Gun Control

Moderator

Perhaps you should read this:

Not Coming For Your Guns <--clicky for source

Quote :: The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling is yet another reminder: Obama is not, in fact, coming for your guns. John P. Avlon busts the right’s latest fear-mongering fantasy.

The “Barack Obama is Gonna Take Your Guns” bogeyman took another hit Monday, as the Supreme Court overturned Chicago’s 28-year ban on handguns, reaffirming the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Combined with the Court’s 2008 decision to overturn Washington DC’s handgun ban, the fact that 48 states now have some form of concealed carry permitting, and the current Democratic Congress’ vote to allow guns in federal parks—which was signed into law by President Obama last year—Americans are unexpectedly living through a gun rights renaissance.

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 4:46 pm

motokid wrote:

Perhaps you should read this:

Not Coming For Your Guns <--clicky for source

Quote :: The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling is yet another reminder: Obama is not, in fact, coming for your guns. John P. Avlon busts the right’s latest fear-mongering fantasy.

The “Barack Obama is Gonna Take Your Guns” bogeyman took another hit Monday, as the Supreme Court overturned Chicago’s 28-year ban on handguns, reaffirming the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Combined with the Court’s 2008 decision to overturn Washington DC’s handgun ban, the fact that 48 states now have some form of concealed carry permitting, and the current Democratic Congress’ vote to allow guns in federal parks—which was signed into law by President Obama last year—Americans are unexpectedly living through a gun rights renaissance.

Okay? If I had the time I could post a hundred + CURRENT news articles involving Obama wanting to enact stiffer gun control measures. From one gun per month laws to magazine capacity limits.

Moderator

Hertz wrote:

motokid wrote:

Perhaps you should read this:

Not Coming For Your Guns <--clicky for source

Quote :: The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling is yet another reminder: Obama is not, in fact, coming for your guns. John P. Avlon busts the right’s latest fear-mongering fantasy.

The “Barack Obama is Gonna Take Your Guns” bogeyman took another hit Monday, as the Supreme Court overturned Chicago’s 28-year ban on handguns, reaffirming the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Combined with the Court’s 2008 decision to overturn Washington DC’s handgun ban, the fact that 48 states now have some form of concealed carry permitting, and the current Democratic Congress’ vote to allow guns in federal parks—which was signed into law by President Obama last year—Americans are unexpectedly living through a gun rights renaissance.

Okay? If I had the time I could post a hundred + CURRENT news articles involving Obama wanting to enact stiffer gun control measures. From one gun per month laws to magazine capacity limits.

So you've not had your rights infringed upon.
Not by Obama anyway.

Yet you'd still prefer Bush to somebody who "theoretically" "might" try to make it a bit more difficult to buy even more weapons than you already own.

Great.

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 4:50 pm

Since your talking about gun law I would like to know what is the big deal with that.

I've been using firearms for many many years. My father was a hunter and we used firearms to hunt. Beside we took pride in the precision we could get to with practice and had fun being god riflemen.

Before being allowed to buy a firearm and use it, we had to be certified as having completed a mandatory training. After some events in a university a new law has been adopted that forces us to register any firearm we own. This law states that we are criminals if we don't register our weapons. It pisses me off to do that since I wasn't raised within these constraints.

Beside, when I think about it, I ask myself why does it bother me ? I still don't agree that it sould be considered criminal to not register a weapon but I can find in what way it limits my freedom to have my weapons registered. I'm still free to use these weapons in a responsible manner. I never felt to need to carry one since I live in a pretty much civilized society.

I will always oppose to the criminal side of this law. It will always be more trouble to register vs not to register. But ince I know that most people don't own a firearm in my country, what is the big deal to register them. And I still wonder why is it such a problem for them ? Where is it that their imagination took so much place that they think an administrative rule will protect them ?

It is much more interesting considering the fact that in the province where I live, prevention is so good that we have the lowest rate of criminality in north america.

Moderator

There are certainly some very valuable, and acceptable gun control laws.

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 5:14 pm

motokid wrote:: There are certainly some very valuable, and acceptable gun control laws.

How do we define valuable ?

