The Gun Debate: LaPierre creamed the UN woman.

[FatSlob]

Unbelievable, and worth every penny paid. The NRA's Wayne LaPierre exposed Rebecca Peters of the UN's IANSA. She pretty much admitted that nobody should be able to own any gun without government permission and that they should be limited to single shot rifles that can't fire past 100 meters. She also stated that it was good that not everybody lives in a FREE COUNTRY.

Her and the UN's proposals:


- ban ALL private ownership of handguns worldwide
- ban ALL private ownership of semiautomatic shotguns and rifles

- you must prove competance and need to be rationed a single shot gun

- self defense is NOT recognized as a legitimate need for a gun

- buy-backs, confiscations, registrations, licensing, testing, databases......blah, blah blah.

Watching the debate was worth every penny. Wayne LaPierre ran circles around Rebecca Peters and exposed her for what she really is, a global nanny intent eroding our Bill of Rights by taking away our right to bear arms. He also exposed her dislike for our 1st Amendment, using a quote of hers in which she said that the biggest problem the US has is that political speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, and people can say whatever they want about a candidate.

Wayne LaPierre came prepared and lead the debate from the start.

I am normally not a fan of Wayne LaPierre, as he is usually a shill for the Bush campaign. However, this time, I am thrilled with him. His performance was amazing. He hit Peters hard, and showed the fallacy of her position. He proved, without a doubt, that this woman is out of touch with reality, and that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot would have been big fans. She and her UN-affiliated organization are against America's interests and freedom. I've never liked Wayne LaPierre before, but I'm a fan for now...until he starts shilling for republicans again.

[rooboy]

1. Those UN proposals you laugh at are law in my country.

compare your gun death statistics with ours.

[FatSlob]

3. Compare our freedom to yours.

I have the option to fight for my life. You don't. I have the ability to defend my wife and daughter. You have to rely on the benevolence of the goverment. I have both options.

[rooboy]

16. Oh, that's right. I hate you for your fucking freedom. n/t

[FatSlob]

18. Seems that you have freedom envy.

I'm sorry that I, as an American, have the means to defend myself, my wife and my daughter. I'm also sorry that my wife has the same means. No, I'm not. I'm sorry that you don't have the ability to choose for yourself on the issue.

[rooboy]

22. The Branch Davidians thought they had the means to defend themselves. n/t

[FatSlob]

25. So, does that mean that people shouldn't have the opportunity?

Your reasoning is flawed and fallacious.

[Romulus]

47. still waiting to hear more on the crocodile family

It seems that they had & used a firearm in self-defense, but I thought camping/walking around with a self-defense firearm was illegal down there, even in the "outback" (if a coastal area counts as "outback")? :shrug:

I'm sure the croc family will disagree with our visitor from down under . . .

[Jack_DeLeon]

5. you have my sympathy...

I feel sorry for people who live in countrys where the right to self defense is not a right.

[BlueJazz]

7. Oh Yeah...Mr. SmartyPants?

I'll have you know that WE AS AMERICIANS...(national anthem playing in background) are FREE to Murder, Kill, Maim and destroy each other because it's God's will.

Of course, there's that tricky "Well Regulated Militia" thing ???

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. free will...

people do have the free will to decide to do anything they want.

That doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the gun debate though.

[Left of Lenin]

12. Considering how many guns there are in the US, the proportion used

in homocides is very low. Now that Oz has been effectively disarmed, a much higher percentage of the guns are in the hands of those with ill intent.

[Lautremont]

20. I like your acronym.

I think I'll use it.

[Left of Lenin]

34. I didn't defect for nothing you know

[slackmaster]

42. If you are in Australia you got one thing wrong

Self-defense (or defence) is recognized as a legitimate reason to own and carry a firearm.

SYDNEY, Australia – The campers who fought off a 14-foot crocodile as it dragged a man out of his tent drew praise from a former reptile handler yesterday....

...Gary Zillfleisch lauded the "instinctive reaction" of Alicia Sorohan, who jumped onto the crocodile's back to distract it from the man it held in its jaws Monday. The animal let go of the man and turned on Sorohan, 60, before another camper shot it dead.... (Emphasis added)

In some parts of the US people who go camping in areas that have dangerous animals are not only permitted but encouraged to carry a weapon for protection. I'd wager the same is true of croc country.

For complete article please see http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041013/news_1n13croc.html

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FatSlob]

61. What a horrible place.

Keep the hell that is your gun laws out of our free nation.

[iverglas]

63. what a pointless post

Keep the hell that is your gun laws out of our free nation.

Uh, okay. As long as you keep those hurricanes out of my backyard.

'K?

[FatSlob]

65. Brilliant.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

69. gee

Dictionaries are such handy things ... but generally, when one is talking about laws, laws are even handier.

"Self-defense" is a legitimate LEGAL defense for shooting a dangerous animal that would otherwise be illegal to shoot.

Go to law school.

NECESSITY is the legal "defence" (justification) in question.

Here's a little primer for you (if you think your law is different, go find it):

http://www.cfhs.ca/CriminalCode/analysis.htm

Section 8 (3) of the Code and binding Supreme Court of Canada precedents explicitly provide that every rule and principle of common law continues to remain applicable with respect to any circumstances, justification or excuse for an act, and may provide an additional basis for a defence to a charge.

Many types of lawful excuse exist, such as killing an animal out of an act of mercy, defending children, other animals or property, honest belief (mistake of fact), necessity, automatism, due diligence, entrapment, provocation, defence with claim of right, third party offender, duress and res judicata/issue estoppel, amongst others.

Necessity and self-defence are two entirely different things. Self-defence requires the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful assault.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec34.html

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if ...

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec8.html

8. ... (3) Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to a charge continues in force and applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament except in so far as they are altered by or are inconsistent with this Act or any other Act of Parliament.

The common law defence (excuse) of "necessity" has been characterized as follows (and if you don't like my Chief Justice, feel free to quote your own) (heh, gotta love the source site):

http://www.gunsource.ca/caselaw/canada/sup/perka.htm

f) Preliminary Conclusions as to the Defence of Necessity

It is now possible to summarize a number of conclusions as to the defence of necessity in terms of its nature, basis and limitations:
(1) the defence of necessity could be conceptualized as either a justification or an excuse;
(2) it should be recognized in Canada as an excuse, operating by virtue of s. 7(3) of the Criminal Code;
(3) necessity as an excuse implies no vindication of the deeds of the actor;
(4) the criterion is the moral involuntariness of the wrongful action;
(5) this involuntariness is measured on the basis of society's expectation of appropriate and normal resistance to pressure;
(6) negligence or involvement in criminal or immoral activity does not disentitle the actor to the excuse of necessity;
(7) actions or circumstances which indicate that the wrongful deed was not truly involuntary do disentitle;
(8) the existence of a reasonable legal alternative similarly disentitles; to be involuntary the act must be inevitable, unavoidable and afford no reasonable opportunity for an alternative course of action that does not involve a breach of the law;
(9) the defence only applies in circumstances of imminent risk where the action was taken to avoid a direct and immediate peril;
(10) where the accused places before the Court sufficient evidence to raise the issue, the onus is on the Crown to meet it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that harming/killing an animal of an endangered species in order to preserve one's own life / protect one's self from injury is pretty much covered there.

