and you need to apply for a permit to purchase a cutlery set. The only problem is that in ten years since the handgun ban crimes involving handguns has doubled so I'm not sure if that move is a good idea. Australia's crime increase since they banned guns is even worse 43 percent rise in violent crime since the ban. So I guess the only option is to go north to Canada.
What is it with the right and guns? I mean really, you all get all heated over them. To hell with the air, water, environment, your own body ... but any gun control and it's ON! I think banning anything (mostly) is a bad idea. Banning things only incite people to get that what is banned. In so called free societies I think banning items for the most part does not make people safer and in fact starts a uncontrolled market.
..and I still say that all this gun mess could be settled with more effort on social issues and less on banning them. Govt once again goes after a "symptom" and not the cause.
What is it with the right and guns? I mean really, you all get all heated over them. To hell with the air, water, environment, your own body ... but any gun control and it's ON! I think banning anything (mostly) is a bad idea. Banning things only incite people to get that what is banned. In so called free societies I think banning items for the most part does not make people safer and in fact starts a uncontrolled market.
In my youth, we called it "Power to the People".
The too oft repeated struggle for freedom is always decided by blood. Always. There is no other way to achieve liberty. Why did Paul Revere ride at midnight? To alert the colonists that the Redcoats were coming to seize their weapons. Why did the French storm the Bastille? It was an armory. Why did the Senate stab Caesar? He was a hero once. Why did Bolivar, Ataturk, Mao, Washington, Ho, Huey, et al march and bleed and march and bleed on the knife edge of destruction year after year? And why did men follow them to death?
What chance would they have had unarmed?
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
To ignore this you have to act very very dense. It ain't about ducks, brothers. It ain't about burglars (though that's useful too.) It's about the American way of life; a way of life which Liberals are rapidly effacing right now.
"God must love the poor man, because He gave him the mountains, and a long knife, and a strong right hand to use it." -- Pancho Villa
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
I do agree that yes, some of the most influential changes in history have been through force. Our own country was founded on such force. Though it's not always for the better. One thing about unarmed protests and such is that at times them doing the protest get help. It all depends on what the powers at be view the struggle. Armed conflicts in countries usually don't end well. Also what would really happen if the govt, our govt really went all martial law? I mean we had the army and marines in our streets rounding people up and setting up camps. You think that some small bands of people who stockpiled up weapons and ammo all their lives will stop any of it? I mean a lot of these people are crazy. Some probably aren't but setting up a resistance, would it help? Today we have technology being used that is insane and to use it against our own people would be devastating. I doubt people banding together with small arms fire would really be able to stop it.
So sure taking or making it illegal to have ar15's is not something that I agree with but it's not like that will make or break one's ability to fight off the "man". When has anyone ever stood against the "man" and won? Hasn't happened yet. The "man" always wins. Why, because they keep on coming and if for some miracle you do stand and win, you will be running and there isn't many places you can go. So the argument about how guns are our only way to fight off the death of freedom is a weak one. The only way to do so would be if the majority of people stood up and fought. However when in modern history has that happened? It hasn't. Most people give up or are afraid. Germany was one of the biggest examples of this in the 30's. Also fear is what keeps most people down. And in fact imprisons them. Look at things right now in this country. Fear is running the show. The majority of us are being enslaved one way or another we just don't think about it and go on about our lives. But in reality we are all not free and are being taken for a ride.
But there's lots of European socialists there, so you might not like it too much.
I have never indicated I would leave, quite the contrary, I will never leave or bow to the new emporer and you are an a$$.
If were talking about leaving the country guns are illega now in Canada, England, and Austrilia so maybe you should look into those. Two out of three the there crime rates are soring though JDH so good luck.
Where did you get the idea I wanted to leave?
You picked Belize since it fit his political views so I thought England would fit in your wheelhouse. Guns are completeley owtlawed and you need to apply for a permit to purchase a cutlery set. The only problem is that in ten years since the handgun ban crimes involving handguns has doubled so I'm not sure if that move is a good idea. Australia's crime increase since they banned guns is even worse 43 percent rise in violent crime since the ban. So I guess the only option is to go north to Canada.
