A few years ago, Ted Nugent was doing his show on his radio station in Detroit, a station I would listen to quite often. There had been a rash of car-jackings in the Detroit area. Ted (or a guest on his show, I don't recall) suggested that if a driver was in a bad neighbourhood to put his gun on his lap, pointing at the door. When a car-jacker would approach, just plug the bastard, right through the door. That in fact happened a couple of times. News travels fast and from then on, any carjacker deep-down knew he could be approaching a target that would shoot his balls off. The car-jackings went way down in a hurry.
I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes, cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off. Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything else I can think of.
Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.
The countries who most often whine and moan about the US and its "arrogance" are often the countries who would be whining and moaning with a German or Russian accent were they not living in the shadow of our protection. :-)
Incorrect. Rights are not created by government; rights are inherent. We have them simply because we are human. Government's function is to preserve the rights which we already have. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
They make as much sense now as they ever have.
Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something that was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.
And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?
I have to say, that is entirely the point. Kudos. Except that I stand on the other side of the same line. To put it in very few words, it's the will to resist that's a problem, not the popguns and peashooters that they allow us.
It isn't the firearms lending a prop for a "delusion of confidence". It's the mindset of resisting wrong doing, violently if need be, that causes one to seek out and acquire the tools to do so. Much as one acquires a saw to cut wood, the perceived need precedes the purchase, not the other way around. (If it matters to you, I own more handsaws than I do firearms.) What's the opposite? What is so wrong with cowering behind your mattress and dialing 911 when things go bump in the middle of the night? Briefly, by abdicating responsibility for your physical safety and the sanctity of your home, you had already bought in on the big lie, a "delusion of confidence", of a benevolent and effective goverment. I don't share your delusion. And while this simple difference in opinion shouldn't divide us, your vocal opposition to my way of living does. I have never once tried to deprive you of your right to think as you do. Why should you feel so free to do so to me? (That's a rhetorical question. I already know why, but I wonder if you do.)
Wow, we actually agree on something. IIRC, shortly after you all had instituted some of your latest draconian gun laws, there were reports that home invasion robberies had increased by a significant percentage due to the fact that the bad guys knew they were most likely approaching soft targets. Is that still the case, or has that moderated?
Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing from others.
Comment?
In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having them as walking around tools available to the general public.
I'm sure you feel your way is right for you. That's not how this discussion originated. My part in it originated with my stating that innocent bystander shootings were a popular news item *in Canada* and I got an argument. I've always had Canadian firearm laws in mind when I've posted. As usual, the conversation somehow turned to what's best for people in the US. Maybe that's not arrogance, but it sure seems to be something akin to it because again, the discussion has been twisted to what US citizens feel.
If what I said sounded otherwise, that was not my intention. I've always stated I felt our firearm laws were sufficient for Canadians and argued against the US style of firearms laws *for Canadians*. You can do as you want down in the US. It's not my country, it's yours.
Not Doug, but funny thing about health insurance vs. our Bill of rights. The rights in our BOR don't require that someone else do something to enable other citizens to exercise those rights. Your health insurance requires that someone else work and earn the requisite money to be confiscated to pay for others' health insurance. Seems a pretty simple to see difference.
Yep, like keeping the peasants in line, eh? Either by the armed government or armed criminal thugs, pretty much the same result.
There's one significant difference that appears to have eluded you: unlike you with your health insurance, I paid for my guns myself, instead of expecting other people to buy them for me.
Why do want to deprive me of the means of defending myself?
You're perhaps too quick to see "arrogance" and "twisting the discussion" in what is probably no more than the natural result of the geographic distribution of the contributors to this newsgroup, i.e. more here from the U.S. than from the rest of the world combined.
Really? You could use the same flawed logic to not pay income tax. Everybody who has, pays their share. Without taxes, you wouldn't have your infrastructure or your society for that matter. All you'd have is the complete anarchy of everybody out for themselves and none of the great accomplishments that your country has done as a group.
The difference between you and me is that I value the importance of health above most everything else. You value what you can get and keep, by firepower if necessary. You value individual rights and accomplishments while casually tossing aside the great things that can be done as a group and a country. That makes you greedy, selfish and all consuming.
Unless you're been dealing with a serious, long term health problem for a large portion of your life, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding. And don't for one second suggest that just because someone close to you has experienced what I'm talking about, you understand. There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened society.
What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money. Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people in the US. You tell me.
Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?
You keep on and on about defending yourself. Is everybody in so much dire peril of being attacked that they have no choice? Is that the type of society you live in? If so, I'd be gone in a flash. You might consider it an illusion, but I feel safe when I go out. It's just my viewpoint, but there's a lot of nut jobs out there. If firearms were relatively easy for anybody to get, then I'd start being more fearful than I am. Sure, I try to be fully aware of what's going on around me when I go out, but I'm not going to treat it as an atmosphere of fear. I don't call that living.
I trust in our police force to do their job and do it well. Yes, I know they can't be everywhere at once, but I do feel protected for the most part. If I didn't then I might feel as you do and want to be armed. But, I'm not at that point yet. Maybe in the future.
I guess it all comes down to existing circumstances. Maybe if I lived in US society and not Canadian, I'd feel more comfortable with guns being as prolific as they are. But the fact is that I'm Canadian and I live pretty much in the centre of Canada's largest city. Many people crowded together where things are more likely to happen is a much greater catalyst than someone living in the country. Having many guns around to me anyway, is like throwing gasoline on any potential fires that might crop up.
2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was deleted from the Congressional Record.
Training is required by law for those who carry in public.
Why, indeed. The 2nd amendment is decidedly not about home defense or sporting arms. To blame you personally would be misguided and useless. It's enough to note that your fearful bleating is of the same note and tenor that led to the restrictions and bans we have today. So, let me ask you. Why should a government fear their citizens keeping weapons that would be effective against main battle tanks and armored personnel carriers?
Nope. And it also is not about the quality of beef at the supermarket.
After reading you for awhile, I think you have good intentions/reasoning at heart...what we have are two similar cultures with a couple of *major* differences, and I'll leave that right there. However, your statement above smacks of arrogance...don't be offended, I think we all are that way in one situation or another...but that mindset is what is taking both cultures over piecemeal: basically one aspect of society, usually the one in control, telling the other what's good for him...because, of course, we (the minority) don't know what's good for *us*; we don't think very well and need to be led by the enlightened.
Yes, there is indeed a difference: you can (and from some of the comments you've made about your own health issues, probably *do*) receive much more back from that program than you put into it. I, on the other hand, get what I pay for, and no more -- and if what I *want* is more than I can afford, I'm
*not* expecting my fellow citizens to pick up the tab for the difference. Is that so hard to comprehend?
And therefore (in your opinion) shouldn't be allowed to have one. Thus depriving him of the means of defending himself.
No, I think it's a question of philosophical differences between you and me, and, by extension, between typical Canadians and typical Americans (if there is such a thing, on either side of the border). We don't trust our government to do what's in our interests -- including protecting us from predators. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Because most of us are realistic enough to understand that a handgun is sufficient for personal self-defense. Perhaps if you had any experience with firearms, you'd understand that too.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.