| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > The Gun Control Debate |
| Posted by: Swanny 16-Jun-2003, 04:34 PM |
| Having seen that we have a group with a wide variety of views, yet who are willing to disagree without being disagreeable, I'm willing to bring this issue to the floor. |
| Posted by: Swanny 16-Jun-2003, 04:44 PM |
| In my opinion, the only form of gun control is that which is regularly practiced on the firing range. Where I live, the fastest police response I can reasonably expect is 40 minutes, and frankly I think we have more than enough cops. I really don't want to have spend more tax money to subsidize more speed traps and misdemeanor enforcement on the off-chance that it might improve response time in my very rural community. My community is home to about 250 families, a couple of thousand sled dogs, and two or three dozen grizzly bears. While admit my situation is unusual, no reasonable government can excuse one class of citizens from a restriction that it imposes on others. The restrictions imposed against inner-city people is also a restriction on those of us who live far away from those crowds. I've noticed that gun control laws have the apparant affect of disarming the law-abiding while reinforcing violent criminals. Though trite, I tend to believe that an armed society is made up of citizens, while an unarmed society is all too often made up of subjects. I'm not inclined to be subject to much of anyone. Swanny |
| Posted by: scottish2 16-Jun-2003, 06:36 PM |
| What urks me is gun control only effects the law abiding. Criminals could careless about what laws they are breaking that's why their criminals. |
| Posted by: Gaelic Bread 16-Jun-2003, 07:46 PM | ||
THAT pretty well says it. I personally believe that there can be no gun control in the USA. The dregs of society will always have access.... if not to guns, then to something worse. I'm more concerned with controlling taxes, protecting individual freedom, promoting "right to work", and year-round-Shamrock Shakes. |
| Posted by: Ursamajor 16-Jun-2003, 07:56 PM |
| AMEN BROTHER JIM!!! PREACH ON!! |
| Posted by: Ursamajor 16-Jun-2003, 08:07 PM |
| Seriously, though, the 2nd Ammendment is pretty clear on this issue. Any argument that the framers couldn't forsee today's weapons as a reason for gun control is just B.S. The framers realized that there were many things that would happen that they could not forsee, and they wrote the Constitution - all parts of it, not just the 1st Ammemdment - with that in mind. As I get older, the nanny state that we live in ticks me off more and more. Expatriation, anyone? |
| Posted by: Keltic 16-Jun-2003, 08:57 PM |
| I worked at the Canadian Parliament during the time that the petitions were coming in concerning gun control. I had to weed through the thousands and thousands of pages of signatures calling upon Parliament to strengthen gun control. At that time, the murder of the women at the University of Montreal drove this debate. The government of Canada immediately seized the chance to win votes by immediately creating a list of guns to ban. The original list didn't even include the gun used in the murders (the gun, a Ruger Mini 14, was later added to the list). We now have the gun registry which like most political creations, is a drain on the taxpayer with no visible benefit. Original estimates pegged the registry at a couple of million dollars but the actual cost is now nearing 1 billion dollars. It is unknown how many criminals are actually registering their guns but if you can't trust a criminal, who can you trust. We once had a Bill before Parliament, presented by a Member of Parliament from Ottawa, calling on the ban of crossbows due to the rash of murders with crossbow in Ottawa that year. More than 10% of all murders in Ottawa that year were committed by crossbow. How many murders in Ottawa that year? Fewer than ten but one was committed by crossbow. |
| Posted by: free2Bme 16-Jun-2003, 09:15 PM |
| Yep, I have watched enough episodes of Colombo to know that if a criminal wants to kill a person bad enough, they can find a way to do it, with a gun, with a crossbow, or even a baseball bat (should we outlaw baseball bats too?). Men have been killing each other since Cain killed Abel, and gun control laws will not prevent murders from happening. I do think that the people who own guns should practice gun safety, though. Please keep them under lock and key when you aren't using them - I have heard of too many children trying to pretend to be "big boys" who have been killed by accidental shooting, simply because the guns were left in a drawer beside the bed or in a shoebox in the closet. The issue of school shootings however has nothing to do with gun control, but with parent control. I have yet to figure out how those Columbine boys could build bombs and stockpile guns in their garage, and their parents didn't find out about it until after it was all over with? |
| Posted by: Catriona 17-Jun-2003, 03:49 AM |
| I am very anti guns... BUT, as I don't live in the USA or Canada, and my country had very stringent gun controls, I leave it to the US and Canadian citizens here to comment on gun control.  I truly believe that the INTERN AL politics of a country is the province of those who vote and live in those countries  Which DOESN'T mean I won't have a 'view' on US INTERNATIONAL actions - which affect citizens of the rest of the world, too  |
| Posted by: Swanny 17-Jun-2003, 04:34 AM |
| Catriona and all, I'd really like to hear an international perspective on this debate. In the US it's one of those topics where people tend to feel very strongly one way or the other, and are rarely ambivalent. I'd really like to hear how people outside the U.S. view the topic, especially those who reside in nations that either have always in recent memory had stringent gun control laws, or that have recently enacted them. Swanny |
| Posted by: Catriona 17-Jun-2003, 04:58 AM |
| Hmmmmmm Well, as I have stated - I am strongly anti-gun. This is a personal opinion! I grew up in an Army household... my father's brother was Factor of a large estate in the highlands of Scotland. My father grew up on our family farm (owned by the family, not the local laird) and huntin, shootin and fishin was an everyday part of their lives. BUT.... there were no handguns in the family home (well, Dad had one as part of his Army issue!) and the guns used for stalking or grouse shooting were kept in a padlocked strongbox in my Grandpa's study. A few years ago, we had a tragedy at Dunblane Primary School, where a local nutter broke in and killed children by shooting them dead. It later came out that he was an unstable person, with an unhealthy interest in little boys...... However, his guns were 'legal' (I undestand) because he was a member of a gun club. All guns have to be registered in the UK. A few years before that, we had another massacre at Hungerford by a gun-owner. Now, I know the argument put forward by a number of Americans, including Charlton Heston that 'guns don't kill, people do'..... a specious argument, I feel Here is the URL of a British anti-gun lobby group. I have to say that I cannot vouch for how reliable the info on the site may be..... http://www.gun-control-network.org/facts.htm I have family in Australia and visited just after the terrible massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania. This caused a very stringent re-think of the Aussie laws on gun ownership. My family live in the country, and guns in the home were a necessary 'evil', to kill rabbits, snakes etc.... But the number of handguns seemed to be HUGE... I think the Aussie solution was a knee-jerk one..... it has caused problems to country folk - but that is for the citizens of that country to address, not me! Our police do not, as a matter of routine, carry guns.... whenever I go to Europe and see guns on the hips of callow youths dressed in uniform and peaked caps, it makes me shiver....! Our police at Airports and at known 'targets' of terrorism (such as the US embassy - at present, trying to get round Grosvenor Square in London is a NIGHTMARE.... I visited London a couple of weekends ago - and had to go past loads of armed British policemen, just asking what business I had in the square.... For goodness sake, my friends live OPPOSITE the damned embassy building..... why should I have to be challenged whilst visiting friends?  - OK, whine over!) We should be used to it by now, after all, the IRA have been active, not just in Northern Ireland, but on the mainland, too, for almost 40 years. Anti-terrorist patrols have been a fact of life in London for almost all that time. And I lived and worked there for a number of years, so I am talking from personal experience.I know the argument about criminals having guns - and that is true.... In the UK, unfortunately, our young, impressionable, inner-city males seem to have been affected by the macho US ghetto boys and drive-by shootings that appear on our news bulletins and appear to be glamourised by rappers and some film makers. BUT, that still does not make me alter my position re guns  I had a similar debate to this on another board with lots of US participants - interestingly, ALL the UK members said they would not wish our gun laws to be relaxed - and abotu 95% of the US members said they would oppose gun control in any form! I think it is a subject which people get pretty het up about, and your point of view is coloured by the present-day gun laws in the country where you live.... Right, anybody else want this soapbox?  |
| Posted by: scottish2 17-Jun-2003, 05:36 AM | ||||
| Here's a solution I think everyone could agree upon even Catriona. If we are to have guns (Here in the US that's a given pretty much) at least what the government could do is force the gun manufacturers by passing law for manditory gun locks. (I think they have in US but unsure being I haven't been following this issue to much being my main concern is taxation) but this would not effect an individuals right to own firearms and it would make the weapon safer from kids playing with it. But safety is a major factor that must be taught by the parents and the parents have to take that time to teach children about firearms should they wish this in their childs future. Meaning at the proper age teach them how to handle it safely. But as was pointed out by Ursamajor this is a very clear issue. The 2nd amendment say http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html
Well gun control laws do just this they infringe or try and get closer to no guns allowed. First they ban this weapon from us then as Keltic pointed out they add another and then another and then you have a fully controled populace and by doing this we follow one of the most hated if not the most hated dictators.
|
| Posted by: Catriona 17-Jun-2003, 06:07 AM |
| We do not have a written constitution on this side of the pond. Gun control has always been much stricter than the USA - but it is now probably the most stringent in the world. We like it like that! |
| Posted by: Keltic 17-Jun-2003, 07:35 AM |
| The problem is that there is no proof that gun control does anything except keep guns out of the hands of "law-abiding" people. Cars are registered and it doesn't seem to stop idiots on the road nor does it stop criminals from stealing them and using them in the commission of crimes. In my opinion, gun control does nothing but give the illusion that the authorities have some control over an uncontrollable situation. Perhaps the courts could actually impose sentences on those who use weapons during crimes. In Canada, there is already mandatory sentencing for use of a weapon during the commission of a crime but lawyers quite often drop the weapons charges in order to reach a plea bargain. People should be held responsible for their actions instead of being held responsible for their potential actions. |
| Posted by: scottish2 17-Jun-2003, 10:22 AM |