This still doesn't answer the question of where you got the idea I wanted to leave.
Besides, that's not why I picked Belieze. It's english speaking, has the US $ for currency, has a low cost of living and affordable housing prices, is considered to be part of the caribean basin just like Florida, has a great climate, isn't far from Honduras or Nicaragua, has tax laws that many conservatives would find attractive, is relatively safe, has a stable democratic government, and it isn't that far from the US. Since the gypsy is so oppressed by that commienazimuslim tyrant in the White House who hates the US and wasn't even born here, so I just thought he might be happier there.
FYI - I own 1 rifle, 2 shotguns, and a 357 handgun. I have no idea why you would think I want to ban all guns.
In 1942, the good olf USA started stamping out muh muh muh millions of sheet metal zip guns with unrifled barrels rated for only one or two shots before sploding. Called them the F45 Liberator. The idea was, we air drop them into France, some French gal saunters up to the *** bridge guard, says "Hey, Heinz, you got a light?" Then while he's fumbling for a match, "bang" goes the liberator point blank, she grabs his real rifle, tosses it over the bridge to an accomplice, and high tails it into the woods before the guard at the other end can foot it across. This was the gun with which the resistance might arm itself in those disarmed countries. It was, essentially, a distributed Bastille.
By contrast, about the same time, when the Japanese army suggested invading the USA, I forget who all in the high command expostulated: "WHOA! I went to college there. Those people all have guns! Your asking forevery Japanese soldier to get pot shot from behind a rock. No way." So they invaded a couple uninhabited Alaskan islands instead.
It ain't about ducks. And it ain't about now. It's about freedom and it's about our grandchildren. History continues. It ain't over yet. It will swing around. When it does, will we be powerless?
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
"...In my youth, we called it "Power to the People". ..."
This phrase is taken from the John Lennon song, and he wasn't talking about the power of of guns. He was talking about the power of Love and of Peace over the forces of violence. How somebody can use the philosophy of John Lennon to advocate that a civil society should also be a militarized, violent gun culture is not just a twisted view of Mr. Lennons world view, it is an insidious, sick use of his worldview for something that he would have found to be abhorent. If you recall, he was murdered by a crazy man with a gun.
"...An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. ..."
This is only true if there is no rule of law, if only might and force or the threat of force is the law. We live in a nation of laws, and in the US, an armed man is a citizen with a weapon, wheras an unarmed man is a citizen without a weapon. Your idea of the "American way of life" is a violent gun culture whereby any man can defy the rule of law for his own reasons. That is not a civil society, but a jungle without law, and has nothing to do with the society as defined by the Constitution.
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
..and I still say that all this gun mess could be settled with more effort on social issues and less on banning them. Govt once again goes after a "symptom" and not the cause.
Precisely.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
I can't remember the source, but I do seem to remember reading this somewhere, years ago. I guess we could ask Yoko, but if she decided to sing about it, well, we still wouldn't know.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
I can't remember the source, but I do seem to remember reading this somewhere, years ago. I guess we could ask Yoko, but if she decided to sing about it, well, we still wouldn't know.
John Lennon had a huge influence on me. I've read books and articles and viewed documentaries about him, and I've never run across anything (that I can remember) indicating that he had a gun in his home. (Paul McCartney, maybe, but not John Lennon or George Harrison). They were pacifists, and stood against violence, and advocated for social change, but with peaceful means, not violent ones. The idea of John Lennon carrying a gun is absurd, maybe the pinnacle of hypocrisy, and the idea of him using a gun is equally hypocritically absurd. It would be like saying that Ghandi carried a gun.
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
I can't remember the source, but I do seem to remember reading this somewhere, years ago. I guess we could ask Yoko, but if she decided to sing about it, well, we still wouldn't know.
