US 2nd amendment, keep & bear arms good or bad?

It's been well proven, multiple times in fact, that no matter how technologically advanced our military is, they can't defeat an enemy that refuses to surrender.

To think about it further, how fucking outrageous would things have to become here for our own military, which is 100% voluntary, to attack and fight against it's own people?

We are not North Korea or China.

Full scale revolution would be the end of this country on many levels. Second amendment or not.

Look what gorilla fighters in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have been able to accomplish?
Look what one guy and some fertilizer did in Oklahoma.

Rydy. Great quotes. Cut and pasted 'em all to a file. Keep 'em coming.

rydnseek wrote:

No problem. It is easier to find fault than to offer solutions.

I inferred plenty of solutions.

Waiting periods. Limits on quantities. Registration. License. Classes.

Think about what you have to do to become a licensed driver. Why is that more hoops to jump through than buying a 9mm with 15 round magazine?

Why does my state know exactly what vehicles I own, the mileage at least once every few years, and require me to carry a valid license whenever I drive?

Yet - they have no idea who owns what in terms of weaponry?

I've offered my thoughts.

[quote="motokid"]..
Full scale revolution would be the end of this country on many levels. Second amendment or not.
.../quote]

Now that is something I agree with. In fact it wouldn't even have to be full scale revolution. I think it's more likely that we will split up into different states, regions, or localities to protect our own little way of life. Maybe the idea of a great melting pot is being stressed to the point of breaking.

You can see it in the red/blue politics even today. People from the midwest, small towns, rurual areas, and blue collar areas have a different set of interests and values than the more densely populated cities and coastal areas. Right here in Washington State there is a pretty big idealogical gulf between the Puget Sound/western region and the Central/Eastern region.

Gun control is just one issue and probably not the hottest. Abortion, gay marriage, wealth transfer (from US to THEM), and aliens amongst us seem to the most divisive. It's all about wanting to live in a homogeneous society vs. learning to live in a more diverse society.

mucker wrote:

Could someone fill this canuck in on exactly what restrictions, if any, do exist in the U.S.
Are all miitary munitions fair game?...huge stockpiles, explosives, etc...

Would appreciate a lil education if ya don't mind.

There's very few restrictions other than on fully automatic weapons.

Explosives are highly restricted. Average Joe can't buy dynamite or plastic explosives for example. We can't buy land mines or grenades or hand held rocket launchers.


I do believe things like Barrett 50 caliber long range rifles can be bought.

There are also kits that can be acquired to make some semi-automatic weapons easily converted into fully auto but those are pretty much illegal.


However - buying illegal stuff isn't very difficult either.

Large capacity magazines are available too I believe.

I know I can walk into any Wal-mart store, and sitting on a shelf in plain view and accessible to any shopper regardless of age, is boxes of 12 gauge shot-gun shells.
I doubt there's any questions asked if buying those. They sit there just like the laundry detergent or batteries.

motokid wrote:

It's been well proven, multiple times in fact, that no matter how technologically advanced our military is, they can't defeat an enemy that refuses to surrender.

Stop right there Moto. All armies promise to "fight to the last man". Until they don't.

In the American Civil War, the South fought long after victory was impossible. Then Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground and they surrendered. But they did.

The Japanese - about as fanatical fighting force as you'll ever see - continued to fight AFTER WE NUKED HIROSHIMA!!. For f**cks sake. They had to be nuked TWICE before they surrendered. But they did.

History teaches us the exact opposite of what you're saying. That eventually armies do surrender but their cause has to be demonstrated to be absolutely hopeless and the price of hanging on horrific. What's most interesting about wars is that when their over - apparently nobody ever supported the losing side.

You should read Victor Davis Hanson - a military historian. He's got a blog.

Did the Vietnamese surrender? What about Iraq? Afghanistan?

Think modern times.

Look at Afghanistan alone? Russia? US invasion?

Those fuckers refuse to give up.

Truly amazing if you think about it.

Quote :

Jager wrote:
One small - and sad - correction here.

The English Bill of Rights predates the US Constitution and is still in force. In fact, the Framers regularly referenced the EBR while drafting the US Constitutional documents. Not surprising, considering their great grandfathers' generation had been the ones who ended the divine right of kings and brought about constitutional government and law.

