Right to keep/own and bear arms. (Page 2)

FogofWar: Atilawolf said:

"As for gun related crime if you take legal guns away that will still leave all of the illegal ones."


This is true. The majority of gun related crimes in Canada are from unregistered firearms. The handful or registered firearms that are used in crimes are almost always stolen rifles registered to some poor farmer who will inevitably end up being charged for someone else committing the crime. Gun registration is just a way to lay the blame on someone else.



Candyrivers said:

"the police do not carry guns in England under normal circumstances. An armed response unit would need to be called in specially."

That seems illogical to Me. Several circumstances can be averted through the use of non-lethal force; but the police are putting their lives in harms way to protect the innocent public; they should be armed at all times. It's like the old saying, I would rather have a condom, and not need it; then need one, and be without it...except in this case, the condom represents a gun.



"And exactly where have the illegal guns come from, maybe stolen from homeowners."

We have spent billions of dollars on gun registration here in Canada. The only people that register guns are farmers and hunters that require them for protection or gaming. On few occasions have said legal weapons been used to commit crimes; and yes; it is almost always stolen from the registered gun owner. The vast majority of gun related crimes are from illegally purchased weapons; either smuggled in through the borders; or stolen from a registered owner/gunshop; and modified (often removing serial numbers).

More commonly are guns becoming a problem in youth gang violence; and the number one rifle of choice in this part of Canada for these kids is the Chinese SKS...thankfully some 90% of them are too retarded to figure out how to operate said rifle; but it is these illegally smuggled in rifles that are the biggest threat in our strict gun-controlled nation....thankfully (although outbackjack has disagreed with Me on this in several posts); we have elite Special Forces that are armed to the teeth and trained to monitor any ocean bound vessels and intercept them in open water and neutralize them before they reach shore.



John said:

"We were both talking about seeing a Police raid on a slum section of Town were the police looked more like Nazi S.S. troops with machine guns and German style helmets etc, than British Bobbies"

I see those SAS tactics have paid off royally for your SWAT units their as well? Ours in Canada are now armed with H and K MP5 and MP7 silenced submachineguns; as well as high powered long-range rifles that can be used from a sniper over 2 miles away. God bless those German arms designers.


Candyrivers said:

"Thing is John you actually do have the look of a paedophile about you. If guns were available to the british public with your idiotic spewings you never know if you would be the next target."

...seems rather hostile for something as trivial as disagreeing on the stance of the right to bear arms.



"What was it the other week, Islam is the answer, then you play the atheist, One one post your level of homophobia was shocking, I seem to remember you saying something like you cant go in public toilets without being propositioned."

are you implying that homosexuals and Muslims should not be allowed to carry weapons? I fail to see what this has to do with the right to bear arms.



"it seems that in almost all gun related gun crimes more than a few existing gun laws have been violated and the existing laws would cover the offences but there is always the whinny call for more restrictive laws that only negatively effect legal gun owners instead of the criminal use of illegal guns."

And thus the $9 Billion gun registration law here in Canada, really only accomplished one thing....costing $9 billion.

FogofWar: People do have the right to defend themselves; but to what constitutes as self defence is another manner.

The problem is not in the right to bear arms; but to whom these rights are granted. From the gangster in the street, to the young college woman living near these gangs; one should not have the right to conceal a weapon; although on the same hand, the other does deserve to protect herself from the other's illegal weapon...but therein lies another problem. If you were to pass a law that overrides the 2nd amendment; then it only makes it more difficult for the young college woman to posses an arm for defence. The gangster who is affiliated with illegal criminal activity; has access to illegal weapons already; and surely he still would even without the 2nd amendment. The young college woman however, would no longer be able to purchase a devise for self defence.

Another main problem is that while everyoe does have the RIGHT to bear arms; not everyone has the conscious power to use them. It is not legal for us to carry guns around in Canada; but pocket knives are; so long as it is less than six inches I believe; and is not double edged. I have known many kids I went to school with; and even later on after I graduated that carried knives around for "protection"; yet when put into a situation which would require them to use it; I would be willing to bet that not more than one of them had the ability to actually use it.

I have spoken with kids about just that. I see them carrying such a weapon for defence; and I will show them exactly why it is more dangerous for them to possess such a weapon than not to. In the event someone were to attack you in an alley persay; and you had no weapon; there is a chance that you will be severely beaten; but if you pull a weapon on them; and even hesitate for a second; that defensive tool has now become a weapon against you; there are texts upon texts of martial arts that train of this.

Of course I cannot say that it would be wrong for people to have the right to bear arms; as a member of the Armed Forces; I bear arms constantly for the purpose of defence; but I can say that there should be more formal courses into training the people that do decide to bear arms in the use of these weapons when need be. There are also far better options available to the public now than a gun. No offense to any women reading this; I do not mean this in any degrading way; but the statistics do not lie: women are more emotional than men (on average), and the majority of women asked would not feel comfortable using a gun or other form of lethal weapon (like a knife). Pepperspray is now available to the public and is a lot easier to conceal and use; plus their is no conscious hesitation...and of course there is also the disputed taser. Modern tasers can be purchased that look like nothing more than a flashlight; and can give up to a 30 second jolt; enough to incapacitate nearly any person. The have a battery pack that enables them to be used for over one hour of sustained jolt; meaning she can guaruntee that her attacker would not be able to get up until well after help arrived.

...of course that sparks a whole new debate in which many people would like to criticize the taser usage as well; including the accessability of this particular device; but like a gun; if one does decide to purchase it; they should seek to be fully trained in how and when to use the device.