John Lennon had a huge influence on me. I've read books and articles and viewed documentaries about him, and I've never run across anything (that I can remember) indicating that he had a gun in his home. (Paul McCartney, maybe, but not John Lennon or George Harrison). They were pacifists, and stood against violence, and advocated for social change, but with peaceful means, not violent ones. The idea of John Lennon carrying a gun is absurd, maybe the pinnacle of hypocrisy, and the idea of him using a gun is equally hypocritically absurd. It would be like saying that Ghandi carried a gun.
Agreed, to all said, but that's why it stuck with me. Of course, it may have been a false claim, or that someone pressed one on him "to keep him safe" and he felt the world was safer if he kept it out of reach, which would be pretty typically him.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
I can't remember the source, but I do seem to remember reading this somewhere, years ago. I guess we could ask Yoko, but if she decided to sing about it, well, we still wouldn't know.
John Lennon had a huge influence on me. I've read books and articles and viewed documentaries about him, and I've never run across anything (that I can remember) indicating that he had a gun in his home. (Paul McCartney, maybe, but not John Lennon or George Harrison). They were pacifists, and stood against violence, and advocated for social change, but with peaceful means, not violent ones. The idea of John Lennon carrying a gun is absurd, maybe the pinnacle of hypocrisy, and the idea of him using a gun is equally hypocritically absurd. It would be like saying that Ghandi carried a gun.
I figured it out JDH and why we will never agree, your bigest influence is the band that my father blamed for as he calls it the ruination of this country. This from a guy who grew up in a neiborhood where there was no drugs no crime and he didnt have a key to the front door.
But there's lots of European socialists there, so you might not like it too much.
I have never indicated I would leave, quite the contrary, I will never leave or bow to the new emporer and you are an a$$.
If were talking about leaving the country guns are illega now in Canada, England, and Austrilia so maybe you should look into those. Two out of three the there crime rates are soring though JDH so good luck.
Where did you get the idea I wanted to leave?
You picked Belize since it fit his political views so I thought England would fit in your wheelhouse. Guns are completeley owtlawed and you need to apply for a permit to purchase a cutlery set. The only problem is that in ten years since the handgun ban crimes involving handguns has doubled so I'm not sure if that move is a good idea. Australia's crime increase since they banned guns is even worse 43 percent rise in violent crime since the ban. So I guess the only option is to go north to Canada.
What is it with the right and guns? I mean really, you all get all heated over them. To hell with the air, water, environment, your own body ... but any gun control and it's ON! I think banning anything (mostly) is a bad idea. Banning things only incite people to get that what is banned. In so called free societies I think banning items for the most part does not make people safer and in fact starts a uncontrolled market.
I agree with the above statment 100% while I am not a big fan of assault rifles I am a fan in Freedom, a lot of my feers arise from what people will do if in fact guns are banned it wont make us safer only easy targerts. In NY it started with the mayor telling people what size soda they could buy now they want to tell people they cant smoke in there car with kids under 15. This is not somthing I would do but I went many places with both my parents smoking what gives them the right. One state is even trying to make it so you need a prescrition to buy cigeretts. When will it end when will people start to care when they take away a right they belive in.
What is it with the right and guns? I mean really, you all get all heated over them. To hell with the air, water, environment, your own body ... but any gun control and it's ON! I think banning anything (mostly) is a bad idea. Banning things only incite people to get that what is banned. In so called free societies I think banning items for the most part does not make people safer and in fact starts a uncontrolled market.
In my youth, we called it "Power to the People".
The too oft repeated struggle for freedom is always decided by blood. Always. There is no other way to achieve liberty. Why did Paul Revere ride at midnight? To alert the colonists that the Redcoats were coming to seize their weapons. Why did the French storm the Bastille? It was an armory. Why did the Senate stab Caesar? He was a hero once. Why did Bolivar, Ataturk, Mao, Washington, Ho, Huey, et al march and bleed and march and bleed on the knife edge of destruction year after year? And why did men follow them to death?