| Well problem I see state side is they lock up the minor drug offense crimes and let the big fish get away. OUr prisons are overloaded with people who have been locked up for smoking a joint. Mind you I personall don't agree with drugs but then I choose not to live my life like that. My main issue comes down to privacy really in this issue. If a person wishes to throw his/her life away on drugs what right does the government have to step in and throw the person in jail if that person never left home? For instance a person gets off from work and smokes a joint at home. What right does the government have to arrest him/her? He/she has effected no one but themselves and at least state side we have a right to pursue happiness. If smoking makes this person happy and it effects no one but themselves then what right does the government have to violate these peoples right to both privacy in their own homes and also the right to pursue their own happiness? Now if they leave the house and cause trouble then that's a different matter but then we don't see them banning alcohol. So what's the difference? Does alcohol not cause accidents? As for driving don't even get me going on this issue I hate drivers liscenses just as much as taxation. |
| Posted by: free2Bme 17-Jun-2003, 10:59 AM | ||
I think the real crimes are committed when those "big fish" you spoke of are getting the drugs from the point of origin to the point of sale. That is where the real crime occurs. I think they make buying drugs illegal, in order to curb the demand for these products, which doesn't work. Prohibition did not keep people from wanting to drink alcohol it just drove the business underground. Now are you speaking of all drugs, or just weed? Weed grows wild in the mountains of Kentucky - according to news and police reports they grow more of it there than California and Hawaii combined. It did not use to be a crime to grow and sell hemp, and before WWII it was a major agricultural crop. They used it to make rope back then. I am all for making hemp legal again. I think it should all be turned over to the R.J. Reynolds Company as a replacement for their lost revenues from Tobacco (also another major crop in Kentucky) and regulated as such. That would turn the agricultural economy around for sure! This would eliminate the market for those "big fish" and people who want it can get it, pay the taxes on it, boost the economy with those bucks and then hemp would lose its mystique and coolness. Gangs would not have anything to fight over, and drug lords would have to find another illegal blackmarket item to make a living off of. After all, you hardly ever hear of drive by shootings over a six pack of beer these days, right? Legalizing hemp would have the same positive effects as legalizing alcohol. Add a "sin tax" to the product and everyone wins. |
| Posted by: RavenWing 17-Jun-2003, 12:28 PM | ||
You had me until the "sin tax" |
| Posted by: scottish2 17-Jun-2003, 01:01 PM |
| Well as far as how far to go legalizing wise I would have to say who am I to say someone else can't get their vision of happiness no matter what I think of it. How do I know that I am not in the wrong view? Problems with one persons morals is how do you know whose morals are right and whose are wrong? Obviously someones has to be right and someones has to be wrong. So whose to decide? The person whose right or the person whose wrong? Oh that's right we don't know whose right and whose wrong so how to decide?  |
| Posted by: Gaelic Bread 17-Jun-2003, 01:16 PM | ||
Okay... it's driving me NUTS now. What's the movie with Tom Cruise, where they have these creepy people floating in water who know future crimes and help the police to arrest the criminal PRIOR to the action? Can't remember the title, but just when you think this would do the job... corruption hits. |
| Posted by: scottish2 17-Jun-2003, 02:02 PM |
| I think this is the one you wanted. http://www.minorityreport.com/ |
| Posted by: tartangal 17-Jun-2003, 02:04 PM |
| I guess not living in America, it is easy to spout forth but maybe it is also easier to see the big picture. I wonder whether with guns Americans have entered a bit of a p*ssing contest - ie, "you have guns so we have to have guns" then " your guns are bigger, faster than our guns"....... and so on. Has anyone shown that arming citizens decreases gun crime? Like Catriona I live in a country where gun use (legel , that is ) is strictly controlled. Our percentage of gun crime is tiny compared to America. I wonder whether the thought that you are likely to be met with a gun makes you more likely to carry one when going to commit a crime. Scotland is not without its own problems , but in Glasgow where I work as a nurse,knives are the weapon of choice.Now maybe you are exchanging one weapon for another but the potential for multiple loss of life is so much less. |
| Posted by: MDF3530 17-Jun-2003, 05:07 PM | ||||
Minority Report, which was really bad. I'm glad I used a free rental coupon at Blockbuster for that pile of garbage. If I'd paid cash, I would've demanded my money back. |
| Posted by: free2Bme 17-Jun-2003, 08:04 PM |
| For the record, I don't own a gun, and I don't do drugs. I love to eat wild deer meat, rabbits, and other game., so gun control laws affect everyone including those who just own guns just to keep wild game in the freezer. I have seen the effects of illegal drugs on other people and I know that it is not healthy for you, but I also know that if someone wants to buy street drugs it is easier to get street drugs than it is to buy a newspaper. It is everywhere you go, and law enforcement is a joke. Now to expalin "sin tax" is simply another term for adding a tax to something so that even people who don't believe in something will accept it, because of the tax $ it generates. Alcohol has a sin tax on it, so if drugs are legalized and they slap a tax on it, then that would be known as a sin tax. You could still buy all you want of it, it would just cost more. |
| Posted by: scottish2 17-Jun-2003, 08:23 PM |
| Guess it must be a "Sin" then to buy a new laptop. I ordered one last Fri on-line and they added almost $70 in tax. I complained saying our state doesn't collect tax on-line sales and they came back and said they are required to by the state because of their precense in the state despite the fact I bought on-line. It's getting pathetic when you have to pay a tax on everythig even if that level of government doesn't have jurisdiction over it. So who does have jurisdiction over the net where they can charge a tax? |
| Posted by: Keltic 17-Jun-2003, 08:40 PM | ||||
Firearm ownership in Switzerland is at least as high as the U.S. All males between the ages of 20 and 42 are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for purposes of national defense.
