Guns, the other side

[StSanta]

Udie, hm, can you ship me some automatics too?

I mean, it would be cool to have one.

I need lots of ammo too, the McDonalds here have lots of customers.

 

Or maybe a .50 sniper rifle. Voted "Most likely to become a rooftop sniper" by my friends back in my teens  

Now, I have to go save the whales, remove pollution, feed the starving and continue my communist plan of world domination.

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

[Pongo]

I wonder what Jefferson would have thought of the outcome of that amendment.
In Canada we live in the shadow of the US. Militarily, Economically, Culturally. As an IT proffesional I have many friends that now live in the states and many friends that I work with are from the states. You ussually have to be told that a person is not Canadian to know it. But talk about guns.. and you see the difference very quickly.

An American that has never even handled a gun will spout out the "people kill people" line by heart in 2 seconds. I try to assure them that guns do kill people, but they can not see it. I use my "how about nuclear weapons?" (certainly Jefferson would have wanted his warriors to have weapons capable of defeating the government?) arguments and their eyes gloss over. That is silly they say and then they recount somthing about a swimming pool.
I grew up with guns in a very rural setting like some americans have mentioned above. I own a gun. I would say that 25 years ago there was little to tell between the attitude about guns in the US and in Canada. But that is not true now.
They learn to love guns on their mothers knee. Such love will not be denied.
If anyone ever jumps out of their car at my kids school and pulls out a swimming pool, I hope I can get my pool out fast enough to stop most of the tragedy.

I would hope that something could be done about the gun industry itself. Guns dont ware out. Let those Ruger, S&W, Colt, etc employees make up-scale machined CD racks for a few years. Companies must grow market share to be successful or grow the market. Do even Americans think that is a good idea in the case of pocket sized 18 shot killing machines?

I think Charlton Heston would be very dissappointed with how Jefferson would react to what has been allowed to continue in the name of his ammendment. I think that his reaction would be similar to Winston Churchills reaction to what has been done with welfare.

[AKDejaVu]

 

An American that has never even handled a gun will spout out the "people kill people" line by heart in 2 seconds.

I guess its because they are used to Canadians spouting "Oh yeah.. what about gun violence!" whenever an argument isn't going their way.  Regardless of wether the person they are talking to owns a gun or not.

Of course, its ok to have an opinion on someone else's policy or view's if you are Canadian, but if you are American and use the above term.. you'd better have handled a gun?
 
 

I use my "how about nuclear weapons?" (certainly Jefferson would have wanted his warriors to have weapons capable of defeating the government arguments and their eyes gloss over.)

I suppose that is because the shear stupidity of this argument is hard to comprehend.  And you were ridiculing "guns don't kill people.. people kill people"?  Wow.. I guess people are just having a hard time with your double standard as far as what is/isn't acceptable in a discussion.

 

I would hope that something could be done about the gun industry itself. Guns dont ware out. Let those Ruger, S&W, Colt, etc employees make up-scale machined CD racks for a few years. Companies must grow market share to be successful or grow the market. Do even Americans think that is a good idea in the case of pocket sized 18 shot killing machines?

What?  Are you refering to guns not wearing out as being something we should be CONCERNED about?

I have a freind who's dad has a 43 Cadillac.  It is in imaculate condition.  It has 5000 miles on the odometer.  It was placed in the garage when his grandfather died and never driven much again.  That was 50+ years ago.  Something not used is bound to last longer than something is.

My uncle has a machine shop.  A tour around will reveal that most of the equipment was made during world war II.  You can barely tell a 60 year old machining lathe from a 10 year old one.  Something built well will do its job for many decades.

Now.. combine something built well with something that isn't used very often.  That shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.

I guess Canadians are just used to anything they make falling apart?

 

I think Charlton Heston would be very dissappointed with how Jefferson would react to what has been allowed to continue in the name of his ammendment. I think that his reaction would be similar to Winston Churchills reaction to what has been done with welfare.

That's quite an endorsement you have there.  Of course, I'm sure gun rights advocates could pick several long-dead people to endorse them too.

And of course, you are running under the faulty deduction that your view was logical and Thomas Jefferson was logical.. so Thomas Jefferson would aprove your view.  This is not logical.

AKDejaVu


[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
I can't believe people still resort to the US constitution as a justification of insane gun lobbying.  It is absolutly ignorant.  

Do you know when the United States Constitution was signed?  Do you know the history of the events that led up to its signing?  Do you know the situtation the americans of the late 1700s were facing with the British Empire?  

Get a grip people.  The Constitution also says that people of colour are half a man.  Are you going to use that to support your views too?  

THINGS CHANGE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THIS FACT.

Geez, why does absolutly everyone on earth see his, except americans?  What is your obsession with guns?

If you start changing what this country was founded on, be prepared to change ALL your rights, not just guns, but the right to practice what religion you prefer as well, be  very careful what you ask for...its like taking one animal out of the food chain, you will affect ALL your rights if you restrict one of them.

[Pongo]

All good points Deja...

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Pongo:
I wonder what Jefferson would have thought of the outcome of that amendment.
...I think Charlton Heston would be very dissappointed with how Jefferson would react to what has been allowed to continue in the name of his ammendment. I think that his reaction would be similar to Winston Churchills reaction to what has been done with welfare.

Well there is a historical record of some things that TJ did say about guns.

Here's a few quotes.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
        Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.


"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
         Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.


"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."
        Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764


"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
        Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

 
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
         Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

These are things he DID say.