If the only thing it achives is conforting people in something they have wrong at the beginning, it's just ideological and serves no purpose but political popularity.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 5:40 pm

motokid wrote:: Yet you'd still prefer Bush to somebody who "theoretically" "might" try to make it a bit more difficult to buy even more weapons than you already own.

Great.

If those are the words you want to use, as far as that subject goes, YES.

As for registration of firearms, I'm against it. Just another way for the government to invade your personal life.

Subject: Gun Control1 Tue May 03, 2011 6:12 pm

Hertz wrote:: As for registration of firearms, I'm against it. Just another way for the government to invade your personal life.

I don't own any guns. Not because I don't like them, don't want them or don't think people should be able to own them. But for no other reason than I've never thought about purchasing one. But if I were to purchase one I don't think it would be big deal to register it. I mean you have to register your car to be legal and obtain a DL to drive. You have to apply to purchase a gun and then register it. Isn't it sort of the same thing? I'm just thinking 'out loud' here. I've got nothing vested in either side of the gun debate.

Admin

Dancamp wrote:: Since your talking about gun law I would like to know what is the big deal with that... Beside, when I think about it, I ask myself why does it bother me ? I still don't agree that it sould be considered criminal to not register a weapon but I can find in what way it limits my freedom to have my weapons registered. I'm still free to use these weapons in a responsible manner.

I think you need to learn a bit more about the legislation in Canada you think isn't a big deal.

If you own nothing but politically correct long guns, then I guess you don't have too much to worry about.

You probably aren't aware that registration has been repeatedly used for confiscation of other forms of firearms in Canada, as late as the last Liberal government who first refused to re-register "short barreled handguns", and then used the fact they didn't have a valid current registration to confiscate and destroy just under half a million of those handguns without compensation to their owners.

You probably aren't aware that registration has been used very recently to confiscate and destroy some models of Mossberg shotguns that were legally purchased decades ago and have been legally owned since then.

And you might have forgotten in the election that first brought Harper into power, both the Liberals and the Dippers under Layton promised to ban and confiscate ALL handguns. Layton is also on the written record as saying he doesn't believe people in cities should be allowed to own firearms, provinces should have the power to enact their own bans and confiscations, etc. That's the guy your new MP probably answers to - ask your new MP about Layton's track record regarding law abiding firearms owners.

And what if you own one of those long guns that previous Liberal governments arbitrarily decided should be "prohibited"? Well, despite the fact most of those firearms were bought decades ago, have been used in competition for many years, legally owned all those decades, etc... well, the CFC bureaucrats have arbitrarily chosen to decide they can no longer be taken to even a licensed gun range, for competition or any other purpose. So you can continue to own it until you die, but then your estate doesn't get the firearm, it has to be handed over for destruction.

See a problem with that? Particularly in light of the fact the decisions regarding what is and isn't prohibited and what can be done with those weapons is decided by unelected bureaucrats who are not required to bring their decisions before Parliament?

Quote :: I never felt to need to carry one since I live in a pretty much civilized society.

You don't carry a handgun when you think you might actually need a gun. That's when you pick up a rifle or shotgun. People that make the choice to carry a handgun are aware that very few victims of violent crime are assaulted with a cop standing there watching, and police arriving in time to stop the assault is mostly a fairy tale. Some people decide they're fine with playing the victim lottery because their chances of being among those who end up being victims (no matter how astonished they are that actually happened to them) are small. And some people decide they will provide for the protection police can't give them, just like they buy house and vehicle insurance to guard against those eventualities.

Quote :: It will always be more trouble to register vs not to register. But ince I know that most people don't own a firearm in my country, what is the big deal to register them. And I still wonder why is it such a problem for them?

Well, by now if you poke around you will find that registration has and continues to lead to confiscation in Canada, as it does everywhere else in the world. That should probably be enough for most people.

Beyond that, for Americans, the right to bear arms is a right, and registration before you can exercise a right is unconstitutional as hell. Of course, Canadians also have the right to bear arms for their defense, but Canadian governments have pretty much ignored that since about Pierre Trudeau arrived on the scene.

Aside from that, if you bother to read the actual Firearms Act, you'll find the fact you own firearms can allow police to "inspect" your home without warrant even without the slightest suspicion you are doing anything illegally, look in anything that might conceivably hold a part of a firearm (think: small screw), and make copies of all your digital data in whatever form you have it - even though you can't hide a firearm on a hard drive, and the government doesn't issue firearms registrations, licenses, etc in electronic form.

That might concern you a bit.

Quote :: It is much more interesting considering the fact that in the province where I live, prevention is so good that we have the lowest rate of criminality in north america.

Are you really sure? You know how the dark figure of crime as been figured into making that assessment?

Admin

trav72 wrote:: But if I were to purchase one I don't think it would be big deal to register it. I mean you have to register your car to be legal and obtain a DL to drive. You have to apply to purchase a gun and then register it. Isn't it sort of the same thing?

Nope, not the same thing at all. You're comparing a right to a privilege.

You have the right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere do you have a right to a driver's license. Nor do you have to obtain a driver's license to use a vehicle on private property. If you choose to want to operate a vehicle on highways that are built, maintained, and regulated by public money, that's when you need a drivers license.

Imagine telling people they had to first obtain a registration before exercising their freedom of speech. That a person had to register themselves as a newsperson before they could exercise freedom of the press. Registration before being allowed to attend a church for religious expression. Why would that suddenly change to exercise your 2nd amendment rights?

If you require government permission to exercise a right or freedom, then obviously you don't have a right/freedom. You have a permission.

Given narrow SCOTUS decisions on whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right or not, as things are going now the prognosis for the 2nd Amendment looks pretty poor on the current course.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 8:09 pm

Yes I'm sure Jäger.

Quote :: In Canada, there were 542 homicides in 2000 resulting in a national rate of 1.8 homicides per
100,000 population. By comparison, there were 15,517 homicides in the U.S., resulting in a rate
(5.5) three times higher than Canada’s.

Anyone who really want to know already know that.

The rate in Québec is the lowest in populated Canada. I must admit that Ontatio shares the same rates. We are competing on wich one can better achieve the best security feeling. It's a relief compared to places where they discuss on how what's the best way to survive.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 9:02 pm

Gun registration and confiscation has proceeded most every tyrannical government uprising since the invention of firearms. It has happened in Russia (pre WW2), Germany (WW1 &WW2), France, Britain, Vietnam, Korea, and in the USA just prior to the revolutionary war. I know I've missed a number of others.
Our founding fathers thought enough of their freedoms to put it into the Constitution as a right to keep and bear arms against such a time when a government body should think that we the people are the servants of government rather than the other way around. This right is an anchor to all the other freedoms guaranteed, insuring our ability to defend our selves and our freedoms. Taking this right away will clear the way to limit or eliminate ANY other right as a law abiding citizen. Speaking, traveling, worshiping the deity of choice, gathering for what ever purpose, voting, owning property, the primal pursuit of happiness etc. etc.

A right is far from being a privilege. A privilege can be granted to one but not to another, or taken away at the whim of the controlling body.
+1 on Jager's answer

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 9:27 pm

IndigoWolf wrote:: Our founding fathers thought enough of their freedoms to put it into the Constitution as a right to keep and bear arms against such a time when a government body should think that we the people are the servants of government rather than the other way around. This right is an anchor to all the other freedoms guaranteed, insuring our ability to defend our selves and our freedoms. Taking this right away will clear the way to limit or eliminate ANY other right as a law abiding citizen. Speaking, traveling, worshiping the deity of choice, gathering for what ever purpose, voting, owning property, the primal pursuit of happiness etc. etc.

In what world were living the founding fathers ? Really are people arguing about the freedom to bear arms thinking about using it against their government ? I wouldn't compare liberty of speach to liberty with liberty of wearing weapons. I don't live in the States so I can't be objective about it. What I can say is if you atill need to wear a weapon as a sign of freedom, we're not living in the same world.

As far as I know there are religions where eating pig was a sin and it was then wisdom. In these times pork was infested with parasites that qualified it as a dangerous meat. Is it still wisdom to consider eating pork as a sin ? Do you think that authorities supporting this rules in this religion are worthy of confidence ?

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 10:01 pm

Dancamp wrote:

Yes I'm sure Jäger.