If you haven't noticed, I just don't like Government getting into my face. I wish to raise my children and don't want the Government telling me how. I want to live my life and don't want the Government scripting my every move. It's all about personal responsibility and respect for others. I have been too close to Government for too long to trust their motives. http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html |
| Posted by: Swanny 17-Jun-2003, 09:44 PM |
| Has anyone shown that arming citizens decreases gun crime? Oh yes. In the United States at least. The first and, because it's most official, is the FBI Uniform Crime Report, which has noted that in states where citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns in public that violent crime isn't just decreased, but falls off manifold. My favorite though, because it was the most scientifically performed study in the U.S. that has been published to date, was begun under the hypothosis that armed citizens were more likely to be victims of crime than unarmed citizens. The prof doing the study was astounded to learn just the opposite and that in any given year in the United States since the mid-1970s, MILLIONS of violent crimes are deterred by the mere presence of an armed citizen who, without firing a shot, merely displays a firearm. I have no idea if that would hold true in other nations, however Switzerland is oft cited as a heavily armed nation in which the rate of violent crime is very low. I understand tha violent crimes other than acts of terrorism are quite rare in Israel, but I can't cite that with certainty as it's only repeating what which I've been told by others. In any event there is more than adequate evidence to show that armed citizens are much less likely to be the victims of violent crimes than are unarmed citizens, and in states that have passed concealed carry laws the overall rate of violent crimes, even those perpetrated against unarmed victims, falls dramatically. That is no longer in the realm of "opinion". Swanny |
| Posted by: Shadows 20-Jun-2003, 10:23 PM |
| I believe it was our Mr. Jefferson ( Thomas, not George ) that stated "...a little revolution was good for a country now and then..." With gun control this could never happen any where! |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jun-2003, 05:46 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Quite true Shadows. In fact good subject what did our founding fathers have to say about guns? Here are some quotes a long with some quotes from other historical figures. Some good people and yes some bad as well. First the Second amendment the founders most powerful statement
John Adams
Samuel Adams
Adolf Hitler
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Jefferson
Richard Henry Lee
James Madison
George Mason
George Washington
So that is how some of history has seen the use of weapons. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 18-Jul-2003, 02:19 PM |
| regarding Switzerland: I know alot of Swiss people.. the thing about Switzerland is they have no Army in the sense as you ppl have it in the USA or we have in Germany or the UK has... The law requires that because the people of Switzerland chose so. Just thought i'd say that In Germany policemen carry guns (Catriona, I nearly fell back down the stairs in Belfast Airport when that policeman with MP approached me! Goodness, I was so frightened!), but every German knows that they are ony allowed to use them if there is real danger from somebody threatening their own lives. If they fire without being in danger they get heavy punishment (sometimes even get charged for murder). No heavier guns than handguns allowed, too. Somebody of my class shot a policeman right into the head, out of a car. he was 16 at that time (no driving licence too, the car was stolen) and it was in an "respectable" neighbourhood, the policeman was just watching the traffic. If you really want a gun, it is easy to get your hands on them, registered or not. He managed that. And in Germany we have laws regarding guns,too, you have to have a "waffenschein", a license to use weapons only recieved after proper training, and the weapon must be registered. Still things like the massacre like in the "Goethe-Gymnasium" happen. The laws regarding weapons were even more hardened, but still it is possible to get a gun if you really want it, even with stringent laws. I'm not good with words tonight, maybe when I get my words together I'll able to tell you what I think, but somehow the right words won't come into my head tonight. But for me, guns are more of a psychological problem... |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 29-Aug-2003, 01:27 AM |
| No one has posted on this board in a while, but I guess it is my turn to post... I do not own a gun, and I do not know if I will ever own one. But as a free citizen of America, I want the right to do so. One of my brothers was murdered by a gang-banger. My brother was shot at close range with a hand-gun. The bullet went through his right side passing through his right lung, the aorta of the heart and then his left lung. He died in his car. Now this gun was not registered, but the murderer wanted to kill, and so he killed. My brother was only 27 with three small boys who loved him because he was their world. Most would think I would want to ban guns altogether, but I don't. I hate murder in any form, but I do not believe taking away our right to protect ourselves would keep us safe from insane killers. My younger brother is a police officer, with a special force called "Street Crimes" unit. He fights everyday to keep the drug dealers off of the streets and protect our community. He has told me, that he has become fustrated with the apathy expressed by some in the ranks of the police force. Maybe he cares too much. He has to carry a gun, to defend himself and protect others against murder and violent crimes. I whole heartedly agree with Swanny and Scottish2, in that if we give up our right to arm and defend ourselves how will we ever push back tyranny or mad-dictatorship governments. Maybe the quotes by our "Founding Fathers" that were posted earlier seem far-fetched and out-dated by those on the otherside of the pond---but it is more real than you know. A crazed government can easily subdue a blase, unarmed population, because they (the government in control) have the weapons to force their will on the people. We cannot think or believe that the human race will ever live in an utopian society(Except maybe in the after-life). History tells us this much! I do believe in and support peace, but I agree with Thomas Jefferson who said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  I say all this with true sincerity and respect to others with differing opinions and beliefs. I truly respect your right to disagree! |