Crocodiles do not commit unlawful assaults. And, if you were falling toward me from a high building off which you had been pushed, you would not be committing an unlawful assault against me either -- but I might well be justified, by necessity, in heaving a rock at you to deflect you if I could not move from where I was.


You're too hung up on legal definitions. Try thinking like a regular person instead of a lawyer some time.

Yeah, I'll be sure to do that next time some idiot decides to offer a factually incorrect lecture about the law.

Possession of firearms for protection against dangerous animals and possession of firearms for defence against (hypothetical) attacking persons are two very different things ... in the regular world as well as in the law.

[slackmaster]

71. How about a concrete example that proves you wrong?

CALIFORNIA CODES
FISH AND GAME CODE
SECTION 4800-4809

4800. (a) The mountain lion (genus Felis) is a specially protected
mammal under the laws of this state.
(b) It is unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or
sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof, except as
specifically provided in this chapter or in Chapter 2 (commencing
with Section 2116) of Division 3. This chapter does not prohibit the
sale or possession of any mountain lion or any part or product
thereof, when the owner can demonstrate that the mountain lion, or
part or product thereof, was in the person's possession on June 6,
1990.
(c) Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or a fine
of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that
fine and imprisonment. An individual is not guilty of a violation of
this section if it is demonstrated that, in taking or injuring a
mountain lion, the individual was acting in self-defense or in
defense of others.
(d) Section 219 does not apply to this chapter. Neither the
commission nor the department shall adopt any regulation that
conflicts with or supersedes any of the provisions of this chapter. (Underlining added for emphasis.)

"Self-defense" is a legal defense against a charge of unlawfully killing or injuring or transporting a mountain lion in California.

[iverglas]

74. war is peace, truth is lies

And a legislator can call anything it likes anything it likes, as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights in the process. Anyone's rights being violated here? Can't say as I see any. The California legislature could call the killing of a mountain lion in order to preserve a human life "Fred", if it liked.

The FACT remains, in that real world and in the law, that using force against an attacking animal (or a falling human being) and using force against a human being who is committing an unlawful assault are entirely different things.

(There's more to all this, but I doubt that you're interested. For instance, I'll betcha that in California, one would be found to be justified in killing a mountain lion so that it would not eat one's food provisions, if one were lost in the wilderness and reasonably believed that one would die without the food. That's *not* "self-defence". That's "necessity", again. But I doubt very much that one would be found justified in killing one's travelling companion so that s/he didn't eat one's food. No unlawful assault in either case -- but nonetheless, justification/excuse for killing the mountain lion, but *not* the human being.)

And a law that does or does not grant an exception to a prohibition on the possession of firearms for people who claim to need them for self-defence against some person or persons unknown is entirely different from a law that does or does not grant an exception for people who claim to need firearms for protection against dangerous animals known to exist in their vicinity.

[slackmaster]

76. How many ways can you split a hair?

The California legislature could call the killing of a mountain lion in order to preserve a human life "Fred", if it liked.

The California legislature didn't do that. It referred to killing a mountain lion in defense of one's self or others as "self-defense". If I was answering to a ranger or a prosecutor or a judge as to why I had shot a mountain lion, I'd probably say something like "It was attacking me. I shot it in self-defense."

The FACT remains, in that real world and in the law, that using force against an attacking animal (or a falling human being) and using force against a human being who is committing an unlawful assault are entirely different things.

Only in that they are covered by different statutes. The inputs and outputs are the same - A threat comes in, you respond to it with force, you walk away, and the threat doesn't.

I'll betcha that in California, one would be found to be justified in killing a mountain lion so that it would not eat one's food provisions, if one were lost in the wilderness and reasonably believed that one would die without the food. That's *not* "self-defence". That's "necessity", again.

Big difference here - In this case the mountain lion isn't ATTACKING you. If that happened to me I certainly would not use the term "self-defense" in court. I'd say I was starving and needed food in order to survive.

And a law that does or does not grant an exception to a prohibition on the possession of firearms for people who claim to need them for self-defence against some person or persons unknown is entirely different from a law that does or does not grant an exception for people who claim to need firearms for protection against dangerous animals known to exist in their vicinity.

Your hypotheticals here would be different statutes that would have the same end result - You can carry a gun for self-defense.

[iverglas]

84. except ...

"Your hypotheticals here would be different statutes that would have the same end result - You can carry a gun for self-defense."

... NO. And that's pretty much the whole bleeding point.

A set of laws can perfectly well provide that

- individuals ARE permitted to acquire/possess(/carry) firearms where their stated reason for doing so is to protect themselves or other people or property against dangerous animals

AND that

- individuals ARE NOT permitted to acquire/possess(/carry) firearms where their stated reason for doing so is to defend themselves against other persons

and be internally coherent, constitutionally valid, consistent with modern rights theory, etc. etc.

The whole point. Are we getting it yet?

[slackmaster]

85. What country are you talking about now?

A set of laws can perfectly well provide that

- individuals ARE permitted to acquire/possess(/carry) firearms where their stated reason for doing so is to protect themselves or other people or property against dangerous animals

AND that

- individuals ARE NOT permitted to acquire/possess(/carry) firearms where their stated reason for doing so is to defend themselves against other persons

and be internally coherent, constitutionally valid, consistent with modern rights theory, etc. etc.

I don't see where that little gem of logic conflicts with anything I've ever said or written.

I like the situation in the US states with right-to-carry laws, where the individual citizen retains the power to decide when it's appropriate to carry a weapon for self-defense.

[iverglas]

88. well, let's follow those breadcrumbs

"What country are you talking about now?"

... and see whether we can't figure it out, eh?

Me: And a law that does or does not grant an exception to a prohibition on the possession of firearms for people who claim to need them for self-defence against some person or persons unknown is entirely different from a law that does or does not grant an exception for people who claim to need firearms for protection against dangerous animals known to exist in their vicinity.

You: Your hypotheticals here would be different statutes that would have the same end result - You can carry a gun for self-defense.

Me: NO ... A set of laws can perfectly well provide that
- individuals ARE permitted to acquire/possess(/carry) firearms where their stated reason for doing so is to protect themselves or other people or property against dangerous animals
AND that
- individuals ARE NOT permitted to acquire/possess(/carry) firearms where their stated reason for doing so is to defend themselves against other persons

What's so confusing?

Any set of laws that requires people to demonstrate a reason for acquiring/possessing/carrying a firearm (i.e. prohibit people from acquiring/possessing/carrying a firearm without the permit that attests to their having demonstrated that reason) can both:
- permit people to do so where they demonstrate that they need it for protecting themselves against dangerous animals
AND
- prohibit people from doing so where they state that they need it for defending themselves against other persons

A single set of laws could do both things. Very easily.

"I don't see where that little gem of logic conflicts with anything I've ever said or written."

It conflicts with (in that it is correct while your statement is not correct) your statement that the laws in question "would be different statutes that would have the same end result - You can carry a gun for self-defense." Pretty obviously.

If a set of laws PERMITS the carrying of a firearm for protection against dangerous animals *and* PROHIBITS the carrying of a firearm for defence against persons, the laws do NOT have the "same" end result you assert.

