Who is Really Freer?

There are times when I can't resist questioning the reasoning of folks who  express their concern over the role of government in our society,  especially in regard to what is considered by some as "government overreach". 

In the wake of the  Connecticut tragedy and strong national support for tougher firearms laws,   gun dealers appear to be doing a land-office business.  Why?   Because some gun-freaks are thoroughly convinced that  "The Big Bad Gummint"  is gonna trash the Second Amendment and leave those self-described fine, upstanding citizens at the mercy of  "them".  (If my memory serves me,  wasn't the Second Amendment drafted at a time when we depended on a "well-regulated militia"?)   And  who's   "them"  anyway?   Anyone who doesn't look or think like they do  maybe?

In reality,  public concern seems to be  largely over the ready availability of assault weapons  and the ammo required to make them work.   But still,  many have voiced equal unease over the availability of more conventional firearms (not hunting rifles),  as well as the lack of oversight regarding their distribution.  

The gun-freaks and other anti-government zealots may lament over the perceived restriction of their freedoms,  but how about those of us who feel that our freedoms may be limited by the lack  of government involvement?

This argument extends well beyond the issue of gun ownership.  (Still,  it would be nice for folks to be able to walk around freely without fear of getting whacked between the eyes.   Our Canadian neighbors and  "all them Euro-Socialists"   don't seem tormented by that concern).

Citizens of the other industrialized nations may shoulder a greater tax burden than we do,   but I rarely hear of them pissin' and moanin'  about it.    Some critics may contemptuously refer to a strong government as a "nanny state",   but hey,  a lot of folks learn to love their nannies.

Consider the tradeoffs:    universal health care and free or affordable education among them.    Who's  really freer?   The recent state-side college grad burdened by a debt so crushing that she'll need to hock her eye-teeth to pay it off?   Or the German student  who benefits from a quality education without being assessed anything more than affordable copays?   How about the independent entrepreneur  (the kind of folk we like to romanticize)  who had a lousy year and had to drop his health insurance  --- and then gets laid low by a serious illness and loses everything he worked his entire life for?   How free is he likely to feel?    Just across our northern border,  a similar entrepreneur ---  as awful as his sickness might make him feel  ---  is at least unburdened financially by the cost of his treatment.   So once again,   who's really  freer?

Like beauty,  I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder.