Outlawing guns in the US ...

[marquis2]

What other connected acts? The idea that the second amendment was anything other than an individual right never occurred seriously before the mid point of the 20th century. Early Americans would have laughed at people who thought that. Plus, it would be kind of funny to have nearly all the other amendments be concerned with individual rights but for some reason have the second which is worded much the same way, and with everybody including the government and the founders believing that to be such, to be thought of differently. The people that think otherwise aren't even engaged in revisionist history anymore. It's more like flat out lying. Not to mention that most of the states had the right to bear arms in their own constitutions. That's would be pretty funny if it wasn't considered an individual right. Plus, who says that what the writers intentions are don't matter. That might be the dumbest thing I have heard about constitutional thinking. What the original intent of the law was to the people that wrote it should be the MOST important thing, especially when it comes to something like that. It's not like a contract written last year where the people alive that created it can quickly change it if they have to. Besides if for some reason 50 years from now our language changes and the literal written word in a part of the constitution doesn't mean the same thing anymore are you actually telling me that any constitutional/human right that could be affected about it would just suddenly not exist anymore even if it was something humans were considered to have as unalienable right to since the begging of time by the creators of the law. My God if you believe that I sure as hell hope the literal dictionary definition of slavery, freedom, speech, religion, or hardly anything else doesn't alter ever.

The right to bear arms is quite different from the right to own them.The right to own guns already existed and needed no legislation.

 

[Dawn]

Aside - I'm seeing a lot of compare and contrast "In UK we don't do this . . . . . America should follow." I disagree with this notion completely.

I think you are right. While we can compare most industrialized countries with one other for the firearm debate, USA stands alone. That debate is very different in USA than elsewhere. It's unique to the USA.

From non-US citizens, it's quite hard in general to grasp the US mentality on that subject. And yet, i wouldn't want to generalize too much there.

For sure, when non-US people are using their own country references (and mentality) to slap it on the USA, it gives sterile debate which serve no one.

 

[Will E Worm]

Rights should be added, but not taken away. I personally think the press is dangerous, as they can incite violence (ie LA riots after the Rodney King police officers's verdicts). Had there been no press to report the verdict, there would have been no riots. Should be get rid of the first amendment? Of course not. With freedom comes some danger.

:thumbsup:

The trouble (and strength) of a legal documents is that what matters is what's said and not what its authors meant to say.The 2nd Amendment taken with the other connected Acts clearly didn't intend to concern itself with the individual right to gun ownership.But it was worded in such a way that makes gun control seem unconstitutional.

Because it is.

 

[FritzShurmur]

Regardless of what they do, I have guns that are not registered for a reason. Not to be an outlaw, but to be able to protect my family if needed. Politicians talk big but what happens when they dont have "secret service" around to protect them? They're going to wish that they had left the gun laws alone.

 

[Will E Worm]

"Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, the Communist Party must control the guns." Mao Tse Tung

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1935

"The most FOOLISH mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
Adolph Hitler, edict of 18 March, 1938

"Germans who wish to use guns should join the S.S., or the S.A. (Army), ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." Heinrich Himmler

-----

"If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"
Clint Smith, director, Thunder Ranch

"No free man shall ever be barred the use of arms"
Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, T. Jefferson Papers, 334

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 11:21
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

"They that can give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good!"
President George Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790

"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research."
William Cooper

 

[Dawn]

Nice quotes, Will E. Food for the thoughts. :thumbsup:

But that doesnt explain why we never had Hitlers or Maos in Canada where firearms are heavily controlled

 

[Will E Worm]

Nice quotes, Will E.

But that doesnt explain why we never had Hitlers or Maos in Canada where firearms are heavily controlled

You still have them. You better get enough people together to overturn all gun control laws in your country.

 

[Dawn]

I was just messing with you, Will E

As i have said ealier, USA are unique regarding firearms and the comparisons with other industrialised countries are uncalled and useless

 

[Will E Worm]

I was just messing with you, Will E

As i have said ealier, USA are unique regarding firearms and the comparisons with other industrialised countries are uncalled and useless

No, it is useful to see what will happen if American's were to ever give up their weapons.
Which they should never do.
Every country that the citizenry has given up their weapons has eventually become enslaved.

 

[Dawn]

No, it is useful to see what will happen if American's were to ever give up their weapons.
Which they should never do.
Every country that the citizenry has given up their weapons has eventually become enslaved.

Well, so far, in Canada, since the confederation in 1867, it works pretty well.

The only scandal we had regarding firearms is when the federal administration tried to set up a global registration and regulation program. Over 1 billion dollar was sunk into the building of the program... which never been achieved. An epic failure.

Strangely enough, both conservatives and liberals in Canada are in favor of firearms control. It's a consensus in Canada - and the population support them in that way as well. From memory, there is between 12% and 15% of the population disagreeing with that - the majority of them being farmers, hunters and citizens living in isolated areas.

Like i said, it's very different than the USA problematics.

I even dare to say that a the same object (firearm) is not perceive in the same manner in Canada as it is in USA.

Let's say that the only thing that can be helpfull for USA from the canadian experience is... if you ever got a registration global program, don't let the federal government handle it!

 

[Member2019]

Like i said, it's very different than the USA problematics ... I even dare to say that a the same object (firearm) is not perceive in the same manner in Canada as it is in USA.

Different in many ways, but some are the same. The rural areas and views tend to converge on some of the same concepts, because they have some of the same issues.

Years ago, I had one friend who lives in northern California who was pissed about the calibre limitations. Luckily, over the last few years, new, sub-50cal options, but very powerful, have become available.