The fact that such a set of laws could easily exist makes it quite plain that carrying a firearm for protection against animals is *not* the same as carrying a firearm for defense against persons.

What country are we talking about? Any country that has laws like this, I'd say.

Well would ya bloody look here:

http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/legislat.nsf/d989974724db65b1482561cf0017cbd2/6bbd71d639fc512c69256e84001c833d?OpenDocument
Australia's Northern Territory ... crocodile paradise.

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
FIREARMS ACT
As in force at 28 April 2004

11. Genuine reason for licence

(1) The Commissioner is not to grant a licence –

(a) unless satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason for possessing and using firearms;

(b) in respect of a category C firearm, category D firearm or category H firearm, unless satisfied that the applicant has a genuine need for possessing and using firearms of that category; and

(c) unless satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements under this Act in respect of that reason or need.

(2) The genuine reasons for possessing or using firearms are any of the following:

(a) sports shooting;

(b) recreational shooting or hunting;

(c) primary production;

(d) vertebrate pest animal control;

(e) business or employment;

(f) occupational requirements;

(g) animal welfare;

(h) firearms collection;

(j) museum display;

(k) inheritance;

(m) instruction in firearms use and safety.

(3) The Regulations may provide that the genuine reasons for possessing or using a specified category of firearm are limited to only one or some of the reasons specified in subsection (2).

It's an amazement.

Pest control is a "genuine reason" for possessing or using a firearm, and a sufficient basis for a permit to possess a firearm to be issued ... "self-defence against other persons" isn't.

What was the question?

[slackmaster]

92. "Persons" are vertebrate animals, are they not?

And violent criminals are "pests", are they not?

:evilgrin:

Point proven!

[iverglas]

96. at least when you lose

you're cute.

[slackmaster]

103. Keep telling yourself that

If it makes you happy.

[Romulus]

98. I don't think "pest control"

would get you a license to be armed and ready to shoot a crocodile in self-defense while camping.

I think "pest control" is being armed and ready to shoot those rabbits that overran Down Under and are eating up all the crops on your farm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_invasion_in_Australia

Not sure if the license would let you walk around in public with a firearm, anyway:

78. Carrying firearms in public places

3) A person must not carry a loaded firearm in a public place within a town, municipality or community government area.
Penalty: 400 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years or, if the offence relates to a category A firearm or category B firearm, 200 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to or in relation to the holder of a firearms employee licence who is carrying out the duties of his or her employment in relation to which the licence was granted.


81. Restriction on use, &c., of firearms on certain vacant Crown land

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, prohibit the possession or use of a firearm or a category of firearm on Crown land specified in the notice.

(2) Where a notice is in force under subsection (1), a person must not possess or use a firearm or a firearm of the category of firearm specified in the notice on the Crown land specified in the notice.

Penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months.

[slackmaster]

102. Even with the harsh restrictions here in California I'd rather live here

It's so much less confusing. You can legally shoot anyone or anything without further permission if it's a legitimate self-defense situation. That's defense with an 's', and the threat can be man or beast. It makes no difference.

[Left of Lenin]

106. Please explain "occupational requirements"

From your list of valid reason to own a gun in Australia:
"(f) occupational requirements" We note from this list that self defense is not a valid reason. Is it possible that "occupational requirements" might be to protect someone else with a gun? If that is OK, why is protecting yourself not OK?

[slackmaster]

108. It probably applies to people like police officers, security guards, and

Park rangers. All of those people have obvious self-defensive needs.

[Left of Lenin]

109. Surely they could find less dangerous employment?

We keep hearing that if you don't confront a crook with a gun the crooks won't feel the need to be armed. It certainly works in the UK:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12518284&method=full&siteid=50143

[iverglas]

120. what are these voices you hear?

"We keep hearing that if you don't confront a crook with a gun the crooks won't feel the need to be armed."

Have you considered consulting an audiologist? (Hey - if you lived in Canada, or the UK, or Australia -- and a bunch of other places where your acquisition and possession of firearms is strictly regulated -- you'd be able to do it at no charge. Funny how that works, eh?)

Or perhaps an exorcist ...

Hearing things that nobody has said and nobody else has heard can't be good.

[BigDaddyCaine]

79. do what?

Using force against a crocodile is not "self-defence". No unlawful assault is being committed by anybody.

so shooting an animal that is trying to kill you, like a bear, is not self defence in Canada? What is it?

[iverglas]

89. uh

"so shooting an animal that is trying to kill you, like a bear, is not self defence in Canada? What is it?"

Perhaps the post you replied to was unclear in some way. Since it has inexplicably disappeared, I can't say.

But you can always try reading what's still here, including what was posted an hour before your query in the direct line of posts following the post you're having problems with:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=90113&mesg_id=90234&page=

Do let me know if you have any residual questions after reading that.

[BigDaddyCaine]

91. i have a question

not sure if its a 'residual' one or not, :-), but why are most of your posts extremely longwinded and read like a dictionary? I dont wanna read all that. And when it reads like my dictionary i really dont want to read all that. Im sure you are way smarter than i am.(its not that hard) But book smarts and common sense are 2 different things. Common sense tells me that if you want the common idiot, that didnt go to college for 8 years, to read your posts you would put them in more of layman terms rather than Websters terms. Its just more pleasing to read and you might be more understood by us cave man type creatures.

No harm meant in this post. Can i ask if youre married?

[iverglas]

95. I'd give you an answer

"... why are most of your posts extremely longwinded and read like a dictionary? ... <blahblahblah> ..."

... but I'm pretty sure that you would not understand it, or at least that you would (for whatever reason) claim not to understand it.

Common sense tells me that if you want the common idiot, that didnt go to college for 8 years, to read your posts you would put them in more of layman terms rather than Websters terms.

You seem to be labouring under the probably mistaken notion that I want said "common idiot" to read my posts. Did you want to point this common idiot out for me, so I can know for sure?

"Can i ask if youre married?"

I'm sure you can, if you try. Do you want to try?

Well, actually, that's not quite correct. That would be a reasonable response on my part if you had said "Can I ask whether you are married?" -- although I still don't know why you'd bother asking me whether you are able to do that.

But "Can I ask if you're married ..." -- can you ask what if I'm married? And I still don't know why you'd be asking me whether you can ask me something if I'm married. Can you ask for a beer if I'm married? I don't know; can you?

Now, if what you want to ask me is whether I'm married, and your intention was to ask me whether you may ask me that ... I'll tell you this for free.

Marriage is a patriarchal institution that I have never wanted or needed to participate in.

But I kinda doubt that this answers your question. I kinda think you were intending to ask about my sex life; I mean, that's the only substance I can ascribe to such a question. And I kinda can't imagine why you would presume to do that.

Well, I can. But never mind.

[BigDaddyCaine]

100. i was the said common idiot.

I just wanted to take you out sometimes. I see we agree on marriage atleast.

[Pert_UK]

52. Not 100% true, Rooboy.....

I went to a pistol range in the centre of Melbourne (or possibly Adelaide) where you could hire and shoot 9mm automatics and .44 revolvers. I think the laws on ownership vary from state to state / territory.

However, on every other point I agree with you.

In the US, virtually nobody has the freedom FROM guns being present in their town.