Quote :: In Canada, there were 542 homicides in 2000 resulting in a national rate of 1.8 homicides per
100,000 population. By comparison, there were 15,517 homicides in the U.S., resulting in a rate
(5.5) three times higher than Canada’s.

Anyone who really want to know already know that.

The rate in Québec is the lowest in populated Canada. I must admit that Ontatio shares the same rates. We are competing on wich one can better achieve the best security feeling. It's a relief compared to places where they discuss on how what's the best way to survive.

What that has to do with guns beats the hell out of me. The word isn't even mentioned. You can commit a murder with anything. Far more people are killed by cars each year than guns. A gun is merely a tool used by a human. The human has the brain, the gun just does what it's told. All those statistics tell me is there are more whacko's in the US than there are in Canada.

Dancamp wrote:: In what world were living the founding fathers ? Really are people arguing about the freedom to bear arms thinking about using it against their government ? I wouldn't compare liberty of speach to liberty with liberty of wearing weapons. I don't live in the States so I can't be objective about it. What I can say is if you atill need to wear a weapon as a sign of freedom, we're not living in the same world.

The right of free speech is indeed comparable to the right to bear arms.

Admin

Dancamp wrote:

Yes I'm sure Jäger.

Quote :: In Canada, there were 542 homicides in 2000 resulting in a national rate of 1.8 homicides per
100,000 population. By comparison, there were 15,517 homicides in the U.S., resulting in a rate
(5.5) three times higher than Canada’s.

Anyone who really want to know already know that.

You're working hard at frantically moving the goalposts around Danny boy. You're using Canada wide statistics to represent your province. Let me help you remember what it was you posted:

Quote :: It is much more interesting considering the fact that in the province where I live, prevention is so good that we have the lowest rate of criminality in north america.

So let's look at the province you live in, versus the state I live in. 2006 is the latest year for which I can easily find complete statistics by state or province from the FBI UERs and Stats Canada. Let's have a look at that.

Murder
PQ 1.2/100k
MT 1.5/100k

Hmmmm... PQ is slightly better by .3. Or is it? For those don't know, the UERs classify ALL deaths by deliberate actions of another as "homicide", including those attributable to lawful force from a police officer or citizen, and those that are latter tried as manslaughter. Stats Canada operates from the other side of the sheet, where lawful killings and the lesser offence of manslaughter are not classified as murder. Does that make up the .3 difference? I can't honestly say one way or the other. But it is a hint of the problems with comparing apples and oranges.

Well, let's move on:

Rape
PQ 67/100k
MT 28.3/100k

(Wonder what SheWolf thinks about that?) Well, looks like Montana may perhaps have slightly more murderers, but Que seems to have got over twice as many rapists running around. Women might find MT a little safer than PQ

Burglary/B&E
PQ 876/100k
MT 310.7/100k

Nearly three times as likely to have some slug ransack your home in Quebec

Robbery
PQ 91/100k
MT 17.4/100k

And so it looks like in Quebec you're about four times as likely to have somebody threaten your life with a weapon while robbing you. Montreal was the armed robbery capital of North America sometime in the last decade, wasn't it?

Assaults
PQ 540/100k
MT 206.1/100k

Looks like you're also over twice as likely to be violently attacked, short of attempted murder, in Quebec compared to MT as well.

Which is why I asked you if you were really so sure you lived in the most crime free jurisdiction in North America. BTW, while Quebec may indeed have had the lowest rates for all of Canada, Montana is still not quite the most crime free jurisdiction in the US. All the above can be found in StatsCan and the FBI UERs (or extracts) for 2006.

Now true, I didn't look at things like fraud, theft, etc. I kind of stuck with the "crimes against the person" stuff, being as this topic is generally related to the issue of gun control. I have to wonder how much the lower violent crime rate is in MT rather than PQ, because in MT if you're thinking about raping, robbing, attacking someone, or breaking into their home, you have to wonder if you're going to run into a victim that doesn't try to dial 911 but instead reaches for 1911. This is, after all, a state where you can wander down main street Kalispell with a machine gun slung over your shoulder without any permit or license whatsoever if you feel so inclined.

Quote :: It's a relief compared to places where they discuss on how what's the best way to survive.