| Posted by: scottish2 30-Aug-2003, 08:43 PM |
| I agree fully Roisin-Teagan. Good post |
| Posted by: Patch 01-May-2008, 08:29 AM |
| "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!" --- Adolf Hitler, 1935 This speaks for its self! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 01-May-2008, 09:02 AM | ||
Patch; In that respect I agree with Herr Adolph. In my humble opinion there is absolutely no need for a private citizen to own a fire arm. The exception is Aboriginal Hunters. As they use there rifles to provide food. Camac. |
| Posted by: John Clements 01-May-2008, 09:17 AM | ||
Frankly guys I happen to think that gun control, is more about collecting revenue and not having anything to fight for our right with, rather then randomly killing each other. I’m sorry, but as long as there are “any” guns out there, I want one too. JC |
| Posted by: Patch 01-May-2008, 03:35 PM |
| Very good thought!!! We just had a drive by in a small neighboring community. It happened in a quiet neighborhood and the middle age woman was unarmed! In my community a man my age committed suicide (?) by shooting himself two times (last night too)! A lot of questions! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: John Clements 01-May-2008, 03:59 PM | ||
He must have been a bad shot. |
| Posted by: Patch 01-May-2008, 07:02 PM |
| His nephews wife told me tonight at the restaurant that the gentleman shot himself 3 times. The body was sent to a "criminal forensic site" for autopsy. I suspect this will have a VERY unusual outcome. until we have a police officer available to watch every citizen 24/7, violent crime will be a problem to some degree. We can not afford to pay for that level of protection. With that many police they will surely then become the problem. Police can only catch your murderer or rapist after the fact! MAYBE!!! Nothing is as effective at preventing violent crime as a firearm. Anyone who lives in an area where violent crime is not a problem is very fortunate! I expect that as the economy continues it's slide, violent crime will increase astronomically. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 01-May-2008, 08:59 PM |
| [/QUOTE]In that respect I agree with Herr Adolph. In my humble opinion there is absolutely no need for a private citizen to own a fire arm. The exception is Aboriginal Hunters. As they use there rifles to provide food.[QUOTE] Actually the reverse is that there is no reason whatsoever that a law abiding citizen cannot own any firearm he or she wants. The key phrase being "law abiding".  |
| Posted by: Camac 02-May-2008, 06:13 AM | ||
Why? Why does any "law abiding" citizen need a gun? Don't use the excuse that the criminals have them that's what the police are for. If you did not have the 2nd amendment then there would not be the proliferation of weapons that you have. The arms manufacturers market would have been limited to supplying the military. 95% of the gun crimes in Canada are commited by weapons smuggled in from the U.S. because of our stricter gun laws. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 02-May-2008, 07:54 AM |
| If one would study our Constitution, Bill of rights and the Federalist Papers one would see that those who drafted those documents gave most powers to the states. They feared a large central Govt. The second amendment was for a two fold purpose. Since there was to be no large standing army, every bodied able citizen would be expected to defend the Republic until an army could be raised. Secondly, an armed populace was expected to "keep the Fed. Govt, in line". As for police, your choice is, whether to prevent the murder or rape of a family member or rely on police finding the perp after the crime is committed. I will choose the first option in a flash. To accomplish the later, we would need police protection 24/7 or be willing to accept protective custody in prison situations to reduce the number of police required for protection. If we were to go about our daily activities, it would take a minimum of 5 officers for every unarmed citizen to assure safety of sorts! First, we can't afford it and second, it we had that many police think "police State!" As for fire arms being smuggled into Canada, it is your border to protect. We should not be expected to fix your problems. Our cross to bear is the illegal alien and drug problem at our southern border. That is our problem to fix, not Mexico's. Re: your more recent registration law, friends in Ontario, Alberta and BC laughingly relate that it is a VERY expensive failure. They contend that only a small number have registered their firearms. The one thing they indicated that registration did was build the "third" (conservative) party. I have read news articles to that effect down here too. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 02-May-2008, 09:05 AM | ||
If we follow your thinking then only carpenters should be allowed hammers or plumbers / pipe wrenches, etc. |
| Posted by: John Clements 02-May-2008, 09:25 AM |
| Guys I think this dilemma is a wash, (that is to say that you’re damned if you do, and your damned if you don’t) because whether you are a law biding or not, (and you own a gun), someone could get shot, either deliberately or accidently? You know even as “liberal” minded as I am, I’ll take that chance, rather then not be able to defend myself, or my loved ones. As far as “law enforcement" is concerned. I’m more concerned about being shot by them. Then I am of being shot by a criminal. Hey, I wonder if you can beat someone to death with a bouquet of flowers, I suppose you could, providing they don’t beat you to death with one first? JC |
| Posted by: Camac 02-May-2008, 09:26 AM | ||||
Dogshirt; Stop comparing apples to oranges. Your reply is absurd. Because of your 2nd admendment, which has been misinterpeted and corrupted, in a lot of States a person can walk into a gun store and buy just about any concievable weapon he chooses. What in the name of hell does a person need with a .50cal sniper rifle or for that matter an A.K 47 OR M. 16. One other question; Have you ever been shot at or shot? If you had you might change your thinking. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 02-May-2008, 10:09 AM |