Like so many people on here, FatSlob is concerned with his own personal "freedom" rather than the state of society overall. An individual's freedom to bear arms may infringe the freedom of members of society.......And let's not forget that it would be political suicide to ban (or heavily restrict) firearms in the US, so there isn't even freedom of choice regarding this issue when you vote, or freedom in political debate.

FatSlob has it his way and is happy - personally, it makes me sick that somebody on DU could be so triumphalist about a representative of the NRA (allegedly) beating somebody from the UN in the debate, whose sole aim was to suggest ways to make the world a safer place.

[FatSlob]

55. You are incorrect.

One has no freedom to be away from anything, except on his own property. The big difference between you and me is that I think individual rights trump pretty much everything else. You seem to feel that the individual doesn't matter. Your assertation that my freedom to bear arms and defend my self and family infringes upon the rights of anybody else is absurd. Your mindset against self-defense and the bearing of arms is that of a sheep. You expect the shepherd (government) to take care of you. I am the sheep-dog. I expect to take care of myself, and my family. My wife is armed, I am armed, and we will defend vigorously our lives and the life of our daughter. You would remove the ability to do that. Being against the freedom of being armed is a position shared by Hitler and Stalin. Freedom grows from the barrel of a gun, weakness is a weed that sprouts from the hole left when firearms rights are infringed.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BigDaddyCaine]

80. a question

Hitler was against guns being owned by his potential enemies, as was Stalin, as they could have been used to overthrow them.

Isnt the 2nd in place so that people can overthrow their government if needed?

[Pert_UK]

118. That's an absurd, anti-democratic fallacy........

It assumes that there will be a common consensus amongst (unconnected) gun owners that the democratically elected government "needs" to be overthrown for the sake of democracy.

Personally, I'd rather live in a genuine democracy where the government doesn't need to fear an armed population and where its decisions aren't influenced by that fear, and where the population doesn't actually fear the government either.

Having an armed population just means that the people with the most guns have the opportunity to impose their will on less-armed fellow citizens.

[LibLabUK]

119. Hmm...

"Having an armed population just means that the people with the most guns have the opportunity to impose their will on less-armed fellow citizens."

Hmm... Tyrannilicious.

So what you're saying is that the gun-owners who claim to require their weapons for the sole purpose of overthrowning 'tyranny' and upholding everyone's 'rights' are actually holding their country to ransom?

And that should they overthrow their democratically elected government they would themselves be instituting a tyrannical regime, where the system of governance is one gun one vote?

[slackmaster]

67. Freedom to live in a gun-free place ends at your property boundary

That's the way it is in the US.

[iverglas]

70. but you see

"Freedom to live in a gun-free place ends at your property boundary
That's the way it is in the US."

In the rest of the world, we agree that we all have a right to personal security, and the right to have that security protected by our societies. And that means that we have that right. (And we have no need at all to frame it as a "freedom"; it is a right, just like a lot of other things are. We're pretty big on rights out here.)

I guess we all can only feel sorry for USAmericans, who apparently don't have that right.

Of course, they could have it any time they wanted it.

[Pert_UK]

117. What a pity that bullets don't respect that boundary, eh? n/t

P.

[Lautremont]

2. What possible reason could a person have

for wanting to shoot at something more than 100 meters away?

I second Rooboy's emotion, btw.

[FatSlob]

6. Well then, you would be a subject.

An armed public is made of citizens, unarmed are made up of subjects. In the United States, Sovreignity rests with the People. I'm sorry that you live in a place where the Government is more important than the People.

[Lautremont]

8. My question stands.

The thing 100 meters away from you is either an as-yet unknown thing, or it's leaving your vicinity. Why would you want to shoot it?

[FatSlob]

10. I regularly shoot matches at 300 yards. There are any number of reasons.

I don't have to justify them to you. Freedom justifies it. Besides, a rifle where the bullet wont' travel more than a football field would be useless against anything. In other words, this communist woman wants to ban all guns. I have to justify nothing to the likes of the anti-freedom crowd. I have the natural right to arm myself.

[skippythwndrdog]

11. Once again, it is obvious that you neither hunt nor target shoot.

Also, if you are unable to identify a target at 100 meters, I suggest that you get someone who can see to drive you to a competent optometrist or opthamologist.

[Remmah]

50. 1 meter equals one yard more or less.

300 meter woodchuck,
500 meter coyote,
700 meter elk (and small deer w/a prayer),
1000 meter match target.

.300 Winchester Magnum or less.

A little math, a little science, a little engineering.............

[rooboy]

19. The danger with people like you is that you confuse freedom and democracy.

Do you really think that with your little pop-gun arsenal that you could fight - and defeat - the might of the US government??? If you think that your gun gives you sovereignty, then you're delusional.

George Bush doesn't give a shit whether you have guns or not, because armed struggle by the citizens has barely worked at all in the last 50 years. Ask the people in India, South Africa, Russia, Yugoslavia or anywhere else.

You talk about freedom yet you live in fear of the government that YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO OWN!!! LOL!!!

[FatSlob]

24. I talk about the freedom to choose. You lack that freedom.

The citizens of the United States collectively own MILLIONS of more guns than the government and have tens of BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition on hand. If you don't think that we could put a big dent in them, you're dead wrong. It seems that you think the people of the world should just lie back and enjoy the rape of their freedoms. I'll tell you what. Americans aren't going to accept it.

[Left of Lenin]

36. It certainly seems like governments are concerned about armed revolt.

How else do you explain their enthusiasm for disarming civilian populations? If the 80 million gun owners in the US said "hell no, we won't go" together, the military would not be large enough to quell that; not without drafting most of the population in preparation first. Besides, shooting up tax payers is bad for revenue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=90113&mesg_id=90113&page=

[iverglas]

51. well hell

If the 80 million gun owners in the US said "hell no, we won't go" together, the military would not be large enough to quell that; ...

If the 80 million gun owners in the US voted Democrat (for lack of anything better at the moment, anyhow), they wouldn't have to worry about the gummint telling them to go ... wherever it is you're talking about ... in the first place.


It certainly seems like governments are concerned about armed revolt.
How else do you explain their enthusiasm for disarming civilian populations?

Gee. I think that rooboy and I and quite a lot of reasonable, decent people would say that it's because we elected them for the express purpose (among others, but this being one of the fundamental purposes of government) of securing a level of peace and order in our societies that enables us to go about our business without getting shot, and without the constant fear of getting shot, by people who choose to pursue their own ends at our expense.

How else do you explain things like laws, police, courts and prisons?

[Pert_UK]

53. My hairy arse....

"How else do you explain their enthusiasm for disarming civilian populations? "

Well personally, I'd explain the UK government's "enthusiasm" as stemming from a couple of massacres that involved legally held weapons, and the HUGE public backing for restrictions on firearm ownership.

You can still shoot in the UK, it's just that shooting has now been restricted to weapons / sports that don't create significant risk to the civilian population at large.

Believe it, or believe it not, people in the UK (plus most other modern, democratic, Western countries) would prefer a society where guns weren't an everyday, casual presence. Come on - which other countries in the world are happy for their citizens to be wandering around armed? And remember, it's the PEOPLE who vote for the government who then do the will of the people (generally speaking). That's how democracy works.