And the EBR also includes the right of people to own arms for their defence - in fact, that was the basis of the Second Amendment.

However, a quick look at England, Australia, Canada, etc - where the EBR is still part of their constitutions - shows that the governments of those countries have simply decided to ignore that section while keeping the right to vote, the right to elected governments, jury trials, etc.

Looking at how The Anointed One has simply decided to ignore the constitution of late - and previous government attacks on the Second Amendment - that sort of outcome is dangerously close for the US as well. The recent SCOTUS decisions affirming the Second as an individual right were disgusting 5-4 decisions, which also included comments indicating that the issue could be revisited and "reasonable" restrictins were okay.

Ultimately, the right to arms is only protected and defended by the voters, both gun owners and non-gun owners. It is only the force of the vote that is the final protection of the right to bear arms. Courts today are increasingly activist about what the Framers SHOULD have put in the Constitution, and governments are populated by people who serve their personal opinions and kowtow to lobby groups rather than attempting to govern within the restrictions the Constitution laid out for limited government.

If voters don't develop a willingness to throw the bastards out whenever government chooses to ignore the constitution, and elect governments willing to take on SCOTUS whenever they decide to recreate the Constitution, most of the constitution is at risk. Not just the Second, but the limitations on government and everything else.

The EBR never really gave the 'right to keep & bear arms'. It was addressing more of an unfair advantage the papists had vs the protestants.. here's the original:

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

And the later part:

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

Now i can see the founders looking at that & not being too impressed. Too many variables, too easy to bypass. They kept it simple.

This was a very significant document.. it was the beginning of the end of divine right of kings. The monarchy had to abide by the same rules as the people... well, mostly. But thanks for referencing it.. i'm always fascinated by history, & especially in that period.

After reading the original, which is still active.. you are right.. i'm impressed with the sweeping changes it brought about. It was definitely the precursor to the declaration of independence, & our own bill of rights. And it predated our own constitution by 100 yrs! But it was not really a constitution, just a framework of rights the monarchy had to abide by. And of course, it did not really guarantee the right to keep & bear arms, which we have seen fade throughout the british empire.

Mohandas Ghandi was very critical of Britain & their restrictions on guns in india:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Mahatma Gandhi

The british were not fools. They knew if the indian people had guns, the british would lose. Their superior armament was the only chance they had to rule india.

So i'm sticking with my statement of the us having the longest active constitution in the world, & the only one with the right to keep & bear arms. I'm also sticking with my premise that the 2nd amendment has contributed to the nation's longevity. Who knows how things might have been with a fearful & helpless populace. But an assertive, armed citizenry is more difficult to ignore. Even obama is a little afraid of middle america as 'they cling to guns or religion'.

The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power.
Daniel Webster

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."
William F. Buckley

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

mucker wrote:

Could someone fill this canuck in on exactly what restrictions, if any, do exist in the U.S.
Are all miitary munitions fair game?...huge stockpiles, explosives, etc...

Would appreciate a lil education if ya don't mind.

Well, to put it simply. Full auto firearms, suppressors, explosives, destructive devices are not legal to own unless you obtain special licenses. These are not easy to get due to the amount of hoops & background checks you need to go through. More intense checking than a regular firearms purchase, & the process could take months to complete. You need to pay a tax stamp for each gun etc. & the BATFE (bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms & explosives) has the right to enter your home to inspect your "collection" as they see fit.

I don't think there is a law for the amount of ammunition you can own but I think if you reload ammo, large quantities of powder & primers have certain storage requirements.

Civilian military style firearms sold by stores legally in the US are semi-auto only & are legal to purchase & own in most states provided you pass the background check. Same law applies for all other type of firearms. Unfortunately there are instances of illegal exchanges between persons privately who are not allowed to own firearms, the police cannot watch everyone all the time so we all need to do our part to help law enforcement on that matter.

motokid wrote:

I know I can walk into any Wal-mart store, and sitting on a shelf in plain view and accessible to any shopper regardless of age, is boxes of 12 gauge shot-gun shells.
I doubt there's any questions asked if buying those. They sit there just like the laundry detergent or batteries.

