CX wrote:And former Air Force cadets. And what I lack in quality I make up for in quantity.
I think that even the staunchest gun rights advocate has to admit that the only two realistic reasons to own an automatic are 1. because I can and 2. because it's fun.
Those are the only reasons I
should need. I don't need some big brother or nanny wannabe telling me what I can and can't have based on if I
need something or not. This is a capitalistic society, and if I have the money, all I "need" is to
want something, and I can have it, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. My having an M-16, or even a .50 cal for that matter, doesn't infringe on the rights of others, nor does it endanger society for it to hang on my wall between my taking it out on the range (or out in the pasture as the case may be) to shoot it. Hell, I could go for an old Sherman tank that actually still works, or a Panzer, just for the hell of it, and I could care less if anyone thinks I "need" one or not.
As for what good it would do me if Big Brother came for me - even if I could take one or two of the frakkers with me, it would be worth it to have the ability to go down fighting.
As for me, I got my first firearm on my birthday this year - a British .303 that was made in 1941 (which came with a training bayonet) - and I had to do exactly 2 things:
- Show my Driver's Licence to prove that I was 18 or older (which is no problem since I'm 25)
- Pay the $150 I bid on it.
I even got 3 full boxes of ammo for it for $45 and a bag to put it in for another $5. It was my best birthday in a long time.
To address the last part first, that's because it's a rifle
, those are much easier to come by.
But the first part, you've misunderstood me when I say "What you need it for" -- I'm not intimating that necessity is a prerequisite for the applicability of the 2nd Amendment, I'm simply saying that if two people were to be reasonable, they would agree that they don't actually NEED an automatic for anything, and that therefore they shouldn't have a problem with being required to jump through a few hoops to get one. To violate a right you have to withhold something - like legal representation, or the ability to vote - by putting restrictions on things, you're not violating a right you're simply exercising prudent action for the safety of a society. While "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" could surely be used to say we should all have the right DRIVE, nobody is rationally complaining that having to submit to a driving test or a licensing procedure is a violation of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It would be not only reckless of a society to simply allow ownership of automatic weapons uncontrolled, but it's absolutely selfcentered and thoughtless of anyone to suggest such a thing solely for the satisfaction of the abstraction they hold up as their sacred right to own a gun, because that sacred right to own a gun is going to cost that individual NOTHING, and a hundred thousand people a year their lives in criminal actions. It's imprudent to value abstract liberties that do not pertain directly to your wellbeing or survival above the lives and wellbeing of OTHER people. That's where "necessity" rears its head, not in an argument of Constitutionality, but in the reason and rationality of recognizing that the criminal element will do far more damage to America with an unbridled supply of automatic weapons than it will do Good to the American liberty cause.
CX wrote:Your morals and mine are different. My morals tell me that I'd be perfectly within my rights to own an M-16 or an old Thompson or BAR as long as I didn't abuse my right to own it by running around and killing people because the voices in my head told me to.
As for the Supreme Court, their job is to protect our rights by defining what is Constitutional and what's not.
Same idea, it's irresponsible to suggest that any and every interested party should have access to an M16 just because you think you should. Basically you're expressing the idea of libertarianism in that you value liberty above all else, which isn't as romantic an idea as it sounds. Libertarian societies don't last very long because without competing values to stave off the dominance of "self" in everyone's motivation, the liberty of any individual to do as he pleases quickly deteriorates any judicial system, giving rise toan anarchistic State... which may sound Free, and it is, but it's not a Free society, it's just a Free bunch of people doing whatever they want. Which will generally NOT include building computers, works of art, music and literature, a society, culture, or anything like what we live in today. Libertarianism is the ultimate worship of Self and without some degree of socialism, or sacrifice of individuality, there would be none of the fruits of the centuries of group effort that we see, that we live with. In fact, the world is probably as prosperous as it is today precisely because most of the back-breaking work of civilization-building was done in the several thousand years BEFORE any such concept as freedom and individuality existed. I'm not advocating complete socialism or fascism here, but it has to be understood that this kind of worship of the individual Right over all else is not compatible with a productive, Group-work-ethic society. It would be more like giving everyone in a prison an automatic weapon than it would be freeing us from constricting Federal gun laws.
Mitchell wrote:enterprikayak wrote:Because with out the 2nd amendment to protect our rights, an ourselves with, then all we are is subjects, at the mercy of power mad indviduals. No longer citezens.
except WE don't have the 2nd amendment in Canada. the "right to bear arms" isn't written into our charter of rights and freedoms. you can have a gun...but it isn't your god-given
right in this country.
I don't consider myself or my fellow Canadians to be at the mercy of power-mad individuals. our leaders are too boring and polite and ineffectual.
and we're definitely citizens. guns "by right" or no. so i don't find that quote ^^ holds too much water.
Only IMO, of course.