[FatSlob]

57. A society of sheep.

[Pert_UK]

58. How incisive....

A society of people who FREELY decide that they don't want something permitted in their society and whose government agrees and goes along with them to enact law.

The HORROR!

Vs

A society into which guns have become so ingrained as a part of life that neither political party could pass sensible restriction laws on them even if it wanted to.

I find it very odd that the free expression of views by the public and the enactment of laws in accordance with those views by a democratically elected government is viewed so negatively......

Bear in mind, of course, that nobody in the UK has been allowed to carry guns for personal protection for quite some time....In fact, you're not allowed to carry weapons for protection at all.

[enfield collector]

72. hmmmn

Bear in mind, of course, that nobody in the UK has been allowed to carry guns for personal protection for quite some time....In fact, you're not allowed to carry weapons for protection at all.


except the pols and royal family etc....

[iverglas]

75. what a joker

Bear in mind, of course, that nobody in the UK has been allowed to carry guns for personal protection for quite some time....In fact, you're not allowed to carry weapons for protection at all.

except the pols and royal family etc....

Won't you share your secret source of this vast knowledge of yours with the rest of us??

I mean, you made the claim. You must have the facts to back it up.

How 'bout a pic of Chuck with a six-gun sticking out of his kilt?

Cripes, they don't even carry loose change ...

[Pert_UK]

114. A small reality check....

The Royal Family carry guns? Errrr.......nope. 'fraid not. They certainly hunt and shoot, but only in accordance with the general law of the land to which they are also subject. (Princess Anne was in court a few months back....IIRC she's been fined for exceeding the speed limit and also for failing to control one of her dogs).

And the police? Guess what......only a small number of highly trained specialist policemen and women are allowed access to firearms. They're only routinely carried by officers in high-risk positions, such as airport patrols or particularly violent areas. At the last, recent, count the vast majority of British policemen and women actually maintained their opinion that they didn't want to carry guns routinely.

I'm terribly sorry that your heartfelt and passionate views on this subject actually have no reflection at all in reality.

[BigDaddyCaine]

81. HUGE public backing for restrictions on firearm ownership.

we dont have that in the US.

[anonymous44]

111. extremely wrong

look at iraq. a few hundred insurgents are giving so much trouble. imagine millions of americans in an event of confiscation of firearms. there is absolutely no way that even the mighty us army could do it. there is not enough manpower to even attempt such a stupid action. army would get simply owned unless they would nuke the whole country.

[skippythwndrdog]

9. It is obvious that you neither hunt nor target shoot

I've taken many game animals at ranges inexcess of 100 meters - a couple out to about 1,000 meters. There are also target competitions and casual target shoots at 1,000 yard ranges.

So sorry that those in some other countries don't have the opportunity to enjoy shooting as a recreational passtime.

[Lautremont]

17. I hereby confess!

I neither shoot at inanimate objects nor at animals in the woods. I live in a country where both activities are practiced regularly. I have good vision and can identify objects at a hundred meters, it's true. I just wouldn't want to shoot them. My question was really the why of it, you see.

As for having the right to bear arms, are you talking black bear or grizzly bear? Either one would seem rather unwieldy. I'll stick to my human arms, thanks.

Here's a tip: if you're so afraid of people busting into your home and pillaging things, get some decent locks.

edited for spelling: i before e, don't you know!

[FatSlob]

21. Get better locks? How does that protect against the rapist downtown?

Seems that you think a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior than her explaining the smoking gun and the dead man at her feet.

[Lautremont]

26. How about the triumphant woman who's just kicked the

guy's nards up his throat? A little training in self defence. But I hear you say "Oh ho! You can't kick away a bullet! What if the rapist (and putative pantyhose strangler) has a gun?" This then takes us back into that tiresome realm of rational thought in which robust gun laws actually limit the chances of that being the case. Check the statistics, man! They're astounding. The level of gun violence in countries with gun laws like ours is so much lower. Your "subject/citizen" semantics don't mean a thing to me.

[FatSlob]

32. That's because freedom doesn't mean a thing to you.

Hell, if you think a little self-defense training is going to cut it, then you are so ungodly out of touch with the real world that I can't help you. Stay nice and secure and hope the government takes care of you. Don't take responsibility for yourself or your family or your freedom. I find it amazing that you think that gun laws are going to prevent evil people from getting them. All the laws do is disarm the law-abiding. Have fun being a subject...I'll stay free.

[BigDaddyCaine]

83. and if the man is much stronger and better trained at fighting?

[Lautremont]

87. And if the man with the gun pulls his gun out

before the woman with the gun pulls hers out? And if the woman pulls her gun out and shoots the man, but he's wearing a bulletproof vest and gives out a hearty laugh and advances towards her with his pantyhose choker... and if we cross the line from hypothetical questions into hysterical madness?

The fact is, it's possible to live in a society where everyone and their Aunt Fanny doesn't have a gun, and where evil dictatorships aren't waiting in the wings for the people to oh-so-foolishly give up their weaponry so they can pounce. This isn't pie-in-the-sky naivete, it's reality. Wouldn't you rather have that? Or is there something kind of alluring about the possibility of shooting someone that makes you hang on to that antebellum amendment of yours so fiercely?

[BigDaddyCaine]

93. yes there is

Or is there something kind of alluring about the possibility of shooting someone that makes you hang on to that antebellum amendment of yours so fiercely? I must admit there is something alluring about possibily shooting someone. Shit, i see people everyday that i wouldnt mind taking out.

But really i just like to go hunting. I dont even carry a gun for defence....mainly because you cant in my state. I dont keep a loaded gun in my house for defence. Im not scared of someone breaking in. I can load really fast if needed. I keep a knife by my bed. Not for defence but just because i usually sharpen it when i am bored and cant sleep.

Not everyone has a gun. Its a choice. You can have one if you want...or dont. I dont care which choice you make cause it doesnt affect me either way.

I dont keep a gun to overthrow the government...but im glad i own them incase it is needed for that reason.

And what the fuck is a pantyhose choker? Do they sell those somewhere? I think we need to ban pantyhose chokers...theyre only used to choke people. :-)

[skippythwndrdog]

23. I never mentioned burglars, etc.

But since you brought it up, there's never been a lock made that can't be picked. Also, it's cost-prohibitive to makes one's home proof to all sorts of battering objects.

[Lautremont]

28. Curiously,

I don't live in fear of master lock-pickers or giant battering rams.

[skippythwndrdog]

99. Nor do I

You brought up the burglar/home invasion topic.

[Left of Lenin]

30. The thing with wood frame houses is that going through a wall is easier

than breaking a strong lock - I am sure most Canadians are familiar with chain saws and how handy they are at making new doorways? Glass windows are also notoriously fragile. Also, we have a large population of crooks with expensive habits they need to pay for, hence the need for breaking and entering.

There are those that argue civilians don't need guns to protect themselves because that is the job of the police.

The police are very busy and respond to the most serious crimes first. This means they investigate homicides first, burglaries second and prowlers last. If the prowler you call in turns homicidal, the cops will investigate your case according to priority - it is up to you to prevent your case from becoming a homicide investigation.

Think about it another way; if you are not willing to work at saving your own life, why should a cop risk his life to save yours? It is much safer for the cop to investigate your death than to try and prevent it.