You mean in places like Washington DC, New York, New Jersey, etc where infringing gun laws effectively prohibit armed deterrence and self defense, and the murder rates in comparison are sky high? True.

Crime statistics between countries - and often even between provinces or between cities don't necessarily mean SFA.

Let me give you an example. Vancouver BC got so strapped for police officers it became impossible for them to respond to every small hit and run, break and enter, etc. And so they announced to the public that their policy would be to only attend when the loss was above a certain amount. Two things came out of that. First, because police did not attend "trivial" criminal acts, those acts never entered StatsCans numbers. And second, when the public started realizing the police weren't going to show up anyway, in many instances they simply didn't bother reporting the crime in the first place.

The result was that - magically - B&E and H&R rates in Vancouver showed an encouraging drop in short order. The city became safer, simply by having the police decide they couldn't respond to and deal with minor property crimes. That's on top of the dark figure of crime.

That's just one example. There are many other factors involved, including how StatsCan and the FBI track crime in very different ways. There is no uniformity in crime reporting that I am aware of, and it often even differs within a country by state/province.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Tue May 03, 2011 11:26 pm

Dancamp wrote:: In what world were living the founding fathers ? Really are people arguing about the freedom to bear arms thinking about using it against their government ?

The founding fathers lived in an age of tyranny. Yes, if our government BECAME tyrannical our Second Ammendment rights would be the remedy of last resort.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

"Shall not be infringed". I don't see a lot of wiggle room there.

Personally, I am not a gun enthusiast. They're fun for target shooting but I just don't have the passion for them. I don't get into the bravado of the gun culture. All things considered, I think society would be better off without guns. However, history offers myriad examples of why a populace should remain armed. I remember a story from WW2 having to do with a possible Japanese invasion of the US mainland. This was the purported quote, "Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto. I don't see why we would, or should, change our stance. There is a fine line between fear and respect. Either way, it works for us.

Admin

Dancamp wrote:: In what world were living the founding fathers ?

The same world that their grandfathers lived in when they did away with the Divine Right of Kings and created the English Bill of Rights. Which is why you will see so many similarities between English and American constitutional documents.

The English Bill of Rights is one of the constitutional documents that establishes your rights and freedoms Dan. And I know you haven't read it, because if you ever had you'd find something in it that would put you right back on your heels. And you probably wouldn't have posted what you did above.

Quote :: Really are people arguing about the freedom to bear arms thinking about using it against their government ? I wouldn't compare liberty of speach to liberty with liberty of wearing weapons.

Of course you wouldn't compare those. You assume the courts and government will always take care of you, you can't imagine a tyrannical government, and you've certainly never had to physically fight to protect your life and liberty - much less freedom of speech.

Do people have the right to life and security of the person Dan? Do they have the right to use force to protect their life and security of person? I hope you would agree that people do, because your right to life and physical wellbeing is the most fundamental right you have. The second most fundamental right is the right to self defense in protection of your life and physical wellbeing.

If you do have that right, it is a logical fallacy to believe people have the right to defend their lives and wellbeing, but they don't have the right to bear arms to make an effective defense. Is it realistic to expect granny to do ground and pound like GSP to protect herself against an assailant, your wife to go two on one hand-to-hand with two assailants attempting to rape her because using a weapon is somehow or other not right?

The right to bear arms is the mark of a free man, and the right that provides the means to defend all the other rights and freedoms - which belong to us as individuals, not to the government to dispense at their leisure, with their conditions attached. That means against all who would rob the individuals of that right, whether individuals or a government become unbearably tyrannical, with no other relief available.

I'm aware you can't imagine a tyrannical government. I'll bet a lot of Quebecers couldn't imagine their civil rights being suspended under the War Measures Act, being hauled from their homes at night by soldiers and taken away to jail for months without charge, searches of their homes without warrant, etc. Armed soldiers in the streets, no civil rights, curfews. You remember that Dan? You live in a country where your civil rights can be taken away with a simple majority vote in Parliament, for up to five years. Some of your teachers and union leaders may have been among those dragged from their beds in the middle of the night by the Canadian Army. Do you really feel your civil and human rights are guaranteed, for eternity, when you consider that?