Don't know about individual state laws but federal law states that you must be 18 to purchase long gun ammunition & 21 to purchase handgun ammunition. The clerk at the store is required to check ID & if they sell to a minor, they are breaking the law.

sswrx wrote:

motokid wrote:

I know I can walk into any Wal-mart store, and sitting on a shelf in plain view and accessible to any shopper regardless of age, is boxes of 12 gauge shot-gun shells.
I doubt there's any questions asked if buying those. They sit there just like the laundry detergent or batteries.

Don't know about individual state laws but federal law states that you must be 18 to purchase long gun ammunition & 21 to purchase handgun ammunition. The clerk at the store is required to check ID & if they sell to a minor, they are breaking the law.

I've bought shotgun shells at walmart.. they always ask for my id, i figure because i don't look over 18..

motokid wrote:

To think about it further, how fucking outrageous would things have to become here for our own military, which is 100% voluntary, to attack and fight against it's own people?

We are not North Korea or China.

No we are not... but a man named Hitler did just that... All it took was a charismatic leader to direct blame and create an outcast community that quickly becomes the source of all things wrong. Yes, it is outrageous... but it can happen. History shows that one of the first acts to control a populace is to remove their ability to defend them selves with modern (at the time) weapons. Various leaders through out history took this tact ... pre roman times to present, including Hitler. Our founding fathers recognized this fact and gave us a constitution and bill of rights to strengthen and protect the people from such a tyranny. It is obvious, although our country is well over 230 years old that dictators and tyrants have tried and succeeded to subdue nations with "gun control" as a tool to keep the people from defending themselves from such an outrageous event. The Second Amendment is key to ensuring our country's freedoms and liberty. Protecting us from a leader aspiring to such a position as supreme position. The Second Amendment is as valid today as it was when first written.

motokid wrote:

I tend to think maybe it's time the idea of guns being a "right" should become "you have the right to earn the privilege to own a gun".
Sort of like getting a drivers license. Take a class, pass a test, pass some background checks and get a license to purchase a weapon.

For now - I'll stand by this concept.

Anybody can have a gun - as long as they prove they are worthy. At the very least, a system relatively similar to obtaining a drivers license and registering a car is worthy of using as a guide.

dhally wrote:

motokid wrote:

Full scale revolution would be the end of this country on many levels. Second amendment or not.

Now that is something I agree with. In fact it wouldn't even have to be full scale revolution. I think it's more likely that we will split up into different states, regions, or localities to protect our own little way of life. Maybe the idea of a great melting pot is being stressed to the point of breaking.

You can see it in the red/blue politics even today. People from the midwest, small towns, rurual areas, and blue collar areas have a different set of interests and values than the more densely populated cities and coastal areas. Right here in Washington State there is a pretty big idealogical gulf between the Puget Sound/western region and the Central/Eastern region.

Gun control is just one issue and probably not the hottest. Abortion, gay marriage, wealth transfer (from US to THEM), and aliens amongst us seem to the most divisive. It's all about wanting to live in a homogeneous society vs. learning to live in a more diverse society.

It is hard to imagine revolution in the us.. but anything can happen. One of the things about our military.. even more than local police, is their oath & training to 'defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign & domestic.' I think enough of them will do that, without regard to some politicians' commands to kill some tea party protesters. I know the number is dwindling, & the left has been pretty successful in promoting an anti constitution, statist view of the country, but there are still enough who know the difference.. who believe in the Great Experiment in human freedom known as america. I believe those people will have much more determination, courage, & willingness to fight for their freedoms than the statists will for their views.

But it is disturbing about the division.. it seems obama has not been the uniter he claimed he would be..instead he promotes division & class warfare. In some ways, i feel we the people are being manipulated by the politicians to rush to one side or the other to defend them from the other side. Maybe its just me, but i don't see gun control as much of a factor, either, nor do i care about all the other social issues.. well, not that i don't care, but i see the financial picture as being much more important.

Many of the social issues are like bickering about what we're going to have for dessert on the cruise ship we're on, but it's sinking. Our finances are sinking us. We can debate the peripheral things later. We've got to stop the financial collapse, first.

I don't think americans are opposed to diversity.. we are THE most diverse people ever! ..at least in a major world power.. I think the idea of cutting corners by illegal immigration bothers more people. Legal immigrants wait in line for years to become citizens, while others can just walk over the border. I don't get why the left wants open borders.. no citizenship? No country? No other nation does that, why should we? Or is that a simplistic generalization, like saying the right is just bigoted?