The fact that a home owner may be armed makes prowlers think twice before forcing their way into a dwelling known to be occupied because they are afraid of being shot. If the home owner is disarmed by law, the reduced risk of criminals being hurt on the job makes burglary and robbery much more attractive.

Even if you don't want to own guns, the fact that some of your neighbors do reduces your risk of being accosted in your own home.

[Lautremont]

35. Where the hell do you people live, Crystal Lake?

I'll tell you something about that Jason Voorhees: he's evil! Nothing will stop him!

I mean really: you've got this scenario where people are bashing down my walls with front-end loaders or something, master lock-pickers are crouched at my door and chainsaws - chainsaws! - are buzzing away on every side of my house. Oh, and thanks for the tip about the "notorious fragility" of glass.

Is it that bad in America? Really? I don't live in a candy-coloured fantasyland: I live in the poorest electoral district in the entire country. THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! I live in the poorest part of the city that has long been known as the murder capital of Canada. I have absolutely no need for a gun.

I think it's time you guys took a step back and looked at why it's gotten so bad and what you can do about it besides waving your guns around.

[Left of Lenin]

37. Chain saws to the left, chain saws to the right

Chain saws added for effect :)

"I live in the poorest electoral district in the entire country"

Crooks don't bother to break into houses that have nothing of value in them. They also avoid house with active and passive security systems. One of the factors they consider is the possibility of armed resistance:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12518284&method=full&siteid=50143


GUN CRIME ROCKETS 35 PER CENT

By Bob Roberts, Political Correspondent


THE full scale of law and order breakdown in Britain was revealed last night.

Gun crime has soared by 35 per cent, robberies are up 14 per cent, sex offences by 18 per cent, violent crime by 19 per cent and burglary by eight per cent.

In the 12 months to March last year there were 9,974 offences involving firearms.

Handgun use rose by 45 per cent, said official Government statistics. The figure has doubled since the post-Dunblane ban on such weapons from 2,636 in 1998 to 5,871.

Total crime in England and Wales is up 9.3 per cent.....

[iverglas]

56. hey!

"I live in the poorest electoral district in the entire country. THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!"

I thought I did! Oh wait, no, I live in the poorest ... whatever the lowest StatsCan unit of measurement is, in a riding with some very affluent other parts.

"I live in the poorest part of the city that has long been known as the murder capital of Canada."

What Winnipeg also has is the (proportionately) highest level of street gang activity/membership in Canada, as I understand it, btw. Just for all our southern neighbours who say that the absence of gangs/organized crime (the latter being Quebec's specialty) is the reason for Canada's peaceableness.

"I have absolutely no need for a gun."

Ditto. I've had 3 break-ins here in 22 years (not counting the car break-in). The first was by some associates of my then co-vivant who knew we were out of town -- and, being genius cokeheads, took that opportunity to break in. I'd cleverly left the bathroom window onto the 2nd floor deck open ... and, on a whim, locked the door between the second and ground floors, which had previously been separate units. Duh. They didn't even need a chain saw to go through the staircase drywall; they just used the sledgehammer sitting in the front hall. (No, not for protection; it just got left there after some garden work or other.)

The other two times, I was home, and had gone upstairs without locking the front door. The same guy (boy, he must think I'm a real idiot) waltzed in and took my purse, twice.

And it was precisely incidents like those -- in which my personal safety wasn't in a moment's danger (the purse thief had turned tail and beetled it back to the sidewalk when he tried walking into the house next door and heard my father say "is that you?") -- that prompted me to require my contractor/friend, who rented an apt from me next door, to leave his two firearms at his house in the country (or anywhere he liked except on my block). Because thefts from the homes of lawful (and too often negligent) owners are a major source of crime guns in Canada.

Remember Nicholas Battersby?

http://www.ocri.ca/education/battersby.html

On March 27, 1994 Nick was killed in a random drive-by shooting in downtown Ottawa. The community was stunned by this senseless act of violence, and expressed its grief and sympathy in many ways.

Nicholas Battersby was born in Brackley, England. From an early age he excelled academically, ultimately receiving his Ph.D. from Imperial College, London in electronic engineering at the age of 26. He achieved his first patent during this time at College. Although of quiet nature, Nick had a strong drive for excellence in all that he did. He had a love for travel, classical music, cycling, good food and many other great interests.

The Nick Battersby Memorial Fund was established to provide financial support to students similar to Nick, thus honouring the memory of this exceptional individual.

Each year Nick's parents Gay and Charles Battersby try to visit Ottawa from their home in England to present the Nick Battersby Memorial Scholarship to the winning recipient.

The handgun with which he was killed was stolen from a home (in an affluent part of town) where it was stored in an illegal manner by its legal owner. The thieves, a group of teenaged punks, also stole a car. They shot Battersby (after firing randomly out the car window a few times) as they drove the stolen car down a main street.

Oddly, they didn't use the car to kill anyone. And I've never been able to figure out how Battersby, or anyone else, having a firearm would have saved his life.

[iverglas]

62. who are these "those"?

"There are those that argue civilians
don't need guns to protect themselves
because that is the job of the police."

Have I met any of them? Are there some of them lurking around here?

Is there a reason that you spent most of the rest of your post arguing with these phantom those? And so badly, at that?

Or were you just angling for the first award of the new season?


http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

[Left of Lenin]

110. Actually, I was reflecting on the first post in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=90113&mesg_id=90113&page=

[Left of Lenin]

38. How close does one have to be before shooting something becomes OK?

Try hitting something at 200 yards with a handgun sometimes; its called skill:

http://www.wheretoshoot.org/specialty/hgmetsil.html

I don't like shooting with rifles - its too easy. You have to put the target at 1000 yards to make it a challenge; or you could just make the target really small at 100 yards - like less than an inch.

[slackmaster]

41. A deer at 200 yards

Or 300 yards.

Or a paper target at 1,000 yards.

Next question please.

[Fescue4u]

90. I don't need a reason.

I am a free American.

[jody]

4. " self defense is NOT recognized as a legitimate need for a gun" but

starting before our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, a sovereign people recognized the right of self defense.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

59. more sad ignorance

Interesting that you post essentially anti-freedom thoughts for U.S. Americans, yet have a "Truth, Justice, and The American Way" Superman avatar."

Has it escaped your notice that Superman, and his original avatar, were drawn by a Canadian? (And, of coruse, that Metropolis was modeled on Toronto.) I rather suspect that this fact isn't unknown to a Canadian using the Superman logo as an avatar.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/canadian-way
http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/superwhoswho/SupermanPage.html

Apparently this comes from the 1978 movie:

http://www.stationfive.com/Quotes.php?alpha=ST&movie=Superman

Superman: I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

although I gather that it had its source in earlier material.

Marshall McLuhan (uh, we all know he's Canadian, right?) had something rather on point to say:

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/superheroes/index.1-e.html

And while some critical observers of the genre might have agreed with Marshall McLuhan that "imperfect men, possessing superhuman material power, are not a reassuring prospect," there was no doubt in the minds of young comic book fans that the heroes of Action Comics, Superman, Marvel Comics and other American titles fought for Truth, Justice and the American Way.(1)

1. See McLuhan's essay "Superman" in The Mechanical Bride; Folklore of Industrial Man, New York, NY: Vanguard Press, 1951, p. 103.