Your assuming that everything will always stay nice, peach keen, an run by Boring None power hungry people. The problem is things change. Shit happens. Hitlers, an Sadams do rise to power. Through out History Governments have oppressed their citezens, An both fortunatly, an unfortunatly History dos repeat. Its only a matter of Time, an Where.
Today you live in the "Nice, polite" Canada. 10 years from now you could wake up in a full blown dicatorship.
I also agree with Mitchell. I think the ideological foundation of "right to bear" is a kind of "Just in case" that is worth fighting for in order to prevent, at all costs, a nation that falls under fascist control. But it is understandable that other countries wouldn't quite grasp the American sentiment for that, because we were born out of rebellion and maybe it's just indoctrination and propagandization from years of early history textbooks, but we do value freedom very highly. Highly enough to build a Right into our Constitution intended to deter the loss of it in the future. The other thing is, don't take this the wrong way, but Canada was kind of born out of the last remaining bastion of British imperialism on the continent. Your government and culture are profoundly influenced by that history (and of course, Quebec is French), and even though the monarchy is largely ceremonial today, it cannot be ignored that Britain has only been a reluctant convert to Democracy. Naturally, the individual Right to own a gun is not ingrained in your nature, because the people there are descendents of the oppressors, not the oppressed. Not to act like we blame ya or anything
I support gun rights, I just don't support unchecked, uncontrolled distribution of firearms to every man, woman and child.
Now I'm curious, are gun rights advocates more common Quebec?
Sorry if I got a little brash with you, CX. I tend to lose myself in my rants, like Rigil JadziaKathryn wrote:I object to bnb's ideas. I categorically reject the idea that I ought to be trained in the militia simply because I'm a citizen. Then again, I'm a traditionalist. To me, the military is a male domain. Some women want to join and that's fine, but nobody better try and make me enlist or sign up for the draft or so on. Not happening. (When God Himself was directing Israel's wars in the Old Testament, He didn't tell anyone to round up women and give them swords.)
My interest in guns is limited to historical artifacts, personally. I have zero interest in owning one. But that's just me being my skittish self.
I actually agree with BnB's idea, with some modifications just for logistics and stuff, but I agree with the basic principle that it is warranted to create a certain set of requirements for people considered citizens. I think it's far too old and provincial an idea, not to mention unsuited for the complex world of today, for every civically lazy louse to be just as much a citizen as a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Guardsman -- or Federal employee for that matter.
To try and assuage
Jadzia's misgivings of the idea, we can generalize "required service" to include plenty of things not even close to combat. I mean this is a pretty outmoded example, but for instance the nurses in the Navy in WW2, or the women working in factories making warheads. I mean
some women would want to serve, do want to serve, DO serve; and that should be allowed. But no, I don't think every woman should be forced to serve, in a combat capacity, because I don't think every woman
can. Indeed many people don't believe
any woman can. But I think there are plent of "Federal service" jobs that a person, not just women, who didn't wish to be employed in any kind of combat or military capacity could fulfill.
Being a mailman, working in a tax office, teaching WIC courses to expecting mothers, doing clerical work at ANY concievable government office, working in any number of what are currently volunteer government programs, like taking meals to old people on social security benefits programs, stuff like that. There would be tons and tons and tons of varied jobs that people could do to "serve their country", and I personally think it would work out fantastically. Like
BnB suggested, it would be every so many years, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be for the rest of your life, like Guard duty isn't... it could just have a required term of like 3 or 4 years where you have to go and do whatever job you are signed up for, one weekend a month and two weeks a year, or something of that nature. I think it would tremendously help the government's ability to produce in all manner of programs and services, give people a strong patriotic sense of accomplishment even without any kind of GRRR marines kind of thing, and legitamize how sacred we hold American citizenship.
It wouldn't be like you wouldn't be allowed to BE here if you didn't do these things, but I don't think there's anything wrong with merit-based citizenship. A teacher I had even suggested that the right to vote be excluded to just those who "served" in such a Federal capacity, and not only that ( I thought this was brilliant ), that those who filled more of the "merit" boxes, actually got more votes to cast. For example, having a degree, having children, performing community service, being former or current military, things of that nature. There are ethical quagmires abound in the determination of just what those things would be -- because, for example, you wouldn't want people pumpin out babies just to have more voting power -- but it's an interesting concept.
By the way again CX, I am thinking my next firearm purchase will be a .303, because I really want one and they're cheap. Although, I also really want a .460 S&W snub nose. I found one with a 2.75" barrel! It's friggin awesome! way more expensive too tho...
I'm such a bad girl.)
Harder to trace? I was under the impression that it was still impossible to trace what gun shot was shot from? 
I live in an area where its damn near impossible to find a house hold that dosnt have atleast one firearm. While Yes once every few years we have some one get shot an killed, Or some jealous Husband goes after his cheating wife. But I have never heard of a local accident where a child accidently got a hold of a gun an started playing with it, ended up killing themselves or a friend/sibling/parent/or so on. Ive lived in this are most of My life. An I cant even remember a single Hunting accident that resulted in a shooting death either.