 




[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Pongo]

My god. What have I wrought!
That would be my guess
But your points are good ones. Maybe he would think it was great.


[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Igloo]

Why can't people comprehend the historical circumstances and events that led to "the right to bare arms"?  My God people, you're clinging on to a law that was founded over 300 years ago during an entirely different epoch and eviorn!  

I think people are smart enough (or should be) to realise when some things need to change.  America, the world has grown up around you, now it's your turn and you're clinging to the past, a past you do not understand yourself.

Isn't it funny how the best counties in the world (as assigned by the U.N.) all have gun restrictions and well balanced education systems in its place?  Oh, that must just be a coincidence.  America placed 28th - Canada placed 1st, followed by Denmark, Sweeden and Switzerland.

A lot of things change in 300 years.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[StSanta]

Wow, we numbeer two?

<looks at himself>

Good joke!  



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

[jmccaul]

In countries with stricter gun controls less people die of gun shot wounds.

You need a license to drive a car but nit to shoot a gun! Is it true you can buy guns in supermarkets? If so would this mean a violent mental patient could buy a gun whenever he wants? Do you let blind people drive?    

[Maverick]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Why can't people comprehend the historical circumstances and events that led to "the right to bare arms"?  My God people, you're clinging on to a law that was founded over 300 years ago during an entirely different epoch and eviorn!
_____________________________ ________________
Igloo,
We also have a few other decadent 224 year old laws. The right of free speech. The right to peaceably assemble, the right to worship as we (the individual) sees fit. By the way it is the right to bear arms. Even in European countries people have the right to have bare arms. (as long as it isn't too cold!)

_____________________________ _______________
I think people are smart enough (or should be) to realise when some things need to change.  America, the world has grown up around you, now it's your turn and you're clinging to the past, a past you do not understand yourself.
_____________________________ ________________

Now since these rights all come based on the same document, they must all be out of date as well huh? Now just which laws do you think we should be allowed to live by. You seem to be of the mind that you know far better how we should live than we do. Come, give us the benefit of your vast wisdom and tell us how to live our lives. ooops! That violates the right to liberty. Guess that one has to go too.

You know, I think that what I have just asked you to do was called tyrany. Where you get to make the choices and we have to do what you say. (Perhaps I understand my countrys past far better than do you.)
_____________________________ ________________

Isn't it funny how the best counties in the world (as assigned by the U.N.) all have gun restrictions and well balanced education systems in its place?  Oh, that must just be a coincidence.  America placed 28th - Canada placed 1st, followed by Denmark, Sweeden and Switzerland.

A lot of things change in 300 years.

____________________________________________

You say the best countries in the world as assigned by the UN. I guess that means someone voted and gave the UN authority to determine who the best countries are. I don't recall the UN being on the ballot in the last election. Exactly where and who are my representatives in the UN?? How did they get in the position of representing me and determining how I should live? Where is my say with this group of representatives??? Who gave them power to determine the course of my life? Finally, why should I care what they think???

Part of the past I cling to is that I live in a country where I have an elected representative that is in the position they occupy based on our (the electors) approval. They are to do things based on what we (the electors) feel they should do. In other words, they are there to do what we( the electors) tell them to do, not the other way around. I suppose this would have to go as well. It is based on the same 224 year old laws.

Now I do not tell you how to live, how to act or what to believe. Why do you think you have the right to do that to me?

Mav

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 09-27-2000).]

[AKDejaVu]

 

You say the best countries in the world as assigned by the UN. I guess that means someone voted and gave the UN authority to determine who the best countries are.

Each country's representative in the UN voted.  I saw one of the ballots once.  Each country was listed... then another box was placed at the bottom that said "Any country other than the US".

AKDejaVu

[Igloo]

Do you seriously believe that if one law is changed, all others will have to as well?  Give me a break.  

Slavery was not outlawed by the constitution either, infact it was practically supported.  The right to bear (it was a typo) arms comes from a time when the British Empire was trying to crush a rebellian in its American colonies.  Those circumstances no longer arise in todays enviornment and the right to bear arms is no longer needed.  Do you seriously believe that if gun restrictions were placed on guns, more people would die from guns???   Do the math, it's that simple.

Nations need to adapt.  If one of those all powerfull 244 laws need changing, change it.  Adapt to the world you live in, it is not 1770 anymore.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Toad]

A very clear, simple and straightforward process for amending the Constitution already exists.

The procedure deals with one specific law at a time.

If the Constitution needs changing, why hasn't anyone begun the procedure? What's holding anyone back? The anti-2nd Amendment folks are already spending lots of money but none of it is on a Constitutional Amendment drive. Go figure.

I wonder how the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia feel about the right to bear arms that no one needs anymore? Ah, they probably feel "it's no longer needed."

 

[Maverick]

Igloo,

Quite frankly there is no need to adapt the constitution. It is working just fine thank you. I don't know where you are from as you don't have any profile entry. Are you speaking from the outside looking in perhaps? That would explain why you insist on making a change and the lack of comprehension of the importance of the document.

Slavery was not mandated by the constitution. It was a fact of life at the time but was not there by constitutional provision.

Finally, why should the constitution be changed because there is something in it you don't like? We don't make changes in it based on "politically corretct speak". We did do just that at one time and it made a much larger mess than any improvement the change was to accomplish. Why are you interested in limiting or punishing people who have not made any criminal act? Do you think that people are guilty until proven innocent? Are people not capable of deciding for themselve how to live or do you feel you must tell them how to live? Why punish the many for the acts of  the very few?


Mav