Imperfect individuals, possessing weapons with which they can terrorize other people into doing what they want, and inflict horrible injury and death on other people, all with relative ease and at relatively little risk to themselves, are not a reassuring prospect to a whole lot of people.


But anyhow -- nobody should ever suggest that Canadians don't know how to sell the neighbours what they want to hear! Just ask Capt. Kirk, eh?


I know that there are quite a few USAmericans who would object strenuously to your hijacking of "The American Way" to suit your own purposes and serve your own interests. They just don't see any "conflict" at all between "the American way" and democratically imposed / constitutionally controlled limitations on individuals' activities in the interests of protecting society as a whole and, in particular, its especially vulnerable members. And I really just don't think that "the American way" that Clark Kent was fighting for had much to do with a handgun in every cookie jar.

[skippythwndrdog]

101. You're too easy.

I'll remember that the next time I want to get you going AND read a boorish essay.

[Columbia]

29. "You people"?

Glad to know that our kind neighbors think so well of us. :eyes:

[jody]

31. "you stop being crazy??" Why do you accuse me of "being crazy" because

I choose to defend myself?

SCOTUS has ruled that government agencies are not obligated to protect an individual.

If not government, then to whom do you turn for protection?

[BlueJazz]

33. I do find it rather humorous that 50 percent of Americans

...are stupid enough to vote for George Bush and yet Americans, in general, think they're smart enough to possess Weapons. :)

[slackmaster]

46. I've never voted for anyone named Bush

Does that make you feel better?

[skippythwndrdog]

14. I missed the debate

Please tell me there's a transcript online.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mosin]

45. That's not a transcript

You made me visit freepcentral, and there's not even a transcript. It's only a short summary. I'd like to read a real transcript of the debate. I didn't watch it.

[Left of Lenin]

77. Hence ""Transcript"" in the subject line (nt)

[mosin]

82. I didn't notice that...

clever use of the quotation marks. :)

[goju]

40. Upcoming Showtimes - The Gun Debate

For anyone who missed it, like me.


Oct 14 6:30PM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 15 5:30AM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
11:00AM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 16 3:30PM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 17 9:30AM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 18 11:00AM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
8:00PM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 19 6:30AM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
Oct 20 4:30PM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)
11:00PM iN1 The Gun Debate (Replay)

http://www.indemand.com/moviesandevents/viewProductShowtimes.jsp?page_sectionId=2&prodId=20731

[-..__...]

43. Fortuantly for us...

No U.S. President or Congress would ratify any of IANSAs or the UNs small arms proposals.

[FatSlob]

44. It would cause the death of the party for whoever did it.

Even if a president did sign it, the Senate would filibuster the hell out of it. Even if the Senate signed on, the House would not allow any laws to be passed to enforce the treaty. Even if the house did, the SCOTUS would have rejected the treaty. Even if SCOTUS didn't reject, there would be armed insurrection and rebellion by the freedom-loving states, and very likely, a civil war.

[-..__...]

48. "The dog ate my guns".

There would be a lot of firearms being lost in "boating mishaps" and "camping trips".

:evilgrin:

[Pert_UK]

54. Nobody should be able to own a gun without gov't permission....

IMHO....

So, does that mean that I got creamed too? Surely, in order to "cream" this woman (ahem) you'd have to prove why her point was false or led to bad consequences.

In the US you'd contend it infringes a right.

In the UK, Australia + the majority of Westernised democracies they'd say that you have no RIGHT to own a weapon without the agreement of the government. In the UK the entitlement / right to defend yourself does not entail that you require access to a gun, any more than the right to have children entails that the government provides you with functioning testicles (or a womb, depending).

[SBWCP]

68. WHO CARES ABOUT FREEDOM?

Rebecca Peters is right, there should be no guns for self-defense. The police is effective! Gun-nuts treat the police as if it didn't work, when a lot of police are NRA members. Also, why not get rid of police and let everyone settle their problems in a shootout?

Just ban all guns, and eventually all crime will stop. If citizens don't have guns, criminals will stop wasting money on guns and then the government can keep us safe.

As for overthrowing the government, if a bad gov ever comes to the US, other countries WOULD help us (If we stopped being such gun nuts) with their own militaries, no need to arm ourselves.

[FatSlob]

73. You just proved my point.

Thank you. What a sad nation you live in, where one has to get a permission slip from the government to exercise a fundamental human right. The right is self-evident. You've been so brainwashed by the decendents of Marx that you don't even realize it. Back in WWII you sure were happy for all the guns that the citizens of the US donated to average British folks to defend their islands. In the UK, you really don't have the right to defend yourself any more. Your government has prohibited all weapons. You only have the right to use something that isn't a weapon to defend yourself with. You run the risk of Tyranny, and Britain will see it at some point. We, in the United States are the last, best hope for the world. You used to be with us as a beacon of freedom, but no longer. I am a Free Man, you are but a subject, subject to the winds of Tyranny and the whims of the government.

[Pert_UK]

115. Jesus Christ on a unicycle...."self-evident human right"?????

"The right is self-evident."

It clearly ISN'T self-evident if people are failing to spot it.

What I find most disturbing is that you seem to equate "repeatedly shouting the same thing" with "arguing your case." I'd like to mention that I spent 3 years studying philosophy at University. A large part of that course involved ethics, and there was even a specific course entitled "Justice & Rights", dealing with various theories from different cultures, times and people.

I also follow world politics to a fair degree, and have spent a reasonable amount of time in different places around the world.

You know what the odd thing is? With the sole exception of pro-gunners in the USA, nobody sees "owning a gun" as a human right.......

Now, I'm 100% with you on arguing that self-defense is a right, but as I've pointed out on many, many occasions, that doesn't entail that the MEANS to that end is a right in itself. It isn't, and fundamentally / philosophically couldn't be.

Your government might recognise gun ownership as a right, but that doesn't make it objectively true, no matter how many times you shout it and no matter how loud.

I'm really happy to see that you've regressed back to citing WWII as justification for an armed populace. Can't you see that it's the last act of a desperate man? (I don't care if it's the first act of Henry V....."). For fuck's sake - you're now saying that having guns to fight Hitler is somehow equivalent to the public using guns as self-defense 60 years later? And now we're Marxists too?

Exactly how far do you have to twist history and facts in order to maintain your happy little illusion?

How can it be that you're "more free" when you feel obliged to arm yourselves against the threat of fellow citizens? Or when you have to keep guns to protect yourselves from the abuses of a democratically elected government? Or when you have "free speech zones" the "Patriot Act"???

Oh, I was forgetting.......Guns Macht Frei

Have you even considered that a cunning government might let you keep your guns merely to maintain the illusion of benign leadership and public freedom, whilst simultaneously eroding the freedoms that actually matter?

I'm not saying it's true, but firstly it would certainly work against people such as yourself who seem to have tunnel vision regarding what makes freedom, and secondly it's no more crazy that some of the stuff you're saying.......

[Left of Lenin]

78. You work for the govt, in the US the govt works for us

Perhaps the UK system is a carry over of being subject of the King?

It seems that most countries that broke away from British rule by force have retain the "being armed is good mentality".

[iverglas]

86. what are you babbling about ...

... and why?