When we went to Yugoslavia, we saw a beautiful country that had been taken from being the most literate country in Europe, with the highest rate of post secondary education, that was dragged back to the middle ages in a matter of months. The Slavs we met were in a state of shock the entire time we did our tours there that such a thing could have happened to them.

Treat your rights casually, consider them safeguarded without any possible need for you to be ready and willing to defend them, and somebody will take those rights away from you. Maybe not in your lifetime. Maybe not even in your children's lifetime. But sooner or later there will be a generation that, like the Slavs, the Jews, wandering around defenseless wondering what the hell is happening to them.

Quote :: What I can say is if you atill need to wear a weapon as a sign of freedom, we're not living in the same world.

True. You live in a world where you can't believe your rights and liberty could ever be taken from you, and if you became the target of a criminal the police would magically appear to protect your life and wellbeing.

Others live in a world where they think it is extremely unlikely that their life and liberty will ever be threatened - but if it ever does happen, they will have the means to at least put up a fight instead of simply becoming another statistic. Better to have and not need, than need and not have.

Quote :: As far as I know there are religions where eating pig was a sin and it was then wisdom. In these times pork was infested with parasites that qualified it as a dangerous meat. Is it still wisdom to consider eating pork as a sin ? Do you think that authorities supporting this rules in this religion are worthy of confidence?

What the hell a religious practice has to do with the unalienable rights of man and those rights and freedoms enumerated in constitutional documents, I have no idea.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Wed May 04, 2011 10:09 am

I cannot type nor think as fast as you, Jager, so I will just say I fully agree with every point you've made. thumb

Subject: Re: Gun Control Wed May 04, 2011 10:23 am

For the stats you might have choosen Alaska or Wyoming it would have served your point the same way Montana does.

Why don't you show the stats for Washington, LA or other areas.

Here is a link for all the provinces.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060720/dq060720b-eng.htm

I don't think there is a link between the law that controls guns and the low crime rate we live in. The crime rate was low before this law existed.

I just state that I don't feel compelled to wear a weapon to defend myself since the environnement in which I live feels secure. And don't worry if that changes I'll see then. For me it's exactly like all the people that built nuclear shelters 50 years ago. If I would think as you do, it's not a gun I would carry, I would always wear a protection uniform and hire a body guard. We never know, there are weird people living on this earth.

Seriously I like living in a state of mind that is adapted to the environment in which I live rather than the one where something might happen.

Admin

Dancamp wrote:: For the stats you might have choosen Alaska or Wyoming it would have served your point the same way Montana does.

Why don't you show the stats for Washington, LA or other areas.

Very simple Dan. You said you lived in the PROVINCE with the lowest rate of criminality in NORTH AMERICA.

I asked you if you were sure. You said yes, you were.

Given the comparison between your province and my state, I think it is pretty clear you were wrong. At least, as far as violent & personal crime goes.

But you're right, I could have gone outside Montana and found other states I don't live in with even lower crime rates than Montana, to really emphasize the point Quebec isn't in the position you claimed it was in. At least, as far as personal safety and crime goes.

That's it. No more, no less. Relevant to the topic at hand, interestingly enough all of these states with low crime rates also have very little in the way of gun control.

Quote :: I just state that I don't feel compelled to wear a weapon to defend myself since the environnement in which I live feels secure.

And I'll bet other Quebecers never thought the Canadian Army would ever be dragging them out of bed in the middle of the night and herding them into the back of 5 tons to be taken off to jails to be held without charge or access to lawyers for months back in the October Crisis, either! I'll bet they figured they were pretty secure - especially when the Prime Minister was from Quebec!

Nobody is COMPELLED to carry a weapon for self defense Dan. But when government decides you can't have realistic means of self defense - while they are surrounded by armed security (when was the last political assassination in Canada?), and government compels you to go about defenseless, that is something else again.

Quote :: And don't worry if that changes I'll see then.

Right! You just have to know that if it starts getting so bad you think you need a gun, the government will certainly permit you to get one! Of course they will!

Quote :: Seriously I like living in a state of mind that is adapted to the environment in which I live rather than the one where something might happen.