FogofWar: ...the bottom line is; it is not right to take away people's rights to defend themselves; but it is the responsibility of the governing body to make certain that these rights cannot be easily exploited. Stict gun laws should be in place to guaruntee that criminally insane and psychopathic people cannot get ahold of them; and seek to train those who do meet the requirements. Also it should be mandatory that before purchasing a gun for the purpose of self defense; the person be given the proper information about other non-letal weapons for defence....you can argue that the taser can be fatal too; but it is a lot less lethal than a bullet.

Gary_Spivey: I have bullet-proof hair!

retaxis: nah guns should be allowed for everyone as long as there are strict rules and regulations enforcing it.

E.g. Police must regularly check gun safes and fire arms. Also firearm carriers must never have a violent criminal record and must be stable and sound of mind. Proper training must also be enforced.

LiptonCambell: This brings an important question amoungst all this talk of registrations and such; A Historical veiw.

After all, the right to bear arms didnt come around as a means for self defense- it was first instituted by the founding fathers as a means for rebellion and a defense against oppression. Basically, the founding fathers believes all government will eventually get opressive, so the right to bear arms ensures its citizens can rebel against the Government.

So while I agree, in a modern context, restrictions and regulations and registeries make sense.......but in the sense of what the laws were originally designed for? Having a potientally oppressive government knowing exactly who has guns, what kind of guns, and how many doesn't really help people rebel- rather, it makes them a target....

FogofWar: Of course we have since evolved in our developed nations to be able to resolve political problems without resorting to violent overture; for the most part. So in the concept of being able to stand against a corrupt and oppressive regime; violence is not always the answer.

As far as self defence goes; I still think that people should seek alternative methods than lethal force; less chance of it turning ugly on themselvse.

franklin1950: the original american revolution was begun with less than one third of the population in favour of the movement.
today about one third of their population is either , democrat/progressive/communist ; republican/concervative/facist or independent/uninterested/confused. and for the conspiricy theorists the secret government/new world order/them .
the progressives' statigy was to overload and collapse the government/establishment . then come in as the only ones smart enough to fix the situation . they know best so the end justifies the means. a longer less violent means to an end than bullets and bombs [ though never let a crisis/disaster go to waste ] . a stratagy well executed as seen today.
one ilusion replaced by another.

LiptonCambell: I agree that our current government system doesnt require rebellion- but you cannot leave the people completely defenseless in the day that an oppressive regeime rules the white house. Is it unlikely? Yes. Is it impossible? No. And if it were happen in the next 24 hours, the kinds of federal organsations that the government has created will likely create some serious problem for rebellion, regardless if the citizens have access to guns.

FogofWar: I do agree Lipton; and again I state; I cannot stand against the right to bear arms; as a member of the military; I do bear those arms.

StuckInTheSixties: Johnny Boy! You petulant little pedophile! Sue me too! Sue me too!

FogofWar: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are niether inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-Thomas Jefferson

FogofWar: "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed unteil they try to take it."

-Thomas Jefferson

john1576: Sixties. You disgusting, vile, despicable piece of human waist. You will soon be worm food, so why would I bother taking a turd like you to court? You will be rotting away in the ground, stinking even worse than you do now. How you gutter snipes are allowed to accuse respectable people of such things amazes me. I just hope the Police read what you have written.

john1576: Turns out I don't have to Sue you Sixties. The American Authorities deal with issues like this themselves. The last person they took to Court paid 12000 Dollars in fines and was ordered to do 500 hours of comminty service.

LiptonCambell: lmao!

Gotta source?

StuckInTheSixties: (laughs)

John's source for all of his posts is his ass. He just bends down, reaches right up there and extracts stuff like what you read in this thread!

John hates me because I sometimes ask him for a source when he posts some of his patented blithering nonsense. He gets upset when you do that. Kind of bursts his bubble.

By the way, he's wanted by Interpol for the crime of publically humping a camel in Tajikistan!

Oops! I'm gonna get sued for that!

StuckInTheSixties: Johnny Boy, don't ever change!

Karma: Feel free to change.

StuckInTheSixties: Stifle yourself, or I'll sue you!

Karma: I've already reported you to the Absurdity Board, SITS. Expect to have your door knocked down any minute.

john1576: Sixties. I do not have to respond to your vile and despicable threats or slander. You are a coward and have now fallen out of the gutter and into the sewer with your abuse. I will not bother to explain to you how to bring you to account for your miserable accusations is a Civil matter if you made them verbally to me (something you do not have the backbone to do) but as you have been so stupid to make your accusations 'using Telecommunications for the purposes of slander and harassment' that is a criminal act for which a police in the U.S.A. can charge you. If you want to continue your slander of better people than yourself, I suggest you visit Canada and use the telephone system there. The American Police do not allow people like you to infest their Internet Network within the U.S.A.

StuckInTheSixties: (laughs)

FogofWar: how does any of this pertain to the right to bear arms?

This isn't the forum for the right to bear childish insults.

StuckInTheSixties: You have a point, Fog. I was just needling Johnny Boy a little bit for old times' sake. We have a sort of relationship. He amuses me with his wildly inaccurate posts, and my criticisms of such give him reason to petulantly pout and publically throw tantrums.

On the subject of gun control (in the USA), I've long felt that any firearm should be registered and tracked, just as autos are, from manufacturer to owner to owner. I'm sure this opinion will prompt gun rights fundamentalists to preach about government intrusion, the New World Order, ad absurdum. But I don’t buy it. Was the big, tyrannical government takeover that gun nuts run around in circles shouting about to actually happen, records of who had what wouldn’t really matter. There are so many firearms in existence, and so many owners, that coming after the individual owners would be little different than simply going door to door. It’s just not going to happen. The gun ownership genie is long out of the bottle. It’s not going to be stuffed back in regardless of the paranoid claims of fundamentalists.