"You work for the govt, in the US the govt works for us"

I suspect that Pert_UK might work for the govt. I certainly work for the govt. And I'm paid very handsomely for my efforts. What might this have to do with anything under discussion here?

Are you suggesting that ALL citizens of the UK work for their govt? Has there been some sort of nationalization of every sandwich shop in the UK happen, and I didn't notice?

Perhaps the UK system is a carry over of being subject of the King?

Hmm. Perhaps your comments are a carry over from knowing nothing about much of anything?

Let me enlighten you a little! (emphasis added -- oh, it's a US govt site, in case it wasn't clear) --

http://canada.gc.ca/whats/servicdisrup_e.html

Service Delivery During Strike Activity
This page provides links to the latest information on service disruptions
due to strike activity that may affect the public.
... Last updated: 2004-10-13

Yikes!!

The people who work for the govt in Canada ARE ON STRIKE! !!

What strange freedoms can these people (and their counterparts in the UK, I believe) be exercising?

Surely not the fundamental freedom of association guaranteed by the common law and their constitution!?!

Got some?

Not as I understand it.

http://www.compliance.gov/manual/manual_sec10.html

7. General Unavailability of Economic Weapons

Unlike the private sector, there is no right to strike, nor is there a right to engage in a work stoppage or slowdown. Chapter 71, as applied by the CAA, does not permit picketing of an employing office in a labor-management dispute if such picketing interferes with an employing office's operations.

... Labour organizations ... Shall not call or participate in a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown, picketing of an employing office in a labor-management dispute (if such picketing interferes with an employing offices operations), nor may a labor organization condone any of the foregoing activities by failing to take action to prevent or stop such activity.

Imagine, living in a country where you can be forced to work for the government ...

I'd better call my neighbour, a public service union strike captain who's walking the line as we speak, and check that she gave thanks on Monday (that was Thanksgiving Day) that she lives here in the land of the really free.


(spelling typo fixed)

[Left of Lenin]

94. Thanks for telling us who signs your pay check

By "work for the govt" I did not mean who signs your pay check, I meant who owns you. Perhaps my ignorance is born out of idealism, but I see the govt as working for me, not the other way around.

While this is clearly not the way it has worked in the US for a 100+ years, the US is much closer to this model than the UK or Canada.

Even Canada uses the words "public servant", so the idea that any govt is there to execute the will of the people is not completely foreign. As such, we need to let the govt know what we want, rather than have them decide what is good for us.

http://news.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?xml_search=true&articleID=79679

Isn't a democracy where everybody has a say in how the country is run, as opposed to a republic where "representatives" get to decide?

If being a democrat means having a say that counts and participating in governance, then that would seem contrary to just letting the govt take care of everything because it knows best.

[iverglas]

97. do you have any clue

... how moronic you sound? I am certainly not calling you a moron! Indeed, assuming that you are *not* a moron, I speak altruistically, assuming that you don't want to *sound* like one.

"Thanks for telling us who signs your pay check"

Well, it's a cheque, and it isn't actually "pay", it's "payment", since I'm not a govt employee.

"... I meant who owns you. Perhaps my ignorance is born out of idealism, but I see the govt as working for me, not the other way around."

Mm hmm. And you made an ALLEGATION about the citizens of the UK: that they "work <metaphorically speaking> for the govt", while "in the US the govt works for <you>". And it's complete garbage, and smelly garbage at that.

I think your ignorance is probably born of ... well, ignorance. It tends to breed. And then there are other possibilities: indoctrination? laziness? ethnocentricity? xenophobia? deep-rooted collective feelings of inferiority?

"While this is clearly not the way it has worked in the US for a 100+ years, the US is much closer to this model than the UK or Canada."

And I'm really, really sure that you have a vast and deep pool of knowledge that you are drawing on when you make this claim. Won't you share it?

Have you read the European Convention on Human Rights -- which has constitutional effect in the UK? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the first part of the Canadian constitution? Maybe you could do this, and get back to us with your analysis, identifying those parts of the constitutional instruments and traditions of the two countries that fall short of those in the US?

Don't forget to spend some time thinking about how the overwhelming majority of nations in the top ten list produced using the Human Development Index (i.e. the best places in the world to live) are constitutional monarchies -- parliamentary democracies -- and the US hasn't even been in the top three in recent memory ...

And rememter to actually look at how things like fundamental rights and freedoms are protected and exercised in practice.

You know ... like how public servants in Canada and the UK have right to strike, a fundamental right recognized by whole piles of civilized, democratic societies and governments the world over ... and how public servants in the US do not.

You know what would happen in Canada and the UK if the govt tried to take away the public service's right to strike? Check it out:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/ns/comment3.html

"Even Canada uses the words "public servant", so the idea that any govt is there to execute the will of the people is not completely foreign."

Gosh, that's so sweet of you to say. "Even Canada", "not competely foreign".

Of course, we do say all these things in two languages, which we all have the fundamental constitutional/human right to use ... and lesbians and gay man married to their same-sex partners say them, too. We're just a bunch o' hicks up here, I know.

"Isn't a democracy where everybody has a say in how the country is run, as opposed to a republic where 'representatives' get to decide?"

So glad you asked.

No.

I mean, not unless you actually live in ancient Athens, and speak ancient Greek ... or have some weird hidden agenda to grind ... or something ...

The rest of us out here would be so thrilled if you'd step over the threshold of that 18th century and join us here in the 21st, y'know?

[Left of Lenin]

104. So you're Canadian eh

Considering how much effort you put into correcting moronic sods like me that actually live in the US, I previously assumed you were at least a resident of this country. Perhaps you are a US citizen and plan to vote towards making this a better place? If not, what's it to you?

Perhaps your input only seems excessive from a moron's perspective. It probably only takes you a minute to generate each of your highly educational posts.

You have to excuse some of us for not having the same grasp of the Queen's English - some of us may even be immigrants from cold red places where English is not the language of the state.

Perhaps if you took a less condescending tone towards morons, more of the truth you speak will actually be heard, understood, accepted and practiced.

[iverglas]

105. you be sure to let me know

whenever you take a notion to address something that has been said, rather than going off on yet another uninformed tangent about whoever said it. 'K?

[Left of Lenin]

107. Alrighty

[Lautremont]

112. Oh, I like this.

"Perhaps you are a US citizen and plan to vote towards making this a better place? If not, what's it to you?"

Thanks, LoL, for your valuable perspective. I just can't imagine why I've been thinking so much about the US election these past months. I'm Canadian, so it can't possibly impact me in any way. Why, I've just been wasting my time!

I do apologize to others for perpetuating this tangent.

[Pert_UK]

116. Hmmm.....care to offer any evidence for either comment?

Just wondering.....

P.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

113. Good Lord

Single shot rifles that can't fire past 100 meters? That's a feat that can be accomplished by a fucking air gun, much less a rifle utilizing black or smokeless powder. What could possibly be the purpose of such an assinine restriction?

Little blue helmets with M-16s would have standoff capability, as in stand out of range of these 100m rifles and deliver fire with no risk at all.

[Wickerman]

121. Locking

LaPierre has revealed, for one final time what a corporate shill he is. This thread started before he announced his undying love for Bush*. His endorsement closes this topic and favorable discussion on him.