He got demonized because he unloaded his full revolver into the animal. I don't people realize that the fucker didn't stop until that last bullet, because 9mm only does so much damage and even a 45, although a significant upgrade, still doesn't either.

 

[Facetious]

In a densely populated area you are going to encounter more of them.

Yes you will. You're also more likely to find a populace who are terrified by the idea that the mere citizenry could have the capacity to actually employ the use of an equal or greater force (a firearm) to counter an attack.
Really, our own worst enemy is an idea, and that is - It will never happen to me. Whether it's terrorism or garden variety, home invasion assault & burglary, all to often, the "city mindset" attempts to research the motive of the criminal himself. Nonsense I say. The only thing that we need to know about the criminal element is that they seek victims of highest relative amount of return, ($$$) while, at the same time, offering the least of amount of resistance (firearm forbidden society).

But statistically it's much more likely to cause the injury or death of a family member.The principle of protection by being armed falls when it encounters facts.

Source (?)



I understand that if you were new to the physical handling of firearms, or were downright opposed to them, altogether, you might have thoughts of your own personal incompetence relative to the proper course of action to take when employing a firearm in your own defenses.
Reading the above quote, once again, reveals that you wouldn't be a very good candidate to defend your family, even in the event that YOU were allocated a very special personal permit to do so. I fully understand that the states' laws can seem somewhat foreign, or archaic, if you will, but dammit I wouldn't have it any other way ! In fact, I believe that we need to reverse course and reacquire some of the many responsibilities (liberties) that we have lost over the years.

And keep in mind that, in order to acquire a concealed carry permit, a state moderated proficiency requirement needs to be successfully completed, prior to issuance. There's more material on these exams than I care to discuss here, but all things considered, an . . to be continued - deadline to attend


It's puzzling how some suggest that we (America) "get with the modern times" and adopt a new uncharted wave of socialism into our lives . . you know, be like the rest of the world. With all due respect, I don't want the world to be alike. Promote world diversity impdaddy

 

[Dawn]

It's puzzling how some suggest that we (America) "get with the modern times" and adopt a new uncharted wave of socialism into our lives . . you know, be like the rest of the world. With all due respect, I don't want the world to be alike. Promote world diversity impdaddy

The liberal use of that word is also puzzling. It is thrown at so many things that i wonder what is not related to socialism nowadays... :dunno:

 

[Facetious]

Dawn ~

Not particularly central to the discussion here . . however, I thought that I would ask -

There are two firearms manufacturers in Canada of which I am aware ofxx1 & 2
. # 1 is a well known, fairly high volume and very high quality manufacturer of 1911 type pistols that, I would imagine, export a great deal of their production into America. The second Link is a mfgr that I don't know much about.

My question was, "if" you desired to purchase a Canadian manufactured pistol, could you do it ? I'm thinking that you probably could, you just have to have a squeaky clean background and your government might make you jump through some flaming hoops, maybe swim across Thunder Bay . . that type of thing .

OR, Are firearms, pistols, that is, completely an off limits type of thing
for the Canadian Civilian ?

I was just curious :thumbsup:

 

[Sabbath1776]

No, and I don't think any Amendments of the Bill of Rights should ever be repealed.

Simple as that.

 

[titsrock]

It's puzzling how some suggest that we (America) "get with the modern times" and adopt a new uncharted wave of socialism into our lives . . you know, be like the rest of the world. With all due respect, I don't want the world to be alike. Promote world diversity

You can thank the corporations for this. Globalization has killed "America." Since there's no way to "turn back the clock" entirely, we can regulate GLOBALIZATION so AMERICA doesn't continue to get fucked and the left holding the bag.

At this point, we might as well being more socialism into America. It's cheaper to do so than to NOT do so:dunno:

 

[calpoon]

I always say that you should teach your kids the proper way to handle and use a firearm that way there won't be any accidents and they will be sure to succeed the first time that you piss them off and they get your gun and shoot you with it.

 

[calpoon]

I'm wondering what the statistic is for number of shooting death's occurring against people that own guns, compared with those that do not. That would add an interesting perspective to the argument, but I can't seem to find any studies on that particular.

If you want to get really technical about it, it would be the majority because the leading cause of shooting death is suicide. Kind of makes the idea of defense laughable when the gun toting maniac that you should be most worried about is yourself. But I still would be interested in the homicide numbers.

 

[Facetious]

I'm wondering what the statistic is for number of shooting death's occurring against people that own guns, compared with those that do not. That would add an interesting perspective to the argument, but I can't seem to find any studies on that particular.

Seek it and I'll qualify it . . .maybe.

I have always wondered what the knife Vs pistol fight ratio was (while you're at it)

I think the US Justice Dept has that kind of stuff online. :dunno:

 

[Member2019]

I always say that you should teach your kids the proper way to handle and use a firearm that way there won't be any accidents and they will be sure to succeed the first time that you piss them off and they get your gun and shoot you with it.

The former is true. The latter, I've never, ever heard of. I assume you meant the latter as a joke?

There are a significant number of accidents among gun owners. And, in the majority of cases, it was absolute irresponsibility, especially in the case of kids (not securing it, not teaching them to respect it, etc...).

But the statistic people keep ignoring is the ration of gun owners v. those with accidents/incidents. It's extremely small, because most are very responsible. I could say, the ratio is much smaller than many other rights/responsibilities -- from alcohol to driving.

That's what always amazes me. People ignore that statistic. All those guns and gun owners, yet so few irresponsible incidents among legal gun owners.