So what do you suppose the crime rate is at a shooting range?

rydnseek wrote:

I don't get why the left wants open borders.. no citizenship? No country? No other nation does that, why should we? Or is that a simplistic generalization, like saying the right is just bigoted?

I'm not convinced that is what the left wants.

Though I do think the left is looking out for everyone, more so, in their own perverted way, whomever they are...more so than the right, which appears to be looking out for the team, at the expense of everyone else. Typical aggressive teamwork, as most jocks...excuse me...popular athletes are trained. Very effective for the team, mind you.

The left seems to want it all, how crazy and unorganized is that?...while the right just wants the team to prevail, at any cost.
...or so it can seem.

Mind you, immigration policies, in themselves can't help the world's issues...unless you consider, how we encourage the world's brightest, to leave where they are needed most...usually at home. The west's harvesting of intellectuals, certainly must have an impact on less fortunate nations. But then again, that concern does little for the team.

Your either part of the problem, or part of the solution....it would be nice to hear parties argue solutions...but seems they can't even agree on their common problems yet.

All main stream arguments seem to fetch up on the economy, I guess the biggest argument is...will our economy save us and eventually make things right...cause people will fight for what they think is right...how our economy works, defines how far humans have progressed.

motokid wrote:

Did the Vietnamese surrender? What about Iraq? Afghanistan?

Think modern times.

Look at Afghanistan alone? Russia? US invasion?

Those fuckers refuse to give up.

Truly amazing if you think about it.

Wrong again Moto.

If the United States utter existence depended on "winning" these wars we would have won. Because the hard men would do what had to be done and the civilians would look the other way. When wars are optional, they are fought with "modern" sensibilities.

You don't win wars that way. You win by convincing the other side that if they don't surrender most of you are going to die.

'Modern' sensibilities have us trying to win hearts and minds. Grab their balls, hearts and minds will follow.

gatorfan wrote:

motokid wrote:

Did the Vietnamese surrender? What about Iraq? Afghanistan?

Think modern times.

Look at Afghanistan alone? Russia? US invasion?

Those fuckers refuse to give up.

Truly amazing if you think about it.

Wrong again Moto.

If the United States utter existence depended on "winning" these wars we would have won. Because the hard men would do what had to be done and the civilians would look the other way. When wars are optional, they are fought with "modern" sensibilities.

You don't win wars that way. You win by convincing the other side that if they don't surrender most of you are going to die.

'Modern' sensibilities have us trying to win hearts and minds. Grab their balls, hearts and minds will follow.

Absolutely...you can either convince them or exterminate them.
So, how is convincing them goin for ya....or have you moved to the plan B group already?

Here, I thought wars were for when you ran out of options.

mucker wrote:

...You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution....it would be nice to hear parties argue solutions...but seems they can't even agree on their common problems yet.

......how our economy works, defines how far humans have progressed.

I agree with the sentiment that "progress" should measure economic conditions for a wide spectrum of demographics. However, our (global now) economy is a very complex system, and while governments probably can affect the economy to some exent, I don't think anybody knows the cause/effect relationship.

As far as arguing solutions, I have some thoughts along those lines.

Government
1. Strong term limits for Congress and problaby state Legistlature as well.

2. Radical campaign finance reform. I hate the idea of campaigns being paid by the federal government from taxes, but it would be one solution. The other would be to allow individual contributions only, with a low limit, like 10 percent of the poverty income level.

3. If the above 2 don't work, we should consider changing to a parlimentary government.

4. And for good measure, lets not give corporations the same rights as individuals. That just plain gives too much power to a small group of people (board of directors/executives).

I believe the above changes would bring government back towards the will of the people.

Gun Control
I personally wouldn't mind some effective gun control, although I don't feel strongly. If the majority wants gun control, here is what I think would work:

1. First, the USA would stop being the largest arms exporter in the world. If we are going to control guns at home we should stop spreading wars around the rest of the world first. Not to mention the moral implications of being the world's arm dealer. So I would suggest prohibiting ALL weapons and ammunition exportation. No warplanes, bombs, artillery, Hummers, mortars, mines, and no firearms. Period.