| Camac In answer to your question, YES I have both been shot at and shot. I worked in upper management in both industry and govt. Also was educated in Political Science and Economics. That is why I believe as I do. That I have the right to defend myself and family. I also, over the years, intervened in two domestic violence situations. I injured both perps. In no instance was a police officer near by. Survival was in my hands. You must have a lot more law enforcement than we have! Second, until one has read and understands our Constitution, our Bill of rights and the Federalist papers, one can not form reasonable ideas as to why we have the laws that we do. America has the right to live as we see fit. Canada has that same right. I will (even at my age) fight for the American way of life and will fight to defend yours also. (With no intent to press upon you our beliefs) I would guess that as open as your border is with us (both sides) that for the firearms that go North, we get drugs and terrorists back in at least equal measure. (some have been caught coming here with one or the other or as terrorists!) Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 02-May-2008, 12:30 PM | ||
Patch. My Friend believe it or not I understand your stance it is that it is almost unconceivable for me or most of us in the North to go along with the gun thing. In my limited experience I have noticed though that Canadians seem to have more respect for police than most Americans do. I lived in the states and served in your military for 6 1/2 years and in most cases I could not get over the contempt for the police that I saw. As to the Terrorist coming from Canada, only one ever did so and he was allowed to by the RCMP, in con-junction with US authorities, who were tracking him because your laws were stricter in those cases than ours were at the time. I am not trying to force our way upon you as you are not trying to do so with me I am merely stating that we do have different opinions. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 02-May-2008, 02:28 PM |
| You are right, one terrorist was caught. I am unable to address anything further about that matter. I also agree about the respect for police. However I was brought up to believe that if you wanted respect you had to earn it. My 30 plus years in Govt. put me in contact with law emforcement at all levels. The problems first started at the local (political patronage) level and spread up through the highest levels. (FBI lab caught falsifying lab work to fit the case). To quote I know not whom, "When the police become the criminals the Republic is lost!" There are "reality" shows now on our TV now about police corruption. We had a police killing where a local swat officer killed a young black woman holding a child. The child was shot but survived. This was the officers second killing. The first was a depressed white man locked in a room in a homeless shelter. He was talking on a "supplied" phone to a negotiator. The officer saw a "pen knife" with a one and a half inch blade and killed the man without orders to do so. THERE WAS NO DANGER TO ANYONE! He got a "pass" on that one. The officer was white. Value of a life? He was indicted for the last one on charges which could keep him out of jail. My understanding from pre retirement contacts is that if the local charges are swept aside, Federal Civil Rights charges will be lodged. We may get to see the Rev. Al Sharpton if there are demonstrations over this one. The best part is that he cries a lot when he is in court for pre-trial hearings. He isn't so tough now. In a neighborhood near me, another depressed man was locked in his home. He was shot by local police though he did not threaten anyone. I was told in confidence by a local official that "they probably shouldnt have done it but our small community wasn't used to dealing with those things." Sure indicates the value of human life in some places. Personally I believe that a depressed individuaL has more value than a "political parisite." Depression can be treated. Lastly, locally an 81 year old local woman was stopped (then not cited for anything) and the "drug dog" was brought out to check the entire auto. She asked why they were doing that to her. She was told, because they had a drug dog and mostly because they could do it! I do not think you would like to descend to that level. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 02-May-2008, 09:55 PM | ||
Yes, I swapped rounds with the Bader-Meinhoff bunch for 45 minutes when I was in Germany. There is NO WAY IN HELL I will ever give up my guns! You can live like a sheep if you want, but I for one will run with the wolves! |
| Posted by: Camac 03-May-2008, 06:24 AM |
| Dogshirt; I traded rounds with the N.V.A. and V.C. many times in my 2 years in V. N. One does not get a P.H and 2 AR.COMS and 7 campaign stars for living like a sheep. Those 2 years cured me of any romantic notions about firearms. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 03-May-2008, 07:49 AM | ||
Everyone is changed by their experiences, all differently. I would not consider imposing my beliefs on you and of course would expect the same consideration. My take on VietNam was not that armament was the problem. The problem was,. as I saw it, those who orchestrated the war at the top. I knew when I left the military that we were going to loose that one. And we did! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 03-May-2008, 07:53 AM | ||||
Patch; Your right. It was a lost cause from day one. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 03-May-2008, 10:01 AM | ||
We do not learn well from history. You can not win a "limited" war, a terrorist war or impose "something" on a group of people who do not want it! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-May-2008, 10:21 AM | ||
It's too bad the anti-gunners just don't seem to get this Patch. The 2nd amendment is what it is. If it's been corrupted? Then the same argument could be brought up against the first amendment. Let's just remember that. To our good neighbors to the North. Let the USA be the USA. I'm willing to let Canada be Canada. I guess the RCMP, who BTW I've two cousins who are "Mounties", can be everywhere at once since pepper spray and every other kind of non-lethal force is illegal. |
| Posted by: Camac 03-May-2008, 11:48 AM | ||||
Nova Scotian; As you have two cousins that are RCMP then you know that they are the Federal Police Force. Something like the FBI & US Marshalls rolled into one. They only have local juristiction in Provinces that they are under contract to. Ontario is not one of them. We have the O.P.P. (Ontario Provincial Police). Each large municipality and city have their own police force. I have both an RCMP Constable and a Metro Toronto Constable living in my building and both of them are fervent gun control advocates. I am not in any way trying to force my ideas on any one just state a different point of view. I personally find it incomprhensible why anyone would want ot own a gun. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 03-May-2008, 11:52 AM | ||