I bet you do. One of the most common things police hear from victims of violent crime is "I just can't believe this happened to me!" Same thing firemen hear from people who didn't buy fire insurance and their house burned down. They had a nice, safe state of mind until they drew the black marble.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Wed May 04, 2011 4:11 pm

Be always prepared cause there was an event 40 years ago it might happen again tomorrow. Beside I imagine what a gun would have served me or any other citizens that were jailed in 1970. I wonder why there hadn't been a call to arms when it happened. That would have been the solution I guess. lurk

Admin

So I gather we've moved on beyond your delusion you live in the safest jurisdiction in North America, yes?

You grasp why the Founders set up the Constitution as they did, finally?

Did you bother to read the English Bill of Rights, one of your constitutional documents, that comes from YOUR Founders? My guess is while you have time to browse among conspiracy theorist websites, you don't have time to read your own constitution, also available online.

The comment about the October Crisis related to your faith in the security of your rights and freedoms, Dan. Not that it was a time for the bullet box when the ballot box was still available in that particular instance. Other nations at other times have found that option removed.

S'okay. You can go back to sleep now, your peace and security of the person is guaranteed until the end of time.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Wed May 04, 2011 6:52 pm

Jäger wrote:: The comment about the October Crisis related to your faith in the security of your rights and freedoms, Dan. Not that it was a time for the bullet box when the ballot box was still available in that particular instance. Other nations at other times have found that option removed.

S'okay. You can go back to sleep now, your peace and security of the person is guaranteed until the end of time.

I stated that I feel secure as an individual. Try gettong ut of your imagination that is very limited and understand the words for what they are.

It's not because I can imagine ways to defend my rights other than with a weapon that it doesn't work. As a matter of fact I can't recall who has been able to defend it's rights toward any government with a gun lately. I imagine shooting the prime minister is your way of protecting your rights the way you write it.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Wed May 04, 2011 8:53 pm

An individual is not likely able to defend ones self from a government body let alone make any offensive progress with or without a personal firearm. What we are talking about is an accumulative group of people with the ability to stand strong against a power hungry tyrant wishing to raise him or herself to a level to govern from above the law abolishing the freedoms we now have.

The fact that criminal activities thrive in a population stripped of the ability to defend ones person or property is another point. Australia's crime rate has boomed since their mandatory gun collection was put into place. Great Britain has experienced a violent crime increase even with their ever restricting gun laws as well. Switzerland on the other hand is considered the safest place in the world. Why? There is at least one firearm in most every home in the country and they know how and are willing to use it.

I don't know of anyone (personally) who carries a firearm at all times. But I do know a few who didn't go into Gary Indiana without one, myself included. I no longer live in that area, but that element doesn't stay in that area either. If the shit were to hit the fan I'll be packing. Be it thugs, terrorists, or tyrants I'll stand for the freedom of what I believe in.

Subject: Re: Gun Control Wed May 04, 2011 10:15 pm

IndigoWolf wrote:: An individual is not likely able to defend ones self from a government body let alone make any offensive progress with or without a personal firearm. What we are talking about is an accumulative group of people with the ability to stand strong against a power hungry tyrant wishing to raise him or herself to a level to govern from above the law abolishing the freedoms we now have.

I agree with you that any tyrant must be opposed with arms if need be. All dictatures have something in common that helps them and it's the control of the armed forces by few people. The institutions that we have helps us to see that coming and to prevent it before needing to use weapons. Just imagine a president for the US or a prime minister in Canada trying to subordinate the armed forces to oppose the population. While there is always a possibility the probabilities are very low.

What you state about Switzerland is not complete. They are provided with a firearm by the government. They don't have a conventional army and they have what we could say a civilian defense. Just get there and you will notice that they don't consider a firearm as essential to their living. Just observe history and you'll notice that all the tyrants without exception had something in common. This common thing is the environment in which they thrived and took advantage of. They raised and got support from people that were starving. They gave them hope with words of pride and of rights. A good lesson on how they succeded can be learned by reading Mein Kampf by Hitler. It describes how he considered the masses and the arguments he used as a level to get support from them. Read it and compare it with what you hear from public people.

» Cruise control?
» Should the federal government control street signs?
» WRR/X cruise control?
» Birth Control - Should it be FREE
» Hello from VA (throttle cruise control question)