2. Second, we would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition and bullets. We could make some for our military and armed forces, but it would be strictly limited to those uses. And don't forget the Militia could have well-regulated ammunition too. Manufacture and sale of automated ammunition fabrication equipment would be prohibited as well. If you want ammo, you hand load it. One at a time. And cast your own bullets.

I'll admit I haven't thought this all the way through, but is seems like after our ammo stockpile was gone, the USE of firearms would slow way down. The bad guys' firepower would be cut by orders of magnitude. But the homeowner could still have a couple of clips full "just in case."

dhally wrote:

2. Radical campaign finance reform. I hate the idea of campaigns being paid by the federal government from taxes, but it would be one solution. The other would be to allow individual contributions only, with a low limit, like 10 percent of the poverty income level.

Without dealing with those issues directly, democracy, is just the nickname, of the scam that is being sold to the people.

motokid wrote:

There are many many people who should definitely NOT have any "rights" to own firearms and/or weapons of any kind.

And I'm sure you also agree that there are also many many people who should not have the right to freedom of expression.

The right to assembly.

Many many should not have the right to Miranda warnings, a jury trial, etc.

And of course, many may others should not have the right to petition their government.

And really, why SHOULDN'T the government have the power to garrison troops in your own house if they so choose, right?

And wouldn't we be so much better off if the police didn't have to concern themselves with rights dealing with unreasonable search and seizure?

Just as many many people shouldn't have the right to bear arms (interesting concept about who we appoint to decide who gets guns and who doesn't - like the Klan sponsored legislation and the Sullivan Act), surely many many others deserve to have their protection from cruel and unusual punishment removed, right?

I gather you wouldn't have a problem with any of that. After all, if you think many people should be deprived of their Second Amendment rights in the name of social good and order, then removing other rights is even more valid, correct. After all, none of the other rights were deemed so important they were emphasized with the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Quote :

It truly amazing to me to hear people get completely bent out of shape about a "right" to own a fully automatic weapon, yet scream that universal health care for all is not only not a "right" but also something that will eventually destroy our country.

It truly amazes me how many people feel up to discussing the Second Amendment, and yet are so completely warped that they don't understand what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.

What leaves one even more incredulous is that many of these same people don't understand that the right to arms IS part of the Constitution - but universal health care is not.

Quote :

Universal health Care is destructive and dangerous, but access to any and all forms of weapons is some kind of "god given right"????

Let's first avoid getting over excited here by claiming access to any and all forms of weapons is part of the right to bear arms. While the bobble headed "reasonable" (i.e. as long as they think it's okay, then they don't mind you owning it) opponents of the words and spirit of the Second Amendment want to warn us of the danger of allowing people own nuclear arms, that "any and all" has never been part of the Second.

Second, yes, as a matter of fact these are unalienable rights that you are endowed with by your Creator. Of course, here's an idea... if you scoff at the idea of a God, maybe we should have a class of many many people who have none of those rights since they have no Creator. However, you could fall back on John Locke, one of the inspirations of much of the Constitution, who argued that you have these rights because you are a sovereign human being.

One of the essential failings of those who would oppose and limit the Second Amendment (aside from their inability to understand the words "shall not be infringed"), is that they don't grasp that these rights are not rights we possess because they were bestowed on us by governments. These are not legal rights, instead, these are natural rights and the Constitution merely recognizes their existence.

Quote :

How fucked up are we?

Fucked up enough that some people don't understand what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.

Fucked up enough that some people don't understand that a right to cradle to grave health care - where people who have no say in what you do to your health have to pay for the results of your obese, beer swilling, cigarette smoking, Twinky diet lifestyle - does not exist in the Constitution. Nor that none of the barking mad leftists and statists who say this should be a constitutional right have ever had the balls to try a constitutional amendment including it...

Quote :

I am not "anti-gun" nor am I "anti-second amendment". (regardless of how my words get twisted by a few of the regulars here)

Waiting periods, background checks, and limits to numbers of weapons that can be bought at one time are fine with me.
Registration of weapons is fine with me too.

That pretty much defines somebody who is anti-second amendment quite nicely. And somebody who also can't understand the four simple words "shall not be infringed". It basically takes what is a pre-existing natural right that you are endowed with and moves it to being a legal privilege subject to government permission and restrictions.