Except you hardly ever hear of someone directly getting killed because someone else shot his mouth off.  |
| Posted by: Patch 03-May-2008, 01:46 PM | ||||
In Nazzi Germany I believe the first step was to control the information reaching the German People. Second, they took the firearms. Then euthanasia of babies with birth defects and that opened the flood gates. We would never want the Germans as our police and I fear that mentality is coming! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-May-2008, 06:27 PM | ||||||
I'm aware a little on how the RCMP operates. They are actually contracted to police the area of Nova Scotia where my roots are. The 2 cousins I have, I have had some serious conversations concerning gun control. They sound like robots to me like they're preprogrammed to despise anything that has to do with gun rights and they refuse to hear my point of view on it. Gun control is one of the main reasons I'd never become a permanent resident in Nova Scotia even though Nova Scotia is and I hope always will be my 2nd home. I will always love the USA as my home first and foremost. If you think it's incomprhensible why someone would want to own a Gun? Well mabe that's what makes you Canadian and why QE2 the Monarch of Great Briton remains on all you currency and remains head of state. I as American believe firmly I have the RIGHT to own and posess a gun to protect me my home and family. I've many in my ancestry who have fought for it and there are those who fought against it and that's where the Nova Scotian loyalist connection comes in. Yes. My greatx4 grandfather was a loyalist traitor and tried to stop what the US has. But his actions left me a beautiful place to go to in Nova Scotia. That's something I thank God for. |
| Posted by: Camac 03-May-2008, 06:55 PM | ||||||||
Nova Scotian; If I might be so bold as to remind you that had it not been for French intervention you would have lost the Revolution and your Founding Fathers would have hung for treason. So don't thank God thank the French. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 03-May-2008, 07:00 PM |
| British Columbia has made a good deal of money from me and my rifles! I have hunted many times there and hope to make one more trip. I have hunted Alberta too. Fishing has been in Ontario with one trip to Great Slave Lake. I learned a little French in a small town North East of Montreal. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 03-May-2008, 07:08 PM | ||
Patch; As an aside we call Alberta "Texas North" and it is not complementary. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 03-May-2008, 08:26 PM | ||
I am not too fond of Texas myself. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-May-2008, 05:25 AM | ||||
Every state, and provence, has its falts. Now what's wrong with Texas? Actually, Texas is the favorite of a lot of my Canadian friends.  |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-May-2008, 07:11 AM | ||||||||||
I'm very aware of the French's intervention into tthe Revolution. Now what is your point in posting that fact? I could be wrong but you came across as perturbed. Yes the founding fathers would have hanged but so would my greatx4 grandfather had he stayed in the colonies after the Contintal Armys victory. It wasn't the first time nor the last time a power ally interviened.  |
| Posted by: Patch 04-May-2008, 07:37 AM |
| It is hot, a lot of their hunting is in penned enclosures and includes exotic animals. The foremost reason is their stance on illegal aliens. I have recent legal immigrants in my family who did all the paperwork and waited their turn. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 04-May-2008, 07:56 AM | ||||||||||||
I am not in the least perturbed merely stating facts. To us your great x 4 grandfather is called an "Empire Loyalist"of which there are a great many. Rather than rebel against the rightful government (at the time) they chose to leave all and sundry and start over in Canada. Merely facts. Also with the exception of our coins the Queen is only on one bill the $20. The $5, $10, $50, $100. $500, and $1000. all have Prime Ministers on them. Yes she is head of state but not only of Canada but 53 countries that make up the Commonwealth. Any way we are getting of track. Camac. |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-May-2008, 11:18 AM | ||||||||||||||
Yes I agree we are getting off track. |
| Posted by: Patch 04-May-2008, 04:11 PM |
| Nova Scotian; If I might be so bold as to remind you that had it not been for French intervention you would have lost the Revolution and your Founding Fathers would have hung for treason. So don't thank God thank the French. Camac. Yes, it is true, they did help. However, twice we ensured that they didn't have to learn to speak German. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 05-May-2008, 06:17 AM | ||
Sometimes I think it might have been better to let the French learn German. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 05-May-2008, 07:06 AM | ||||
A lot of people died to keep France French. (Though that was part of a bigger plan) Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: fionadunbar 05-May-2008, 07:52 AM |
| I'm just so very gratefull that Australia doesn't have a Gun Culture, very rarely do we have any gun trouble at all . We had one bad event some years ago and our Prime Minister responded by having a gun amnesty and the destruction of thousands of guns. I cannot imagine having guns in anyones house at all. I have never seen a hand gun exept for in a police holster, I have never seen one drawn. The only people I have known with guns are farmers. Hunting is not a big sport here. We like swimming , Cricket and Rugby league. I came home one day and interupted a robber in my house, my scottish genes kicked in and I did quite the Highland charge, the young man cut himself escaping out of the window that he had brocken to gain access, my daughter was amazed how mad a was and always felt that her mum was superwoman after that. I'm glad I didn't have a gun as I might of just been mad enough to use it and I would have hated having a life on my hands, come to think of it I would have shot my exhusband a few times over so once again, I'm really happy living in this big warm peaceful continent |
| Posted by: Patch 05-May-2008, 08:42 AM |
| Australia passed a law outlawing all but single shot long guns and required registration of those. The last I read, violent crime had increased in Australia by 26% since gun control became effective. Every one gets to choose how much risk they are willing to take. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: maisky 05-May-2008, 10:41 AM | ||