What chance would they have had unarmed?
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
Sorry, but while certainly the American Revolution and the Civil War represent examples of how freedom was won through bloodshed, it's also important to remember that these were wars were primarily conducted by armies under the management of centralized civilian authorities, not gangs of citizens who fought pell mell. And, to counter your assertion, there are plenty of occasions where freedom and governmental change have been won without violence or without huge mobs of heavily armed citizens forcing this changes. A few examples.
1. The 'Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia. A completely peaceful transition from communism to democracy with no violence from either citizens or the miliary.
2. The fall of the Iron Curtain.. While there were protest, there were no armed citizens marching in the streets who 'forced' the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and other Soviet Bloc nations. This transition happened peacefully, and although none of these countries are "free,' they're far more democratic than they were in the time of Communisim.
3. The fall of Mubarek. Most of the people protesting in Cairo were not armed, and although many died, it wasn't a highly armed populace that forced Mubarek and his stooges out of government; it was the military deciding to act the way the wind was blowing.
4. The civil rights struggle in the U.S. Blacks didn't end Jim Crow and gain civil rights denied them in the south by arming themselves to the death and killing whitey; instead, they conducted non-violent protests that helped them to gain the sympathy of the majority of Americans, who pressured their Congressional representatives to end this suppression of their liberties.
5. The end of apartheid in South Africa. There weren't hundreds of thousands of heavily armed South African blacks aiming their barrels at the white power structure demanding their surrender.Instead, apartheid was ended through a nonviolent political settlement.
6. The creation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There were no armed mobs standing surrounding the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia demanding a new Constitution and definition and guarantee of rights; these were all negotiated and agreed upon by men who defined liberty as being something other than that being won by a gun.
Yes, civil wars and revolutions do offer one approach for gaining freedom. But certainly not the only way, as history has demonstrated over and over again.
Comments
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
http://www.viviun.com/AD-189704/
http://www.viviun.com/AD-190303/
http://www.viviun.com/AD-190922/
http://www.viviun.com/AD-189629/
But there's lots of European socialists there, so you might not like it too much.
The too oft repeated struggle for freedom is always decided by blood. Always. There is no other way to achieve liberty. Why did Paul Revere ride at midnight? To alert the colonists that the Redcoats were coming to seize their weapons. Why did the French storm the Bastille? It was an armory. Why did the Senate stab Caesar? He was a hero once. Why did Bolivar, Ataturk, Mao, Washington, Ho, Huey, et al march and bleed and march and bleed on the knife edge of destruction year after year? And why did men follow them to death?
What chance would they have had unarmed?
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
To ignore this you have to act very very dense. It ain't about ducks, brothers. It ain't about burglars (though that's useful too.) It's about the American way of life; a way of life which Liberals are rapidly effacing right now.
"God must love the poor man, because He gave him the mountains, and a long knife, and a strong right hand to use it." -- Pancho Villa
So sure taking or making it illegal to have ar15's is not something that I agree with but it's not like that will make or break one's ability to fight off the "man". When has anyone ever stood against the "man" and won? Hasn't happened yet. The "man" always wins. Why, because they keep on coming and if for some miracle you do stand and win, you will be running and there isn't many places you can go. So the argument about how guns are our only way to fight off the death of freedom is a weak one. The only way to do so would be if the majority of people stood up and fought. However when in modern history has that happened? It hasn't. Most people give up or are afraid. Germany was one of the biggest examples of this in the 30's. Also fear is what keeps most people down. And in fact imprisons them. Look at things right now in this country. Fear is running the show. The majority of us are being enslaved one way or another we just don't think about it and go on about our lives. But in reality we are all not free and are being taken for a ride.
Besides, that's not why I picked Belieze. It's english speaking, has the US $ for currency, has a low cost of living and affordable housing prices, is considered to be part of the caribean basin just like Florida, has a great climate, isn't far from Honduras or Nicaragua, has tax laws that many conservatives would find attractive, is relatively safe, has a stable democratic government, and it isn't that far from the US. Since the gypsy is so oppressed by that commienazimuslim tyrant in the White House who hates the US and wasn't even born here, so I just thought he might be happier there.