What do you think the words "shall not be infringed" mean anyways? Especially when you say you're not anti-second amendment and all?

Quote :

I tend to think maybe it's time the idea of guns being a "right" should become "you have the right to earn the privilege to own a gun".
Sort of like getting a drivers license. Take a class, pass a test, pass some background checks and get a license to purchase a weapon.

Yeah, no "anti-second amendment" ideas there.... Shouldn't you also mention that the words "shall not be infringed" have to be removed?

At the same time, shouldn't we also make freedom of speech a privilege? Freedom of assembly and association? Background checks and licensing before we let you do something that might not be in the interests of the state and social order?

Or is it only the Second Amendment that needs to be removed from the Bill of Rights.

Quote :

Why is it tougher to legally ride a motorcycle than it is to buy a AR-15?

That to me is fucked up.

When did riding a motorcycle become an unalienable right?

What legal hurdles do I have to satisfy before riding my motorcycle on private property?

What state prohibits me from buying or possessing an AR-15 motorcycle?

What law defines entire classes of people prohibited from owning or possessing ANY motorcycle?

And where is this horrendous crime wave involving AR-15's going on? It sounds like they're the devil incarnate.

Quote :

So now I'll sit back and watch multiple people call me a socialist/communist/anti-american libtard/anti-second amendment lefty blah bah blahh blah......

How somebody can read this: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed and then say "I'm not anti-second amendment, but I support making gun ownership a privilege granted by government, involving tests, licenses, restrictions on how much and what you own and when you buy them, etc." is about the most fucked up thing I've seen in this discussion so far.

Seriously, you really think your views on this are consistent with the wording of the Second Amendment? What do the words "shall not be infringed" mean to you, anyways?

As for you being a left wing statist, well, you just are what you are, and comments like those here on the Second Amendment pretty much define you as such.

"shall not be infringed". For some people, it's as complicated as trying to understand string theory.

motokid wrote:

For now - I'll stand by this concept.

Anybody can have a gun - as long as they prove they are worthy. At the very least, a system relatively similar to obtaining a drivers license and registering a car is worthy of using as a guide.

I'll go along with that.

As long as you have to go through the same system before being allowed to own a computer and have internet access. Think of all the horrible kiddy porn out there.

As long as you have t go through the same system before being allowed to take part in an assembly.

As long as you have to prove you are worthy before being allowed to vote or run for office.

As long as you have to prove you are worthy before getting your license to exercise freedom of speech.

Because if it didn't apply to all the rights, instead of just one specific right that some hysterical people are fearful of, then it would be the most fucked up, inconsistent idea yet.

rydnseek wrote:

The EBR never really gave the 'right to keep & bear arms'. It was addressing more of an unfair advantage the papists had vs the protestants.. here's the original:

Yes it did. And the fact that it did was held up by numerous decisions by the House of Lords (and Blackstone) in the subsequent 250 years. The wheels fell off the wagon in the early 1900's. And then it didn't matter what your religion was, or if you had one at all. Blackstone specifically said that the right to arms was the right of all Englishman, because without that right all the others were meaningless.

The right to arms was affirmed previous to the EBR by earlier constitutional documents. For ALL English citizens. A Catholic king had just disarmed Protestants, negating that right. The EBR restored that right BUT it didn't remove that right from Catholics. Look at the comment about religion as being the equivalent of the reference to militias in the Second.

mucker wrote:

I guess I also wonder what would happen to Canada if we adopted such rights?

You mean something that said something like people had a right to "arms for their defense"? How many Canadians would recognize those words?

Quote :

Would it it start a race among the public to arm themselves?
Would our canadian "traits" of today, become something, unrecognizable, for better?..for worse?

Well, given that you could legally carry handguns AND get a concealed carry permit prior to the early 70's, a review of the ancient history of Canada (i.e. 1970 and prior) should tell you what Canadians would do under those circumstances.

Shockingly enough, like the US, law abiding firearms owners pretty much behaved themselves as they do today.

I have a Q:

Are "fully automatic" weapons illegal everywhere in the US (with narrow exceptions)? The "automatic" weapons people have are modified such that it is .... "one trigger pull - one bullet". Is that correct?