I believe Australia was populated by transported Irish, much like the US. Hmm. Doesnt that sort of explain all the violence?  |
| Posted by: Patch 05-May-2008, 01:30 PM | ||||
I believe that Australians was populated as a British prison colony. There was a diversified group from all of the British Empire. The increased violent crime I am talking about came after gun control was imposed. The Irish here settled mostly on our East coast. It does not explain the unusually high crime rates in California. (a gun control state) As the UK passed more stringent gun laws their violent crime rate increased even more than Australians. Their problems are now greatly attributed to Muslims. By violent crimes that would be Murder, Assault and Rape. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: John Clements 05-May-2008, 02:10 PM | ||||||
I’ll take good discussion over violence anytime, (as long as it gets some where)! (Anyway I guess being “unarmed” in Australia makes you an easy target.) So let’s keep talking, JC |
| Posted by: Patch 05-May-2008, 02:56 PM | ||||||||
"Little Italy" in NYC is probably the safest and most polite place in America. No one knows who is packing! I have intervened in violent situations several times, ending in extreme distress to the perp. It was comforting to know you could "up the ante" if necessary. I know three women who were victims of sexual assault. All three changed their views on gun control. I helped one of them pick a firearm to carry. I have a family member who was stoped it traffic. A person broke the passenger window out and took her purse at gunpoint. It will not happen again! Most people do not want to kill anyone. Except maybe there are a few police officers who do. However there are those who place NO value on human life. If you have the misfortune to meet one, do you want to forfeit your "valuable" life for theirs? I do not and will not! You would be suprised at the people who are anti firearm but own them and "carry" I am just getting started. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-May-2008, 06:07 PM | ||||
 Good one! I know what you mean. |
| Posted by: Patch 06-May-2008, 08:03 PM |
| Just received this. Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Tuesday, May 6, 2008 The Bush administration, after more than seven years, has finally issued regulations permitting the carrying of firearms in national parks. Gun owners will soon be able to carry firearms according to the laws of the state in which the park is located. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 07-May-2008, 05:43 AM | ||
I saw this link on the NRA-ILA site. Havn't had a chance to read it yet. |
| Posted by: Patch 07-May-2008, 06:48 AM | ||||
It is my understanding that it isn't "permanent" yet. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 07-May-2008, 07:34 AM | ||||||
Dk. Probably not. |
| Posted by: Patch 07-May-2008, 10:22 AM |
| It involves a rule change by the park service which I am told does not require legislative approval. Similar to a change in fees, camping rules or speed limits within the parks. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Patch 28-May-2008, 06:31 PM |
| I was just notified that Ohio passed the "Castle Doctrine" and amendments to it's concealed carry law. this afternoon. The vote was veto proof though the Governor has indicated he will sign. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Finduella 29-May-2008, 06:57 AM | ||||||||
Australia is an amazingly peaceful and laidback place!. I just visited the National crime statistic website and here goes. Quote"the percentage of homicides commited with a firearm continue a declining trend which began in 1969 (the summer of love). In 2003 fewer than 16% of homicides included firearms!. Averges of people killed per year in the 2000's are 240 nationwide so less than 50 people per year are shot (and killed) in Australia a year !!!!!!!!!!! end quote" We never even think about who is carrying a gun the only people who are, are bank robbers and crazy loons that you just can't stop anyway. I am in my forties and have never seen a hand gun on the street or in doors. Oh and the criminals in Melbourne had a gang war and managed to shoot themselves out without 1 civilian casualty which lead to the collapse of drug trade in Melbourne, So I would like to reassert that Australia is a sunny peaceful place to live without guns thanks very much !!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 29-May-2008, 09:48 AM | ||
Thank you, m'dear. That squares with what other friends in Oz have told me. Nothing like a little report straight from the place and population. |
| Posted by: Patch 29-May-2008, 11:07 AM | ||||||||||
I agree Australia is a laid back country. You missed my point in that murder is not the only violent crime. Those would include assault, armed (with knife club etc.) robbery, kidnaping and rape. When the perp. feels "safe" those crimes increase. Our murder rate is not that far from yours when our respective populations are taken into consideration. Here too, we have gang wars where people are killed. They actually commit most of our firearm murders Occasionally non participants are involved if they stand and watch. I am sure we have more gangs than in Australia. Your 16% firearm murder rate is terribly high for a country that outlawed firearms. Any one carrying in a Country that has virtually outlawed firearms would definitely be a "crazy loon" as you say. However you admit the violent criminals do carry. I am fortunate to live in a country where my right to own (and carry) firearms is protected. With the amount of money involved in the sale of drugs, you can't convince me that a new group of people did not step in and take over the business in Melbourne. In a while you law enforcement will figure out who the new players are. Our Constitution and laws make it a LITTLE less likely that my daughters or grand daughters will be raped and that my children, grandchildren or I will be attacked or robbed. The present decline of the world economy will increase the likelihood of theft and assault, violent or otherwise. Prices are climbing and a close friend who manages a chain grocery store told me that food SHORTAGES are eminent! That in America. I am glad that you have what you want in your country. I am going to fight to maintain what I want in mine too! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Finduella 31-May-2008, 12:30 AM |
| That's fair enough Patch.America is a totally different country and history , and yes there will always be drug lords cause people like drugs!!! And we' can agree to disagree on what stops or starts the escialation of crime! I'm out of here ,cheers |