FYI - I own 1 rifle, 2 shotguns, and a 357 handgun. I have no idea why you would think I want to ban all guns.
In 1942, the good olf USA started stamping out muh muh muh millions of sheet metal zip guns with unrifled barrels rated for only one or two shots before sploding. Called them the F45 Liberator. The idea was, we air drop them into France, some French gal saunters up to the *** bridge guard, says "Hey, Heinz, you got a light?" Then while he's fumbling for a match, "bang" goes the liberator point blank, she grabs his real rifle, tosses it over the bridge to an accomplice, and high tails it into the woods before the guard at the other end can foot it across. This was the gun with which the resistance might arm itself in those disarmed countries. It was, essentially, a distributed Bastille.
By contrast, about the same time, when the Japanese army suggested invading the USA, I forget who all in the high command expostulated: "WHOA! I went to college there. Those people all have guns! Your asking forevery Japanese soldier to get pot shot from behind a rock. No way." So they invaded a couple uninhabited Alaskan islands instead.
It ain't about ducks. And it ain't about now. It's about freedom and it's about our grandchildren. History continues. It ain't over yet. It will swing around. When it does, will we be powerless?
This phrase is taken from the John Lennon song, and he wasn't talking about the power of of guns. He was talking about the power of Love and of Peace over the forces of violence. How somebody can use the philosophy of John Lennon to advocate that a civil society should also be a militarized, violent gun culture is not just a twisted view of Mr. Lennons world view, it is an insidious, sick use of his worldview for something that he would have found to be abhorent. If you recall, he was murdered by a crazy man with a gun.
"...An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. ..."
This is only true if there is no rule of law, if only might and force or the threat of force is the law. We live in a nation of laws, and in the US, an armed man is a citizen with a weapon, wheras an unarmed man is a citizen without a weapon. Your idea of the "American way of life" is a violent gun culture whereby any man can defy the rule of law for his own reasons. That is not a civil society, but a jungle without law, and has nothing to do with the society as defined by the Constitution.
John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Sorry, but while certainly the American Revolution and the Civil War represent examples of how freedom was won through bloodshed, it's also important to remember that these were wars were primarily conducted by armies under the management of centralized civilian authorities, not gangs of citizens who fought pell mell. And, to counter your assertion, there are plenty of occasions where freedom and governmental change have been won without violence or without huge mobs of heavily armed citizens forcing this changes. A few examples.
1. The 'Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia. A completely peaceful transition from communism to democracy with no violence from either citizens or the miliary.
2. The fall of the Iron Curtain.. While there were protest, there were no armed citizens marching in the streets who 'forced' the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and other Soviet Bloc nations. This transition happened peacefully, and although none of these countries are "free,' they're far more democratic than they were in the time of Communisim.
3. The fall of Mubarek. Most of the people protesting in Cairo were not armed, and although many died, it wasn't a highly armed populace that forced Mubarek and his stooges out of government; it was the military deciding to act the way the wind was blowing.
4. The civil rights struggle in the U.S. Blacks didn't end Jim Crow and gain civil rights denied them in the south by arming themselves to the death and killing whitey; instead, they conducted non-violent protests that helped them to gain the sympathy of the majority of Americans, who pressured their Congressional representatives to end this suppression of their liberties.
5. The end of apartheid in South Africa. There weren't hundreds of thousands of heavily armed South African blacks aiming their barrels at the white power structure demanding their surrender.Instead, apartheid was ended through a nonviolent political settlement.
6. The creation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There were no armed mobs standing surrounding the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia demanding a new Constitution and definition and guarantee of rights; these were all negotiated and agreed upon by men who defined liberty as being something other than that being won by a gun.
Yes, civil wars and revolutions do offer one approach for gaining freedom. But certainly not the only way, as history has demonstrated over and over again.