The Supreme Court of the United States ruled several years ago that the
average citizen DOES NOT have a Constitutional right to PERSONAL police
protection. The Police are there to protect society not the indivicual.
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
You didn't read it all:
SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to
life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right
to defend them in the best manner they can."
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion
for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who
lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country.
Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own
laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you
are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many
great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not
one of them.
Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house
or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little
bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens.
Until then, shove it.
My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single
use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for
anyone including the US.
With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun
isn't easily available to you.
Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's
best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please
spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use
a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the
relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only
one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed
I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close
by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and
That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about
other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far
You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.
"beep, boop, boop"
"911. What's your emergency?"
"Someone is breaking in my front door!"
"Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."
"STOP! THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... KABOOM"
"This is 911 - what was that noise?... hello.....hello"
Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was
best in modern day US.
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
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.
That is wrong.
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?
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
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. :-)
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
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.
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.
Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the
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.
LOL -- wonder who that was. Wouldn't surprise me if it was Dan Burton
The point is valid, though: all of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many empty promises if we the
people lack the means to compel the government to honor those guarantees
should it ever become reluctant to do so on its own.
In a compromise the original Congress agreed to adopt amendments to the
Constitution to cover certain rights that were left out of the original
document. These became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
What most people don't know or realize what became the 1st amendment was
originally the THIRD of thirteen resolutions that were submitted to the
13 states. The first resolution became the 2nd amendment upon
ratification by 7 states. You can look up the dates yourself.
Obviously, they've happened because even though the laws are restrictive,
guns were still available. Yet, here are wanting to make more guns available
and more easily? The only possible end result is that things like that would
happen more. There's no way you can argue that point.
While a number of gun crimes result because of firearms stolen from
collectors, a sizable amount of them have happened because of guns smuggled
up from the US.
And to Doug who jokingly suggests that baseball bats, screw drivers,
chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles need to be banned, all of those
things have other other uses while hand guns have one use. A deadly use that
can be effectively wielded from a distance ~ not even closely comparable to
the examples you used Doug.
And of course for John Clarke, it makes perfect sense to legalize guns for
millions so the four Olympic shooters in the country can practice their
craft. Well thought out reasoning John.
It's an increasing problem, not a small problem.
You do have a point there, but for one thing. Population sizes and societal
values have changed to a great degree. People weren't as packed together
like sardines in the cities as they are today and there's been an extremely
large influx of immigrants into Canada. When I went to school, if there was
a fight, it was a fist fight. I wouldn't have dreamed of pulling out the
pocket knife I had in my back pocket and I've never carried a gun of any
type for the purpose of protection. Those values are different these days.
I won't argue for one second that just removing guns is going to solve all
the problems that exist. I never suggested that for one second. However, it
will help while also attending to the root causes of why a number of people
use guns to solve their problems.
I'll ask you again. What will be the result if you get definitive proof? The
links I posted were available with a simple 10 minutes search. Assuming I
spent 2 hours and produced undeniable evidence. What gain will there be.
Two of the links I produced were exactly the evidence *without question*
that you've demanded to see, yet in your infinite wisdom, you've chosen to
shoot them down anyway. The woman smoking and the guy walking by the bar
were both innocent bystanders shot down by people who moments before had
been asked to leave. They weren't gang members and theirs no evidence to say
that they were out just to cause trouble.
I can product quite a few more articles like people being shot at birthday
parties, non violent gatherings and stuff like that. But, why do I need to?
I've given you two examples and you're demanding more.
Let me put the onus on you. Prove I'm wrong about the two shooting incidents
above and then I'll see about finding you more proof.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.